Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call on the Minister for Justice and Equality to make a statement under Standing Order 43.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to begin by addressing a matter of substantial importance. On 1 October 2013 in a Topical Issue debate on the penalty points issue, I made a statement that the whistleblowers did not co-operate with the Garda investigations that took place in respect of their allegations.

I appreciate that this statement has been the source of some upset and distress to the whistleblowers. I have looked again at the information provided to me and considered the matter in detail. I previously stated on the Dáil record that I expected that Sergeant McCabe would be interviewed during the course of the O'Mahoney investigation and I note that he fully engaged with the Garda Inspectorate in the work undertaken by it to prepare the report which is the subject matter of today's debate.

I want to say very clearly that, having re-examined the facts and further considered the matter, I believe more should have been done during the course of the O'Mahoney investigation to obtain information from and ascertain the views and experiences of the whistleblowers. Further and better efforts could and should have been made to secure productive engagement with them in the investigation of their claims.

I therefore wish to correct the record of the House that the whistleblowers "did not co-operate with the Garda investigations that took place". I acknowledge this statement was incorrect. It was never my intention to mislead the House and I believe it is appropriate that I apologise to both people and withdraw the statements made.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was never my intention to cause any upset. If any upset was caused, I hope that my correcting the record of the Dáil today will put this matter to rest. In doing so, I again acknowledge, as I have done many times previously that the reports published and the findings and recommendations that have been made with regard to the fixed notice charge system and penalty points are in response to the allegations made by Sergeant McCabe and supported by former Garda Wilson.

I am aware that the whistleblowers and others have issues with some remarks I made outside this House. It was not my intention to misrepresent any matter connected with this issue. I apologise for any offence that may have been caused by any other remarks made by me. There are issues of importance that I have to properly address as Minister for Justice and Equality. There are important matters outstanding which I hope will be finally resolved upon the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, completing its investigation and publishing its report.

I welcome the fact that the House today has made time to discuss the Garda Inspectorate report on the fixed charge processing system. I commissioned that report on 14 May 2013 as part of a series of measures to make sure not only that the whistleblower allegations were properly addressed but that any other problems with the fixed charge processing system would also be tackled.

Prior to that, in September 2012, detailed allegations were received by my Department from both the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport relating to the fixed charge processing system. In October 2012, having considered these allegations, I initially furnished them to the Garda Commissioner for his response.

I believed this was the appropriate initial step and it resulted in an investigation led by the Garda assistant commissioner John O'Mahoney and the administration of the fixed charge processing system being examined by the Garda professional standards unit, GPSU. In the context of the O'Mahoney-led investigation, the particular notices, subject to allegations by Sergeant McCabe, were examined, as well as a random further 1% of fixed charge notice terminations. I published both the report of assistant commissioner O'Mahoney and the GPSU report on 15 May 2013 and referred both of them to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality for its consideration.

As already mentioned, the day before their publication I referred them also to the Garda Inspectorate, which performs an independent statutory role, and subsequently agreed with the inspectorate broad terms of reference to facilitate it conducting a comprehensive examination of the fixed charge processing system to enable it to make all necessary recommendations to ensure its proper administration.

It was my view at all times, and remains my view today, that any use of Garda discretion to effect the termination of fixed charge notices must be applied in a fair, impartial and transparent manner and on 15 May 2013, I published seven crucial applicable principles to ensure this. They are as follows: 1. There must be no question mark hanging over the integrity of the fixed charge notice system and in the application of penalty points; 2. No individual should receive preferential treatment because of his or her perceived status, relationship or celebrity; 3. The law and any discretionary application of it to individuals must be administered fairly and with compassion and common sense; 4. No member of the Garda should feel compelled by a person's position, relationship or celebrity status to treat that person any more or less favourably than any other person; 5. There must be proper oversight and transparency to the discretionary decision making process and the applicable rules and procedures must be fully complied with; 6. All statutory provisions, regulations, rules, protocols and procedures applicable to the termination of fixed charge notices must be readily accessible to all members of the Garda and the circumstances, factors and procedures applicable to the termination of fixed charge notices should be detailed clearly on the Garda website for the information of members of the public; and, 7. Where application is made to terminate a fixed ticket charge, where possible and appropriate, material to support any application made should be sought while understanding in some circumstances no such material may exist or be obtainable. These principles were applied by the Garda Inspectorate and they are detailed in the appendix to its report.

I note that, at the time of publication of both the O'Mahoney report and the PSU report, Deputy Niall Collins informed this House that he had no issue with the two reports. Deputy Collins stated:

In the first instance, I will refer to the two reports that were published last week regarding penalty points and the allegations of erasing penalty points. We have no issue with those reports. We welcome the finding that there was no corruption.

I think it is obvious that if I had ignored the allegations made, there would have been no O'Mahoney report, no PSU report and we would not today be discussing the Garda Inspectorate report. If I had ignored the allegations made, the changes effected to improve the management and administration of the system and to provide for more regular auditing would not have been put in place after 15 May 2013 and prior to the publication of the Garda Inspectorate's report. If I had ignored the allegations made, I would not have asked for the comprehensive examination undertaken by the Garda Inspectorate, whose terms of reference addressed issues that were additional to those addressed in the O'Mahoney report and I would not have recommended to Government that all 37 recommendations contained in the Garda Inspectorate report be accepted and steps taken to implement them, nor would I have published an action plan to bring about their implementation.

If I had not taken the allegations seriously, the criminal justice working group, which the inspectorate recommended be established to oversee implementation of the changes required, would not have met the day immediately following publication of the inspectorate's report. It should be noted that, in a slight variation of the inspectorate's recommendation, rather than the group being solely chaired by an official from my Department, I proposed, and it was agreed, that the group would be co-chaired by my Department and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. I believe that is in the public interest as each Department has a separate and complementary role on dealing with road traffic issues. I am pleased to also note that the DPP has now agreed to be represented on the group.

The action plan which I published, together with the inspectorate's report, prescribes a timescale for the implementation of the recommendations made and also noted where action had already been taken or commenced by An Garda Síochána to implement some of the recommendations. In this regard, a number of the recommendations reflected changes which had already been made as a result of the report by Assistant Commissioner O'Mahoney and the parallel report by the PSU.

The report we are discussing today deals with all aspects of the fixed charge processing system and not just the issues raised by Garda whistleblowers in regard to the use of Garda discretion. Some of the failings identified relate to matters other than the use by gardaí of their discretionary powers to terminate fixed charge notices and penalty points. It is important that we keep in context the extent of the difficulty in regard to the use by the Garda of this discretion. The inspectorate's report notes that, in 2011, there were 514,959 fixed charge notices issued. Some 4.4% of these, that is 22,781, were cancelled. In 2012, some 449,403 notices were issued and 4.8% of these, that is 21,960, were cancelled. In 2013, some 393,588 fixed charge notices were issued and 4.4%, that is 17,393, were cancelled. It is my understanding that when notices which clearly could not have been pursued because of technical or other issues were excluded, the use of discretionary powers at issue relates to approximately 2.5% of notices issued. There are, of course, many other issues identified in the report about the enforcement of notices, including with regard to the service of summonses on those who do not pay the fixed notice penalty. While there are clearly problems to be addressed and dealt with, with regard to the discretionary cancellation of fixed charge notices, this particular issue is only part of the problem.

I am sure it must be a source of some frustration to the Comptroller and Auditor General that the various deficiencies which he identified in past years were not addressed by previous Governments. There have been other reports on the matter, including one furnished to my predecessor in the Department of Justice, then Minister Dermot Ahern, from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission on the fixed charge processing system, which he received in early 2009. I do not know why that report was not published or why its recommendations were not implemented in full. That GSOC report clearly addressed and anticipated some of the managerial and administrative difficulties of which we are now all aware. As I believe there should be full transparency in matters of this nature, I have asked my Department to arrange, even at this late stage, for a copy of that report to be put on my Department's website. I believe the report will be of some interest as, among the many issues it addresses, is the importance of An Garda Síochána having appropriate flexibility in exercising discretionary judgments with regard to whether to issue or terminate fixed notice charges. It makes the point that it is important the Garda exercises such discretion in order to maintain good public relations, as receiving a fixed charge notice might be the only time an individual member of the public is required to engage with An Garda Síochána.

In dealing with what has become known as the penalty points controversy, I want to stress to the House that my only interest at all times has been the public interest. That required that allegations made by whistleblowers be properly addressed and that any problems with the penalty points system be tackled so that public confidence in it could be maintained. That is exactly what has happened and is happening. I am firmly of the view that it is unacceptable for any member of An Garda Síochána to use his or her discretion in regard to the cancellation of fixed charge notices or penalty points other than in a fair and impartial manner in accordance with the criteria which apply. It is clearly a serious matter where departures have taken place in applying that standard and all required steps must be taken to ensure it does not happen in future.

These are all important issues which require a proper response. I have already acknowledged today, and on previous occasions, the important role of the whistleblowers in highlighting problems and helping to bring about real change. I hope that they can take some satisfaction from the considerable changes which have been and are being brought about. Following receipt of the allegations made, what was important was that I made sure that their claims were properly addressed and this I have done. Further new claims made by them, subsequent to the publication of the O'Mahoney report, with regard to the fixed charge processing system, resulted in my referring all of these matters to GSOC for its consideration and I want to be careful to say nothing today which could in any way prejudice the investigation being undertaken by GSOC.

The most serious allegations specifically made relating to the fixed charge processing system and penalty points related to what were described as: shocking criminality by several Garda officers; serious fraud and corruption within An Garda Síochána; perversion of the course of justice by members of An Garda Síochána; Garda inspectors and superintendents perverting the course of justice on a massive scale; at least seven road fatalities resulting from the termination of fixed charge notices; hundreds of official Garda PULSE records altered and destroyed; and an allegation that the Garda had no discretionary power whatsoever to cancel notices.

I would be failing in my duty as Minister for Justice and Equality, and in danger of misleading the House, if I did not point out that there has as yet been no finding to show that these allegations are correct. It is generally accepted that gardaí may, in clear and transparent circumstances, exercise discretion to terminate fixed charge notices, and the approach that should be taken is clearly detailed in the report of the Garda Inspectorate. All of these issues will be revisited by GSOC. It would be unfair for the individual members of the Garda Síochána involved, and against whom allegations have been made, to be presumed guilty of such serious charges. In this context, having regard to the conclusions of the O'Mahoney report, and these matters again pending before GSOC, it is inappropriate that Members of this House and commentators outside it act on the assumption that all of the allegations made are accurate. The presumption of innocence remains a central tenet of our justice and constitutional system.

I accept it was no part of the remit of the Garda Inspectorate to examine individual allegations of criminality or corruption with regard to the fixed charge processing system. However it would also be unfair if l did not note that what the Garda Inspectorate identified was summed up by the chief inspector of the Garda Inspectorate, Bob Olson, when he said that what they saw was "managerial and administrative dysfunction." GSOC may take a different view from that of the O'Mahoney report and that expressed by Mr. Olson.

There are issues of real substance to be addressed in ensuring that we have a fixed charge processing system that operates fairly, efficiently and transparently. That is what we all want to see and it is in the public interest. I do not seek to minimise in any way the failings that have been identified regarding the Garda Síochána but most people would recognise that penalty points are only a small, albeit important, aspect of the work it does. Penalty points are of particular importance in road safety. Mr. Olson, in an interview following the publication of the Garda Inspectorate's report on the fixed charge processing system, stated that this is a "very minor piece of what the Gardaí do."

A substantial proportion of Garda time is and must be spent in preventing and investigating crime and in providing the necessary evidence to facilitate the prosecution of individuals before the courts. Gardaí daily engage in the fight against subversion by the self-styled new IRA and other criminal terrorists and investigate serious crime including homicide, rape, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, fraud, money-laundering, kidnapping, aggravated assault, ordinary assault and a range of other offences, all with the objective of keeping our communities safe. In the context of the controversy that has surrounded the subject matter of today's debate, we should not lose sight of the Garda Síochána's enormous success in effecting a substantial reduction in crime across the State. The recorded number of crime offences has decreased across a number of headings and the overall number of recorded criminal offences fell by almost 24,000 in 2012 as compared to 2006. In the most recent 12-month period covered by the Central Statistics Office there was reduction of 7.1% in overall crime and 10.4% in burglary. Regarding burglaries, Operation Fiacla, one of the Garda targeted operations, has been successful in that the most recent figures available up to 28 February 2014 detail that there have been 8,344 arrests and 4,755 charges brought pursuant to the operation.

The Garda national drugs unit, working with other national units, continues to target persons involved in the illicit supply and sale of drugs, with overall Garda drug seizures for the period 2011 to 2013 valued at over €237 million. Targeted operations by the Garda Síochána in co-operation with the Revenue Commissioners in the same period resulted in approximately 2.7 million litres of fuel being seized, 29 fuel laundries detected and shut down and 119 filling stations closed down by the Revenue Commissioners throughout the State for breaching licensing conditions. In the same period 245.5 million cigarettes, with a retail value of €108 million, and approximately 20,800 kg of tobacco, with a retail value of €7.75 million, were seized.

The Garda continues to target and confront the various criminal gangs that exist in this State, with considerable success. For example, concerted Garda action in recent years against criminal gangs in Limerick has resulted in more than 20 gang leaders serving sentences for offences including murder, attempted murder and drugs and firearms offences, with life sentences imposed for at least 12 gang-related murders. It is estimated that more than 100 prisoners in our prison system are associated with Limerick gangs, and a number of important trials are pending. This is relevant to today's debate because it is crucial that the reforms required by the Garda Inspectorate be implemented but also that we keep this issue in perspective and in proportion. The Garda Síochána plays a vital role in the fight against crime, and gardaí perform these duties often at great risk to themselves. In considering the administrative and managerial dysfunction of the fixed charge processing system as detailed in the inspectorate's report, and as also detailed in earlier reports, it is of relevance that we have regard to the primary objective of the system, which is to reduce road fatalities and accidents, to ensure compliance with our road traffic laws and to increase road safety.

The record of the Garda Síochána on keeping the roads safe is particularly instructive. In 2005 there were 396 road deaths, while in 2012 there were 162. While every death on our roads is a death too many, by any objective assessment the engagement by the Garda Síochána in bringing about greater compliance with road safety rules and in reducing road fatalities has been a substantial success. This is further evidenced by the substantial reduction in the numbers of individuals found to be over the specified alcohol limit in the context of roadside checks undertaken in 2013 as compared with 2007. The rate of detection at mandatory alcohol testing checkpoints, MATs, has gone from one in 94 in 2007 to one in 476 in the first ten months of 2013 for which figures are available. Unfortunately, there was an increase in road deaths in 2013 to 190, while to date this year there is again a decrease in road fatalities. Garda enforcement continued at a high level in both 2012 and 2013, and it seems from the information available that the increase in road deaths in 2013 substantially related to individuals riding motorbikes, pedestrians and the extensive use by drivers of mobile phones. Driver distraction has become an international focal point with regard to road fatalities, and I welcome the examination of this issue conducted at last Thursday's seminar on driver distraction held by the Road Safety Authority, RSA. I hope the insights gained at that conference will assist in identifying new appropriate action that can be taken by either or both the RSA and the Garda Síochána to effect further reductions in road fatalities and serious injuries resulting from road accidents.

While there was a worrying increase in the number of road deaths last year, at 190 they were still substantially below the 396 fatalities that occurred in 2005. Garda enforcement of road traffic laws is central to achieving the substantial reduction in road fatalities that has occurred since 2005, and of course the contribution of the Road Safety Authority is also of crucial importance. It is only fair to acknowledge the role of all members of the Garda Síochána, both management and rank and file, in the progress made to date. I hope that implementation of the recommendations made by the Garda Inspectorate will result in further progress.

Since my appointment as Minister I have believed it would be in the interests of the Garda Síochána and the public it serves that there be an independent review of the Garda Síochána. It was agreed under the Haddington Road agreement that such a review would take place, and the terms of reference of the review are as follows:

To review and make recommendations on the use by An Garda Síochána of the resources available to it, with the objective of achieving and maintaining the highest levels of efficiency and effectiveness in its operation and administration.

The review shall encompass all aspects of the operation and administration of An Garda Síochána, including: - the structure, organisation and staffing of An Garda Síochána;

- the deployment of members and civilian staff to relevant and appropriate roles;

- the remuneration and conditions of service of members of An Garda Síochána, including an evaluation of annualised hours/shift pay arrangements;

- the appropriate structures and mechanism for the future resolution of matters relating to pay, industrial relations and attendance matters.

There was a delay in the commencement of the review because of issues that had to be addressed with the Garda associations subsequent to the Haddington Road agreement. The issues that arose were addressed in a number of meetings held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and work on the industrial relations aspects of the review formally started on 28 February. This is being undertaken by Mr. Raymond McGee, a former deputy chair of the Labour Court. The other part of the review - dealing with efficiency, effectiveness, structure, organisation, staffing and deployment - will be carried out by the Garda Inspectorate. Arrangements are being finalised, again under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, to facilitate the formal commencement of work by the inspectorate.

The Garda Inspectorate performed very valuable work in the review of the fixed charge processing system and is well placed to carry out a much wider review of An Garda Síochána. It is expected that the review will be completed before the Dáil reconvenes in September and it will provide important insights to any further reform required of a statutory or non-statutory nature, as will the report of the Oireachtas joint committee relating to GSOC and the other inquiries being conducted into matters relating to An Garda Síochána. It is, of course, important not to prejudge the outcome of the work being undertaken by the various bodies and individuals on matters relating to the management and running of An Garda Síochána. I referenced this morning the work to be undertaken on the establishment of a Garda authority.

I hope the House can agree that it is in the public interest to do what we can to move on from the present controversy relating to penalty points and get on with the work under way which will achieve a fair, transparent and effective system. It is of crucial importance that we proceed to implement, in accordance with the action plan, the recommendations made by the Garda Inspectorate. I look forward to the recommendations being implemented and coming to fruition. It is my earnest hope - I know it is shared by my Government colleagues - that we will take all actions required to establish a system in which there will be absolute public confidence and in respect of which there can be no further controversy. An additional step should be taken to ensure the numbers of fatalities on the roads reduce further, with the numbers of serious injuries. Ultimately, we must ensure greater road safety.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Niall Collins is sharing time with Deputies Dara Calleary and John McGuinness.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this very important debate on the report of the Garda Inspectorate. As a question and answer session will follow, I will use the opportunity to offer some questions which I hope the Minister will deal with.

I thank the chief inspector of the Garda Inspectorate, Mr. Robert Olson, for his clear, unambiguous and very concise report. Having read it, everybody agrees that it sets out across five chapters where we are and where we hope to get to on this issue. What is most welcomed by the public is that arising from the report and implementation of its recommendations will be a transparent code of Garda discretion that will be equal for all. This is to be welcomed.

Earlier we had a discussion about An Garda Síochána. With other members of the Opposition, I detailed the catalogue of the Minister's failings to date. I will reiterate them.

The Minister mentioned community policing, but he spearheaded the closure of almost 140 Garda stations in communities across the country. This has deprived many of the presence of community gardaí. We should also recall that the Minister was not too long in office when he attempted to prematurely shut down the Smithwick tribunal. He may contest that claim, now that the tribunal has concluded, but he was outed in that regard. We are discussing the penalty points issue, but we have also heard about the bugging of GSOC and the Minister's treatment of that body, whistleblowers and the confidential recipient. He has not dealt in his statement with any matter relating to Mr. Oliver Connolly. There has also been an issue regarding the Judiciary, while the Garda Commissioner has resigned. Some interesting information came into the public domain during Leaders' Questions today in that regard.

Why did the Minister leak the report into the public domain before placing it before the Houses of the Oireachtas? That was contemptuous of the Houses and Members; we are second-best when issues come up for discussion in an appropriate forum. Yesterday the leaders of the two main Opposition parties were called to a briefing by the Taoiseach, but the media had the story before then. There is a trend of showing disrespect for the Opposition parties, which is not good enough. There was a report in the Sunday Independent on an interview with Mr. Robert Olson that he had never met the Minister for Justice and Equality, despite the fact that they shared a building. This came from a one-to-one interview between the journalist and Mr. Olson.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It must be true so.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is bizarre and the Minister for Justice and Equality should shed some light on the issue.

My party and I support the recommendations made in the Garda Inspectorate's report which seek to rectify a number of problems uncovered in the system that cost the State almost €8 million per annum. The report recommends that the summons service process be reviewed to establish why so many summons were not served and that a system be immediately introduced to ensure all penalty points are endorsed on driving licences. It recommends that the cancellation authority for penalty points be centralised and that petitions for cancellation only be considered when accompanied by factual third party evidence, with all offenders being informed of the cancellation policy. There is also a recommendation that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport address the legal difficulties in imposing penalty points on the drivers of company and hired cars, as well as unregistered vehicles. The inspectorate recommends that consideration be given to enacting new legislation imposing heavy penalties on companies which refuse to name offending drivers and that in the case of off-duty gardaí, a superior officer be notified of any detection, as it could affect the assignment of duties. We fully support the recommendations made in the Garda Inspectorate's report.

The Minister took the opportunity to make a long-awaited apology to the whistleblowers. People will wonder why it took him six months to do this, after all the kicking and screaming. What has changed that he has now decided to issue this apology? It is hard to shake the suspicion that he knows the game is up. The public has cast its judgment and the Minister has decided to make a last-ditch effort to save face and his own skin. He has reinstated the good names of Sergeant Maurice McCabe and John Wilson, but it is too little, too late.

When he issued his apology he implied John O’Mahoney should have done more and made better efforts. In the Minister’s classic form he apologises but subcontracts some of the blame to the author of the previous report on which he seeks to rely. It has taken him six months to apologise. That is not good enough. The Taoiseach stood over the Minister when he discredited the good names of two citizens and allowed that cloud to hang over them for almost six months. Shame on the Minister for doing that.

The Minister did not address the actions of Mr. Connolly, the former confidential recipient, and what he said in the transcript circulating in the public domain. I asked the Minister this morning, and he has not taken the opportunity in making a statement here now, to address what Mr. Connolly said to Sergeant Maurice McCabe about how the Minister would act and what he would do. That is very serious for an officeholder in the Minister’s capacity.

The Minister did not address, or attribute any of the credit due to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, for describing the whistleblowers as "distinguished", which helped bring about his statement today. He was followed by other members of the Cabinet. The Minister has not acknowledged the very valuable input of the Road Safety Authority. That was a glaring omission in his statement.

I have asked the Minister several questions. He said the position of Garda Commissioner has been filled temporarily and he intends to carry out an open competition to fill the vacancy permanently. Everyone will welcome that. Hopefully the person who fills that position will not carry the baggage of any previous scandal. Will the interviews conducted by the recently departed Commissioner for the senior vacancies stand, or will an open interview process recommence for the vacancies for Deputy and Assistant Commissioners?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister stated he hoped the insights gained at the road safety conference last week would assist in identifying new appropriate action. I congratulate him - his luck is in. Were it not for that conference, and the remarks of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, who called the Minister for what he is, we would not be here and would not have heard the apology to the Garda whistleblowers. The Minister was dragged kicking and screaming into the Chamber this week. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport shamed him into making the speech he has just made. His first wish for the impact of that conference has come true. I hope his second wish for its impact on road safety will come equally true.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport deserves some credit. Once again, however, the Minister for Justice and Equality could not resist passing the ball to the Assistant Commissioner, Mr. O’Mahoney, saying it was his fault that he did not speak to the whistleblowers. This morning it was the fault of the Attorney General for not drawing attention to the tapes. It is always the fault of someone else, never of the Minister.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is in Farmleigh paying tribute to the Irish rugby team. The Minister for Justice and Equality should be there because his ability to pass a ball would give him a place on the team. The problem is those receiving the ball might not be best equipped to take the kind of balls the Minister passes.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is a soccer manager.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The speech is also an attempt to rewrite recent history. One would imagine from listening to it that the Minister is the most enthusiastic reformer of An Garda Síochána who ever walked the earth and that he is the best Minister since Ministers were invented, according to the Taoiseach and all those who defend him. He stated repeatedly, “if I ignored the allegations”. He tried his level best to ignore the allegations. Were it not for his own actions, which prompted a motion of no confidence in this House last year there would have been none of these reports. That he had private information, given to him by the former Commissioner, which he used against Deputy Wallace, landed him in a situation where he had to give in to all those reports. That is the only reason we are here again today and why the reports were commissioned. His ability to have that tittle-tattle puts into doubt his remark that he had no knowledge of the very serious issues of which he pleads ignorance in his Department. He was in control of basic information, or does he ask senior Garda officers about the police files of his political colleagues? That is why we cannot trust him to manage his job. That is why his wish to move on, as he always wishes, cannot be respected because while we move on with him in charge the kind of confidence he expects and hopes for in An Garda Síochána will not exist.

I welcome the announcement of a review. What will be the public input into the review? Has the Minister envisaged what kind of public consultation system there will be? Will the Garda Inspectorate seek views from people around the country? Does the Minister intend to proceed with the appointment process for a new Commissioner immediately or await the outcome of the review? As he has laid out the review he hopes for a changed force. I hope with that blueprint in place he will proceed with the appointment of a Commissioner to manage that changed force. I do not know whether he has had time to reflect on that process and what it will involve but I welcome the fact that it will be an open process.

The issues raised this morning are central to this debate because the Minister’s style is in question. His and the Taoiseach’s acknowledgement this morning that the Attorney General went to the Taoiseach first on Sunday with the allegations in her file is very serious. It demonstrates a completely dysfunctional relationship between the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Attorney General, the Minister responsible for security, who is also the Minister for Defence, and the chief law officer in the country. It speaks volumes that the Attorney General had no confidence in the Minister’s ability to manage information and went to the Taoiseach and, most bizarrely, refused to speak to him on the phone but wanted to speak to him face to face and that the Taoiseach did not bring the Minister into that loop for 24 hours. It shows that the Minister is not fit to serve. He does not have the confidence of the Attorney General. He may have the confidence of the Taoiseach but the confidence of many of his colleagues as expressed in recent days is weak, to say the best of it.

If we are to move on from here the Garda review process needs to consider the kind of personnel and training involved in senior management of the Garda. I welcome the fact that the Minister has drawn attention to the Garda record in recent years, to its successes in policing and protecting communities here and abroad but those on the street and on the beat have been let down by management who cannot see the importance of their role, or understand the importance of public confidence in their role. That management style needs to change. While the Government continues to cling to the Minister the change unfortunately rests on his shoulders. That is why the review must involve the public and international expertise on how a modern policing force can continue to drive forward in our community with the kind of threats we face. Will the Minister deal with the question of international involvement?

We are at a very serious impasse in the history of An Garda Síochána.

What we saw yesterday was an attempt to politicise the force by sacking the Commissioner. He did not retire. The Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality does not call on a Monday evening to offer a retirement card. The fact that the information was revealed through RTE because the Taoiseach did not announce it in the House makes me wonder what else happened on Monday that we have yet to be informed about. The review that the Minister announced is incredibly important. These reports are incredibly important. The Guerin report and other reports will lead to change in the management structure and the rebuilding of respect and morale in the force. Meanwhile, however, the confidential recipient and the Commissioner have gone, and God knows who else will go before the report is published in September. I suspect it is the Minister's intention to remain in office. I regret to say that while he is still there, there can be no change.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister concluded his statement by expressing the hope that we can move on from the present controversy over penalty points. Effectively, he is saying that the dogs may have barked but his caravan is going to move on. That is the difficulty, however. Earlier in his contribution he suggested the issue was a very minor piece of what the Garda does.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I quoted the chief inspector of the Garda Inspectorate.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister quoted him in favour of his position.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, you did.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not have comments directed across the floor. Please speak through the Chair.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The attitude was that the culture had to be protected. The Minister would not be here today but for the fact that he set out to protect the culture that led us to this position. One need only to look at his attitude towards Maurice McCabe and John Wilson. I wish John Wilson a speedy recovery, which is something the Minister did not do. I do not doubt this affair has had an impact on his health. Did the Minister ever meet or speak to Maurice McCabe and John Wilson? Does he intend to call them in to ask them about this debacle and ascertain what information they gave to the Road Safety Authority, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts? Does he know what documentation was in circulation? Has he seen the documentation and does he understand why two serving policeman, Maurice McCabe and the now retired John Wilson, were so annoyed and upset about the system that they put their careers at stake to become known as whistleblowers?

What the Minister said about the goodness of the Garda and the work it does is true and beyond doubt. None of us questions that. However, we are questioning the culture that condemned those two men the moment they opened their mouths to say that something was wrong. I like to consider them as concerned citizens who are employed as gardaí. A range of meanings can be drawn from the word "whistleblower". These are concerned citizens who came forward with statements that they could back up with facts and evidence. When they tried to make the institution understand that something was wrong, the desire to protect the culture kicked in. The Minister was part of that culture of protection. He did not listen. Much could have been done but he did not do it. I raised these issues in another debate while the Minister was also sitting opposite. The only issue he raised with me by letter subsequent to that debate was why the lady whistleblower in question did not use the processes available to her. He wrote to me, but perhaps it is the fault of somebody else in the Department who stamped a letter about which the Minister knows nothing. That was the only issue he raised with me. Why should this individual use the processes? She went to the confidential recipient but he told her the last person who had used the system was washing cars in Navan. After I made my statement in the Dáil, did the Minister check it out? I doubt it. This person was reporting that something was wrong with the system. She was declaring it could not be trusted. We heard nothing about it from the confidential recipient, who has since been relieved of his duties. Surely that man has a body of evidence that he could give to the Minister or the acting commissioner, but no attempt has been made on the part of the Minister or his Department to get the information. That lady's case remains to be dealt with. She was bullied and pushed out of the force, like John Wilson but not like Sergeant McCabe. What impressed us most about Sergeant McCabe's contribution to the Committee of Public Accounts was that despite legal advice not to do so, he turned up in full uniform and he sat on his own across from members to tell us his side of the story without mentioning a single name. He told us that he was proud to appear before the committee and to be a member of the force. His fundamental message was that the force needed to be sorted out but during the course of the O'Mahoney investigation nobody went to him. In any factory or business, if an employee spoke badly about his or her organisation, the foreman or boss would ask to have a chat. That did not happen.

The Minister has apologised to John Wilson and Maurice McCabe. What about the lady whistleblower to whom he has not apologised? What about the way he treated them prior to his remarks? Essentially he told them to put up and shut up. That was an awful way to deal with two men who had nothing in their minds but the betterment of the force. Will he apologise to the lady whistleblower who was forced out of the Garda because she made a complaint of sexual harassment? Is that something he should investigate? I believe it is. Will he apologise to Lucia O'Farrell, whose son was killed on the roadside? A number of legally minded people have told her that the Minister should do something about that case. I raised it with him on the same day I made my aforementioned comments but he never wrote to me about it. Did he look over the file and will he do anything with it? The O'Farrell case highlights all that is wrong with investigations, the Attorney General's office and the system of justice in this country. I appeal to the Minister to include that case for consideration. As the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, was whispering sweet nothings into the ear of the Minister, Deputy Shatter, I hope they heard clearly what I have said on that case.

Will the Minister, Deputy Shatter, apologise to the members of the Traveller community whose records are now on the PULSE system? Families who went to Garda stations to have papers signed for passport applications ended up being profiled on the system. Babies aged 16 days were entered into the system. Human rights are being violated left, right and centre. What about the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, who is the protector of the children of this country?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGuinness-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Minister, Deputy Fitgerald, take a consideration in that regard?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGuinness should not put separate questions to another Minister.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe Deputy Fitzgerald should.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is going well.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe she should.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy McGuinness listening to me?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I ask her-----

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One does not address questions to other Ministers during the course of a debate.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, the Minister for Justice and Equality then.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGuinness is long enough here to know the rules of debate.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe some day the Minister for Justice and Equality is having a conversation with the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, he might ask her about that.

Will the Minister, Deputy Shatter, apologise to the family in Wicklow whose son took his own life? There are also implications there for the Garda. What about the granddaughter and daughter of a lady, who was killed in an accident, who reported it to GSOC and cannot get an appointment with the garda who is investigating that case? Does that show the Minister that there is something seriously wrong within the management of the force and does it underline for him the need for a thorough overarching investigation of all of the issues that are being debated here in this House for the betterment of the force? I again ask the Minister if he will meet the whistleblowers; will he meet Ms Lucia O'Farrell; will he meet the family in Wicklow; and, will he meet the others who have concerns about how their cases were investigated because he will learn from that and, hopefully, then do something to reform the Department, the system of justice and those who are responsible.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, perhaps Deputy McGuinness, between now and when we have questions, might revert to his files. On the issue he raised about a female member of the force, he might go back to the correspondence he purported to reference and come back to tell the House why he did not respond to me.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am responding to the Minister today.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGuinness was asked repeatedly.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGuinness should resume his seat.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe that this is the forum where the Minister should respond-----

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGuinness was asked for detail.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGuinness should resume his seat.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and if the Minister had any decency in him, he would investigate that case-----

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Deputy McGuinness please resume his seat?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----instead of throwing out a red herring today about me replying to his letters. This is where I raised it and this is where I reply to the Minister.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was an outrageous misrepresentation on an issue and he tried to make a fist of it.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Deputy McGuinness resume his seat?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister does not have the decency to recognise that this, as the Parliament, is the place where we do our work and investigate matters.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Deputy McGuinness had any real concern for that woman, he would have responded to this letter.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGuinness should resume his seat. That was not a point of order.

I now call Deputy Mac Lochlainn, who is sharing his time, I understand, with Deputy McDonald, with 20 minutes for himself and ten minutes for Deputy McDonald.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us together walk the path that the whistleblowers have walked over the past two years.

We will start off with the coming together of the two men. Can the Minister imagine they probably met while they were on duty, or in whatever circumstances, and got talking about some of the issues that they had come across? They, maybe, found strength in each other to raise them and then took their concerns to the former Garda confidential recipient, Mr. Oliver Connolly.

After months and months of getting nowhere - I will deal with the sacking of Mr. Connolly later on and some of the detail of the conversations that he had with the Garda whistleblowers, and I note that Deputy McGuinness has revealed some more details today about other conversations and a culture that existed - instead of being supported they were being advised that they would be better to stay schtum because they would not want to get in the way of the Minister and the Garda Commissioner and their close relationship. That is what is in the transcript. Rather than the Garda confidential recipient feeling empowered that he, as a mediator, would have the ability to bring these issues to the Minister for Justice and Equality and they would be pursued without fear or favour, he found himself advising them otherwise. It is disturbing to read through that transcript. That was the stonewalling that took place for those months.

After that, obviously, they got together and said that the seriousness of that which they were unravelling and on which they were building evidence was something that they could not merely let stay within this stonewall internal shut-down system. They then took their concerns to the Comptroller and Auditor General and sent detailed evidence of their allegations. They also sent them to the Road Safety Authority, and to the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. There was much concern, and many conversations taking place between those bodies, and it was established and agreed that this was serious material that needed to taken seriously and addressed properly.

Still not really seeing progress, they then availed of their right under the law, under section 62 of the Garda Síochána Act, to take their issue to a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas, in this case, Deputy Clare Daly. Deputy Clare Daly and other colleagues then did their job and came into this House and raised the urgency of this matter. Then, in and around that time, finally, rather than an independent examination immediately of all of these serious matters with a considerable bulk of evidence to back them up in terms of documentation, the choice was to go for an in-house investigation. That in-house investigation, carried out by the assistant commissioner, Mr. O'Mahoney, never availed of the opportunity to speak to the whistleblowers who made the allegations. The Minister should think about the following. Imagine I ring my local Garda station to state my house has been robbed and I am really worried. I ask if somebody can be sent out and the garda comes out onto my street and knocks on every door on my street except my house, the house that was robbed and reported the alleged crime. That is what happened here and the Minister stood over that.

The report was issued in 2013 and the Minister went out on the plinth and castigated with glee the two Garda whistleblowers stating that the vast bulk of what they had stated was reckless, disproved and all over the place. He held that line vigorously under challenge after challenge in this Chamber from the Opposition. That is what he did.

However, it all fell to pieces when the Comptroller and Auditor General made his report. The key findings of that report included one in five persons who were facing road traffic offences were getting off; a half of all road-traffic related summons were not being issued; and, in some Garda districts the level of termination of penalty points was 50 times higher than others. It was a damning report. After that, I came in here, along with other members of the Opposition, and stated that the two Garda whistleblowers had been vindicated and asked the Minister if he would find it within himself to acknowledge that and carry out an independent inquiry into these matters as soon as possible. There was no doubt about it then. It was big, it needed to be looked at. There was massive dysfunction in the management of the system which should ensure we do not have one rule for one motorist and another rule for another, and we needed to change all of that. The Minister refused to address it point blank. It then dragged on.

The Committee of Public Accounts did its job and brought forward the relevant officials until, eventually, the former Garda Commissioner, Mr. Martin Callinan, came before them. He talked about "so-called whistleblowers", and then, of course, he went on to use that now notorious phrase, "disgusting". The Minister knows the message that sent out to any person, man or woman, working in the public or private sectors, that if one speaks out, puts ones career on the line and isolates one's family in one's workplace, that is the level of support one can expect. The Minister never spoke out about those comments. Of course, he himself had misled the House by stating that the whistleblowers failed to co-operate - talk about turning words around to suit whatever agenda was there.

That was the period of two years on the path those two whistleblowers walked. I had a chance to speak to them, as had many other members of the Opposition, on numerous occasions.

They and their families were very isolated and briefly wondered, at times, if they had done the right thing. It is a difficult and lonely place to be. There was very little support but, over time, more journalists, Opposition Members and some Government Members became interested. Finally, when it came to crisis point with what the Garda Commissioner said before the Committee of Public Accounts and the major outcry, the Minister decided to refer it to GSOC for a vigorous, independent examination of the matters at hand. That is the journey, that is what happened.

Now we move on to the apology. It is good that both men are entirely vindicated. They and their families can have some sense of solace that the Minister has finally done this. However, none of the public and no one watching these proceedings believes the Minister has come to this of his own volition. This is to save the Minister's hide. It is too little, too late and this is about saving his political hide. It was impossible not to come in and issue the apology; otherwise, the Minister was gone. Even though the Minister has finally done the right thing and given an apology to the men, he should go. He should resign from his position because of other issues.

Let us walk through the allegations that GSOC offices were bugged. On Monday, the day after the report in The Sunday Times, the Department or perhaps the Minister advised the Taoiseach with a line misquoting the Garda Síochána Act. He turned the victim into the villain. Can we imagine anywhere in Europe where there is a real and legitimate suspicion that an independent ombudsman's office had been the victim of a surveillance attack and that the focus immediately goes to whether it adhered to legislation and reported it to the Minister? That would be bad enough if the Minister was right but he misquoted the legislation. The Minister landed the Taoiseach in that mess that day. The Minister summoned the GSOC chairman, Simon O'Brien, to his building. The next day the Minister came into the House and delivered a report that there was nothing to see here, that everything was hunky-dory and that it was all madness. That was the plan. We know the Minister was given a written briefing by GSOC on Monday that specified three key threats identified by Verrimus, the security company based in Britain. In respect of the second threat, the report stated that the chances of the test result on the phone in the chairman's office at 1 a.m being a coincidence rather than a threat were next to zero. That is very strong language yet the Minister left it out of his presentation to the Dáil. The second threat concerned the IMSI catcher, also known as the stingray, a device that captures 3G and other networks. The threat was described by Verrimus as Government-level technology and the Minister chose to leave out that description. I can only reach the conclusion that the Minister did so to give the impression there was nothing to see so that he could protect the Commissioner and refuse to accept what was presented to him.

One would think the Minister would step back after doing so but the following Tuesday he came into the House with a peer review from an Irish security company, Rits. He gleefully talked about the fact that there was nothing to see here unless the customers of the Insomnia coffee shop were spying on GSOC. This was a condescending remark. The Minister said that not only was there no definitive evidence but no evidence whatsoever and nothing to see here. This was a strong rebuttal. That report was remarkably similar to that of the journalist Paul Williams in the Irish Independentthat morning. When I heard the Minister's speech, I thought it was a strong statement. The Minister came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions and was asked to give a summary of the findings of the Rits report that led the Minister to make such a strong statement. After three weeks, now that he has finally done so, it is contemptuous. The Minister may come back with something stronger but the onus is on him to do so. What is in the public domain does not justify the Minister's testimony. The objective was to dismantle those who had profound concerns and circle the wagons around the Garda Commissioner.

The next issue concerns the sacking of the confidential recipient, Oliver Connolly. The behaviour of the Minister has been remarkable in his refusal to entertain any criticism of Garda Síochána senior management. By doing so, he has utterly failed the vast majority of the members of the Garda Síochána and led the organisation into disrepute. He has led them into crisis after crisis and the man or woman on the frontline now has a more difficult job to do. That is why the Minister must go. The culture in the Garda Síochána senior management was a closed culture and involved shutting down the ability of the outside world to criticise its management and mechanisms. That is all now in shreds.

That leads to my final comments. The Minister is now an adherent of an independent police authority. Is it not wonderful to see the Pauline conversion on the road to Damascus? I raised this matter in a priority question to the Minister. I asked him if he would go for an independent policing authority and the Minister robustly rejected it, talking about all the reasons why not. The Minister has come around but everything he has come round to has involved kicking and screaming. Let us go back over what the Minister has come round to. He has come around to an independent policing authority, more powers and a properly resourced and strengthened GSOC. Although Sinn Féin is not happy with it, believing it should be an independent commission of investigation, the Minister has come around to the idea of an independent review of the allegations that GSOC offices could be bugged. The Minister resisted but came around to it under pressure. The Minister resisted the documentation handed over by the Fianna Fáil leader, Deputy Martin, to the Taoiseach. It is now subject to an independent review. We are not happy with that and believe it should be a commission of investigation but it is an independent review, which the Minister resisted. Now, the Minister resisted an apology but here he is to save his hide.

It is too little, too late. It is great that it happened but it should have come from the Taoiseach and he should have sacked the Minister and delivered this apology. The Labour Party will seek political cover tonight but in every town, village, street and townland, regardless of people's political affiliation, they think the Minister should go. We must then set about the vital work of restoring public confidence in the administration of justice and to put in place a modern policing organisation that is fully accountable and transparent for the century we live in.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all know that when Sergeant Maurice McCabe and the now retired garda, John Wilson, came forward within the Garda Síochána with serious concerns about the administration of the penalty points system, they were systematically and deliberately frustrated in their efforts. On paper, there was a system within the Garda Síochána through the confidential recipient for serving members of the Garda Síochána to bring forward their concerns and to have them addressed.

Not alone did that system fail but it actively connived to prevent the two whistleblowers making known their concerns and having the concerns investigated and remedied. That is how serious the blockage was within the Garda. It was not sloppiness, happenstance or accidental; it was a deliberate decision within the Garda to try to shut up the two men. Not alone that; another decision was taken within An Garda Síochána to apply pressure on those individuals and to obstruct them in carrying out what should have been very routine tasks in the course of their duties. That is what happened.

God knows the penalty points issue has been debated and discussed for months on end. Even today, I am still left with the very strong impression that the Minister does not understand how fundamentally toxic those events were within the Garda. I am convinced that the Minister’s strategy of minimising the issue and trying to gloss over it is not just a public position on his part; that is how he analyses, interprets and understands what happened. Somewhere in the corner of the Minister’s mind this was not such a big deal. It was revealing today when the Minister again referred to the penalty points system and said it was a minor aspect of their work to support his own case.

Maurice McCabe and John Wilson not only deserve an apology they deserve a commendation from the Minister and the Government for their courage and absolute persistence and stamina. Not alone do they deserve to be acknowledged; their families deserve to be acknowledged too. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s report, to which my colleague referred, comprehensively vindicated the two men, as did the report of the Garda inspectorate. The Garda inspectorate went further than the Comptroller and Auditor General could go or was prepared to go in that it estimated the loss of revenue to the State by the failure to serve summonses at approximately €7.4 million. We never got a concrete figure from the Comptroller and Auditor General but the broad calculation was always somewhere in and around €5 million. The moneys that were lost, although not game changers in terms of the overall budgetary arithmetic, were nonetheless sizeable sums of money.

On top of what happened to the two gardaí within An Garda Síochána, the Minister compounded the wrongs visited on them. He abused the men in the most crude and public manner possible. He questioned their truthfulness and their personal and professional credibility. The Minister came into the House and made a statement that was factually incorrect and calculated to further undermine the two men. In doing that, he was wrong. Today, under more pressure than grace, the Minister finally conceded that he was wrong. I take issue with the Minister on his apology. Remarkably, as he apologised the Minister claimed it was never his intention to mislead the House. I challenge him on that because it was very much the Minister's intention to mislead this House. It was clearly his intention to paint the two men as irresponsible-----

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the Deputy that it is not in order to accuse a member of the Government of deliberately misleading the House. If an allegation of that nature is being made against any Member it can be done only by way of substantive motion.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am responding to the Minister’s speech. It is not in order for any Government Minister to abuse this House and to abuse serving gardaí in turn.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am only reading out the Standing Orders of the House which are agreed by Members.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You have read it now and I thank you for it. The Minister claimed that it was not his intention to mislead the House and I challenge that assertion because this House was misled. In a calculated and repeated fashion this House was told that the gardaí, in particular Sergeant Maurice McCabe, failed to co-operate with established Garda procedures. We were certainly misled had we been foolish enough to take the Minister on his word. The Minister knew at that time, as he conceded today, that no attempt had been made throughout the O’Mahony process to speak to those gardaí. The Minister knew that then, even as he made the statement.

One could ask what has changed between then and now. The Minister said in the course of his apology that he had revisited the information. What new information has crossed the desk of the Minister, Deputy Shatter, to demonstrate to him the error of his ways? I do not think there was any new information. The facts are the facts. The difference today is that the Minister knows it is no longer politically acceptable for him to continue the attack on those two men. He knows public opinion is entirely against him and entirely supportive of the two brave whistleblowers.

The Minister told us also that his brave new dawn for policing will be all about accountability. That is welcome. What about the Minister’s accountability? Is it really sufficient for the Minister months later, having abused the men on the plinth outside the Dáil, and having abused his position to place false information on the record of the Dáil and then to persist in the falsehood, to simply come to the House and make a fairly lukewarm apology to the men? The question is whether that is enough. To my mind it is not. I do not think the Minister has any appetite for accountability himself. While he might preach it to An Garda Síochána he is certainly not amenable to taking the consequences of his own actions or inaction. If the Minister really believed in accountability he would step down from his position in Cabinet. The reason he would do that is that it would be as clear to him as it is to everybody else in the country that he has no credibility when it comes to reform of An Garda Síochána. He has no credibility when it comes to protecting whistleblowers. Neither does he have credibility when he lauds GSOC and talks about the need to reform that body. The Minister has absolutely no credibility when he claims that it was Tuesday morning before he saw crucial correspondence on the illegal recording of telephone calls to and from Garda stations. The Minister has no credibility whatsoever in respect of his portfolio.

In the course of the litany of chaos that has surrounded the Minister in recent months, people have fallen like skittles. The Minister’s friend, the confidential recipient, is gone. The Garda Commissioner is gone. The Minister's friend, the Taoiseach, continues to defend him trenchantly and in a manner that amazes public opinion.

The Minister's response to all of this in the midst of all this mess, over which he presides, is: "I hope the House can agree that it would be in the public interest to do what we can to move on from the present controversy ... and get on with the work which is under way which will achieve a fair, transparent and effective system." The Minister, Deputy Shatter, has made his apology in the hope that we will all move on and forget all about it but that is not a position that is acceptable to Sinn Féin. If the Deputy is going to be the Minister who talks about accountability he should start with himself. The accountable and responsible thing for the Minster, Deputy Shatter, to do is to step down.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is Deputy Wallace who is sharing time with Deputies Daly, Higgins and Collins.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

During the past 18 months the Minister's handling of the different crises that have arisen has been generally weak, ineffective and indecisive and too often it has been governed by his appetite for political survival rather than an appetite for doing the right thing according to the responsibilities of his Ministry.

I do not have enough time to go through everything but I will outline 30 bullet points as to why the Minister should resign:

No. 1 - he bypassed GSOC and ignored its statutory remit and role to investigate Garda misconduct in regard to the Roma children controversy;

No. 2 - in the terms of reference he set out for the Ombudsman for Children he did not allow for any examination of the racial ethnic profiling which was central to the whole issue;

No. 3 - he was satisfied with the Commissioner's assurances that no racial profiling takes place despite the ECRI report, UN committee report and the whistleblowers' PULSE allegations regarding 40 Traveller families;

No. 4: instead of dealing with the penalty points issue properly and thoroughly from the outset by setting up an independent inquiry or even referring it to GSOC, he first ordered a constitutionally flawed internal investigation that violated the rule against bias because the gardaí were allowed to investigate themselves and the rule of hearing the other side because the whistleblowers were not interviewed;

No. 5 - despite what the Minister said today, page 8 of the inspector's report states that they did not get the report until 4 July after some political pressure;

No. 6 - the Minister suddenly decided to refer the penalty points matter to GSOC in January of this year but again only under political pressure rather than in the considered exercise of his ministerial duties to properly address the matter;

No. 7 - he only allowed for GSOC access to PULSE this year, despite GSOC demanding it in September. He refused it at the time but political pressure again changed his mind; No. 8 - he refused to conduct a separate investigation into the mandatory comment box, as recommended by the GPSU - the report would probably have been damning;

No. 9 - the fixed charge manual which the GPSU demanded is still not published;

No. 10 - the audit system which was introduced was as demanded by the GPSU. It was not independent and the inspectorate pointed out that it just reinforces the old system;

No. 11 - the Minister refused to look at the lawfulness of discretion which has been open to question all along;

No. 12 - the Minister's main focus was the cover-up rather than the security of State intelligence with regard to the GSOC bugging allegations;

No. 13 - he undermined GSOC by wilfully misleading both the Dáil and the Cabinet in regard to the GSOC's duties under statute - section 80(5);

No. 14 - the Minister referred to the GSOC commissioners as being confused during their committee appearances as a way of minimising the seriousness of their concerns;

No. 15 - the Minister wilfully misled the Dáil as to the seriousness of the brief he received from GSOC;

No. 16 - he commissioned and clearly favoured-----

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must also point out to the Deputy that it is not in order to accuse a Minister of having deliberately misled the House. I ask him to refrain from doing that or otherwise I will have to ask him to sit down.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister favoured the Rits report over the Verrimus report and undermined the latter.

No. 17 - he has not sought or received confirmations or assurances from the Army and gardaí regarding an assessment as to whether authorised or non-authorised surveillance took place with regard to the bugging of GSOC's offices;

No. 18 - he eventually ordered a weak review by Mr. Justice Cooke but gave him no judicial powers and again bypassed the Commission of Investigations Act 2004;

No. 19 - the Minister accused Maurice McCabe of not co-operating in the House which he has withdrawn today;

No. 20 - he still did not apologise for the derogatory comments he made on the day the reports came out when he said that the whistleblowers' allegations were "seriously inaccurate and without foundation";

No. 21 - he refused to include specific Garda whistleblowing procedures in the Protected Disclosures Bill until there was more political pressure and they are being tacked on now;

No. 22 - he falsely reported on RTE that Sergeant McCabe released to the public private data that he should not accessed. He gave it to Members of the Oireachtas which was within his remit, he did not put it in the public domain. Neither did the Minister call on the Commissioner to withdraw his use of the term "disgusting" in regard to the whistleblowers;

No. 23 - the Sean Guerin paper review regarding the allegations by Maurice McCabe was without statutory basis;

No. 24 - the Minister was not concerned about the leak to Paul Reynolds before the Cabinet had even seen the report and the many leaks from gardaí to media. No one seems to be worrying about all the leaks from the gardaí but the Minister was worried about the leak from GSOC and leaks from the whistleblowers;

No. 25 - it is still noteworthy that Dermot Walsh, probably one of the best experts on policing in the country, recently emphasised again that the penalty points example is important because it demonstrates the lack of consistency and fairness in the application of the rule of the law in the State by An Garda Síochána. He emphasised the lack of management structures, training - the same sort of criticisms as in the Morris report - and the pattern of failings within senior Garda management, and the Minister has presided over this;

No. 26 - Professor Walsh also emphasised the lack of transparency - the Garda Inspectorate found that the policy regarding fixed charge notice cancellations was purposely not made public;

No. 27 - in this House the Minister has denigrated citizens exercising their legal right to protest at Corrib Gas as "tourist protestors" intent on "sabotaging jobs" and followed the last Fianna Fáil justice Minister in refusing to permit GSOC to initiate a section 106 investigation into policing issues at Corrib when we asked him to do so;

No. 28 - on 26 February in reply to Deputy Róisín Shortall, who asked about the Commissioner's "disgusting" remark, the Minister said "I have not read the transcript and do not know the context in which the Commissioner made his comment". Does the Minister think the people are stupid?;

No. 29 - Judge Smithwick's description of the Garda Síochána as valuing loyalty over honesty and truth sadly applied to the relationship that the Minister had with the Commissioner and, sadly, it looks like it also relates to the relationship that the Taoiseach has with the Minister; and,

No. 30 - as Gene Kerrigan said last Sunday, a fish rots from the head and the rot starts with the Minister.

The Minister has apologised to the whistleblowers today and has committed to an independent police board but when we introduced the police Bill last July he said that it would be undemocratic to oversee the police with an independent police board. The Taoiseach told us today that the Minister was the first to recommend strengthening GSOC but when we recommended that in our Bill he rubbished it.

With respect to the serious allegations regarding criminality and serious corruption which the Minister thinks have been dismissed, he should remember that they have only been examined by assistant commissioner O'Mahoney in a report now discredited whereas the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Garda Inspectorate's report were only asked to look into the system, not these allegations.

I have emphasised that the Minister seems to have played down the penalty points system as being only a small part of what the gardaí do but it is symptomatic of everything else they do. We have heard many sad stories from the public about their poor experience at the hands of some gardaí and they are nothing short of frightening. We have got information from ex-gardaí and serving gardaí and it made for difficult listening.

A guy I do not know from Adam sent me a note the day after I addressed the Minister here on 26 February. He told me that I spoke for the people who are shy and cannot express themselves. He also told me that I spoke for the people who cannot speak out. He told me that I spoke for the people who keep their heads down and fear authority.

He told me I spoke for the people who are hurt and sad and that I spoke for him.

Does it bother the Minister that he is the head of justice in Ireland while so many people feel they do not get justice and that the Minister does not represent them? I am sorry to say that while I find the Minister a very able man and very intelligent, it looks as though he is not fit for office, and he should not be here any more. I will be dead honest and say I will actually miss him when he is gone - I really will, and I am genuine about this - but he should be gone.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister cuts a lonely figure, surrounded by just one simple Government backbencher and not a Labour Party colleague in sight.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not worry; I am not simple at all.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps they have scurried off to try to find their conscience and public service in this area. The Minister started his latest explanation of his conduct today by supposedly clarifying the remarks he made about the whistleblowers in October last year when he accused them of not co-operating with the O'Mahoney tribunal. In his own way he put forward what has been described as an apology, but really it is a bit half-baked. His comments in October were not isolated; they were his consistent battle cry during the debate on these issues.

In May, when Deputy Collins welcomed the O'Mahoney report, he accused us of rejecting all of the conclusions contained in it when he stated that it was clear to any fair-minded observer that some of the most serious allegations made had no basis in reality. He was wrong and the Garda Síochána Inspectorate stated he was wrong. This month he told us he could take his explanation of the situation with Maurice McCabe and the O'Mahoney inquiry no further and that there was no basis to the allegation that he had misled the House. Today, again, he spent a considerable part of his contribution trying to cast doubt on a number of the allegations put forward by those Garda whistleblowers. The Minister made a list and stated there had been no finding to show these allegations were correct. I put it to the Minister that he is wrong. Denying the taxpayer revenue from fines that could have been collected is fraud and is perverting the course of justice. There have been no findings to state that these allegations are not correct.

The Minister sought to rely in his contribution on remarks made by Bob Olson. The Minister stated that the Garda Síochána Inspectorate had described the process as a managerial and administrative dysfunction. In actual fact, Professor Dermot Walsh made the point that there is a very thin line between mismanagement and corruption. As Deputy Wallace stated, the Garda Síochána Inspectorate, like the Comptroller and Auditor General, had a very narrow remit. It was not tasked with investigating corruption, and the quashing of penalty points is on the scale of corruption.

The reason these issues are under public scrutiny is not the fairy tale we listened to from the Taoiseach earlier that the Minister is the great Garda reformer. We know this is a lie from his contributions last year. The only reason this is on the agenda is the heroic efforts of the whistleblowers and their dogged determination, against the odds, in not letting the issue go. At every turn their efforts were met with belligerence and they were demonised, denied, vilified and ostracised by members of the force. It is their courage and strength that has resulted in the spotlight being put on this issue, to the very great benefit of all decent gardaí and all citizens of the State.

How the whistleblowers were dealt with is important because it will set the tone for others in the force and outside it for the future. I classify the Minister's remarks as mealy-mouthed and a grudging recognition of their role, which does not in any way ring true with me. These men exposed the fact that the solutions to the problems identified in An Garda Síochána by the Morris tribunal and the measures that the State put in place were not working, and that the mechanisms that we stated would lead to a breaking down of the blue wall of silence did not work. It is very important that their stance is protected.

The former confidential recipient, Oliver Connolly, put out a statement that the transcript that was discussed in the House was unlawfully recorded by Maurice McCabe. This is not true, and we need to put this on the record in the context that such recordings are often the only security and believable evidence whistleblowers have, and this source must be protected. Intra-party recordings are entirely different to third-party recordings, and this point must be made. Everything the whistleblowers did and every single step they took was lawful, but at every turn they were blocked.

When the penalty points issue was announced and became public, what was the first response of the former Garda Commissioner? Was it to speak to the lads, hear their concerns and see what was wrong? No, it was not. It was to put out a press statement that there was no question of a culture of termination of penalty points. The very next day the Commissioner ordered a notice to go up on the notice board in all Garda stations, to protect the reputation of An Garda Síochána, that no members of the Garda were to talk to external sources on pain of prosecution. He then called in the whistleblowers and threatened to take them off PULSE. John Wilson's car was searched and other circulars went up. These people were ostracised in the Garda stations where they worked. For these reasons, and not just the "disgusting" remark which verbalised his attitude, it was entirely appropriate for Commissioner Callinan to go.

To me, Commissioner Callinan epitomised the idea that An Garda Síochána could be above the law and was not open to challenge, and that its interests were separate from the interests of the public. This system was highlighted by Mr. Justice Smithwick, who spoke about those who put loyalty to the force above honesty. Every day when I drive down Pearse Street I see a row of cars parked on double yellow lines with not a ticket on them because everybody knows they belong to gardaí. Civil servants pay for parking across the road in the car park, but others believe that if one is a garda a perk of the job is that the law does not apply to one, and this is exactly what the Garda Síochána Inspectorate report identified.

The excuses stated by the assistant commissioner, Mr. O'Mahoney, included that these were gardaí on duty and they had an entitlement to write off penalty points. The Garda Síochána Inspectorate report focused on the fact they did not, and that just because one is a garda it does not mean one can use being late for work as an excuse for speeding, as a former commissioner appears to have done. One must agree with the rules of the road and the procedures in place.

A number of aspects of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate's report are interesting. This includes how accurately Garda Maurice McCabe understood the situation. His analysis was perfect. What is also interesting about the report is that the analysis we put forward and sent to the Minister and the RSA was pretty much spot on with regard to the Garda Síochána Inspectorate report. This analysis was compiled by a young solicitor, Leah O'Leary. How come a young solicitor and a Garda sergeant were able to expose what five superintendents, six chief superintendents and 28 staff could not do in the O'Mahoney report? It was because they did not have a vested interest. They were interested in the truth, and this was the difference.

Ordinary citizens in the State want a police force that is accountable. We have the Cooke inquiry, the Guerin inquiry and now a commission of inquiry into these latest allegations. The fact that there are illegal recordings which could have resulted in illegal prosecutions has huge ramifications for the State. The fact that one of these tapes will reveal that somebody was fitted up for a serious crime is very worrying, but it is not surprising. We have met people the length and breadth of the State whose lives have been ruined by the fact that their cases were not dealt with appropriately by the Garda. The actions of the Garda in Ian Bailey's case were described by five Supreme Court judges as breathtaking wrongful misbehaviour. These gardaí were sent to France to give information about his case. Baiba Saulite was a young woman who was shot dead and whose two children were left without their mother. Gardaí have brought information to the Minister stating that the abduction of her children was not properly investigated and this led to this woman losing her life and to her solicitor's life being endangered.

There have been cases of racial profiling of the Traveller community, an issue Deputy Mick Wallace and I raised with the Minister last year. The Minister is on the record as stating, "Both Deputies are a disgrace." We were a disgrace for putting on the record of this House the fact that racial profiling occurred. I spent the Sunday before last in Rathkeale, where a ten year old boy told me about how his house had been broken into and his family had been held at gunpoint in an armed robbery. This was a robbery the police never investigated because they were Travellers. He told me afterwards about how gardaí and the Criminal Assets Bureau had broken into his house and how he had got down on his knees and begged the gardaí not to shoot his granny and his mammy, yet it is claimed racial profiling does not occur in the State. This is what I am talking about. There are systemic problems in the operation of An Garda Síochána.

The last point I will make to the Minister is that the attitude of the Government is like the one I encountered when homeowners began to realise their houses were cracking because of pyrite. Cracks had emerged, but people were in denial. Those who raised and tried to state the issue must be dealt with were told not to talk about it because they would devalue the estate. Instead, it was suggested the cracks be covered up and that things would be okay. However, the truth will always come out and in that case, the only way to solve the problem was to remove the contaminated infill and rebuild the house. An Garda Síochána and the administration of justice cannot be restored with the Minister at the helm. I, too, will miss him, but his days are numbered.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, has finally apologised to the two Garda whistleblowers. To do so, apparently, it was necessary for him to be flanked by a praetorian guard of political heavyweights, with the Taoiseach on one side and the Minister for Finance on the other. They must have feared that, even as his very head depended on the apology, the Minister would be unable to bring himself to utter the hardest word in his extensive vocabulary, namely, "sorry".

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties yesterday issued a statement entitled, "Garda accountability; the rot must stop". It referred to the litany of scandals and crises affecting An Garda Síochána under the political supervision of the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Government. It complained correctly about the boxing off of each of these matters in different investigations with no real powers for those investigating. It demanded the creation of an inquiry to examine and report on the full spectrum of Garda accountability issues. That is precisely what is needed. However, a full and extensive examination cannot be carried out satisfactorily under the Commissions of Investigation Act, as it stands. For a start, the Act directs that any inquiry be largely held in private, but any inquiry into these matters should be held in public. The Government, apparently, intends to appoint senior or retired judges who themselves are pillars of the established order. Any inquiry into An Garda Síochána should have the testimony and experience of ordinary people, working-class people in particular, who should be able to bring their experience at the hands of Garda malpractice, whether by individuals or as a body, into full play. It should be a comprehensive, radical, root and branch investigation into how the Garda has operated for many years. However, this cannot happen unless those at the sharp edge of Garda activity in a wrong fashion are involved fully, including victims of malpractice, minorities and other groups. It should involve ordinary people who must wait for hours for gardaí to arrive at their door when they need them in an emergency after making an urgent call because of the austerity cutbacks made by the Government.

The most recent issue of the wholesale taping of the public, including legal advisers and clients, at many Garda stations has been overshadowed by the sheer incompetence pointed to by the fact that, allegedly, the Minister for Justice and Equality was not apprised that this was a serious issue until eight months after the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission had flagged it and four months after the Garda Commissioner and the Attorney General had set up a working group. Why was there such delay? Is it because the Garda Commissioner or the Government or both condoned this practice, that is, the illegal use of private conversations?

In another issue that beggars belief, the Data Protection Commissioner carried out a three year audit of the treatment of Garda data between 2011 and 2013, which led to the publication of a 95 page report this month. While it details all manner and means of data, data collection and data retention, it does not contain a single word about the taping of telephone calls. The Data Protection Commissioner must explain what happened in this regard, the reason this matter was not brought into the open or whether he was misled.

I will refer briefly to other issues that require attention. On children of members of the Traveller community being accorded criminal intelligence numbers on the PULSE system, thereby marking them out for life, I wish to hear about this issue. I also refer to the closeness of the top echelons of the Irish news and media to the top echelons of the Garda, to penalty points being wiped out for the former and the crooked coverage they give this entire issue which favours the management of the Garda.

Where does the Labour Party stand tonight? It has been utterly humiliated in this debacle. I refer to the spectacle two weeks ago in this Chamber of the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, flapping incoherently while trying to defend the indefensible but without a word in demanding the apology the Minister has given tonight. Instead, it covered over the fact that such an apology needed to be given and then, humiliatingly, peeped agreement when the Fine Gael Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, saw fit to come out and call it. I suggest the Labour Party stands humiliated.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the whistleblowers Sergeant Maurice McCabe and John Wilson approached Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace who, in turn, approached Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan and me, they stated the abuses of the penalty points system were the visible tip of the iceberg of possible malpractice and corruption within sections or elements of An Garda Síochána. They have not only been vindicated through the report of the Garda Inspectorate on what they raised regarding penalty points but also on the wider and more serious issues that have come to light in the past 15 months or so and which will come to light again in the coming months. From very bad experiences, very good things can emerge. Points have been made in this Chamber on the cases the aforementioned Deputies have heard from individuals and families about their experiences at the hands of a section of An Garda Síochána. They would make the hair on the back of one's head stand on end. They are frightening and one would swear one was reading some of the accounts from a book of nightmares. However, the positive outcome is that all those isolated individuals who could not see beyond the four walls of their homes have begun to get organised and set up the Justice4all campaign, where they can work together, raise their issues and call for justice in the longer term.

I thank the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, and former Commissioner Callinan for doing some service to the State. They could have welcomed the actions of the whistleblowers and then quietly buried the penalty points issue with the O'Mahoney whitewash. Instead, in their arrogance, they attempted to denigrate and discredit the whistleblowers and elected public representatives who had raised these important questions. Their dismissive sneering attitude led them into a monumental cock-up which exposed serious issues within An Garda Síochána. It is not just the Minister who should take responsibility, as he has been fully supported in his approach up until today by the Taoiseach and members of the Cabinet. Labour Party members of the Cabinet had nothing to say for 15 months on this issue and only found their voice after the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, raised the issue last week - fair play to him - and stated the men concerned should be classed as distinguished, not disgusting. This was followed for four to five days by Labour Party Ministers appearing all over the media and stating it would be helpful if former Commissioner Callinan and the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, corrected the record of the Dáil.

However, since Monday, we have been back to the same old, same old - the silence of the lambs, from whom there has not been a whisper.

The Minister's head over heels about-turn in the Dáil today is welcome, but we cannot have confidence in a Minister who handled this issue in the way he handled it in the past 15 months. He should do the decent thing and follow ex-Commissioner Callinan. Last July there was an opportunity to deal decisively with the issue and put accountability and oversight of An Garda Síochána on a proper footing through the Garda Síochána (Amendment) Bill 2013 which was introduced by Deputy Mick Wallace with the support of the Technical Group. It called for the establishment of the Garda Síochána independent board, with monitoring, supervisory and oversight functions, over An Garda Síochána. This would be an important step in strengthening the democratic accountability of An Garda Síochána, which is necessary to promote public confidence and trust in the force. It also called for the independence and impartiality of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to be strengthened by amending the Garda Síochána Act 2005. It was a very important Bill which was dismissed from the Government benches, but we are now in a situation where the Government is calling for an independent policing board.

I will repeat a point I have made in the Dáil a number of times. By international standards, we do not have a corrupt Garda force. Those of us who have raised and pursued these issues do so on the basis that all State agencies have to be fully accountable to best serve the interests of the public and those who work in them. That is the reason this has been an important issue in the past few months.

I spoke to former garda John Wilson on Monday when he left hospital. I wish him well in his fight against his illness, as, I am sure, does everyone in the Chamber. He said that, at that point, any apology from former Commissioner Callinan or the Minister would correct the Dáil record but it would not be made in the true sense. Like thousands of others, he feels the Minister should go.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to note that the fixed charge notice and penalty points system has operated extremely well since its introduction in 2002 and enjoyed widespread public support. This is evidenced by the fact that more than 70% of those who receive a fixed charge notice pay within 28 days. The system plays a very important role in enhancing road safety, but it is essential that it be applied equally to everyone without favour to anyone and that it be applied equally to all road users and that is seen to be done.

My Department first became aware of the allegations of wrongdoing in the penalty points system in August 2012. The information provided by Sergeant McCabe was passed to the Department of Justice and Equality for investigation. As we are all aware, the allegations were investigated by Assistant Garda Commissioner O'Mahoney and his report was concluded in March 2013. In May last year the Minister for Justice and Equality referred the O'Mahoney report and another report conducted by the Garda Síochána professional standards unit to the Garda Inspectorate asking that the inspectorate carry out a full review. The inspectorate's report which we are debating today is entitled, The Fixed Charge Processing System - A 21st Century Strategy, and was brought to Cabinet two weeks ago on 12 March. The first recommendation made in the report is that a criminal justice working group be established to oversee and facilitate the implementation of the report's recommendations. The group which is jointly chaired by my Department and the Department of Justice and Equality held its second meeting yesterday. It will report progress on a regular basis to me and the Minister for Justice and Equality.

The penalty points system was introduced under the Road Traffic Act 2002. The main goal of the system is not to penalise people but rather to make them more aware of unsafe driving behaviour, to influence and improve driver behaviour and to reduce the numbers of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. With the acceptance of the system by the general road user community and its importance to road safety, it is imperative that a credible and properly administrated system is in place.

The year 2012 marked the tenth anniversary of the penalty points system and I decided this milestone provided an appropriate point at which to conduct a comprehensive review of the whole system and identify any change necessary. The review of the system which my Department conducted made recommendations for the introduction of new offences, changes to the number of penalty points and other matters. When it was completed, I forwarded its contents to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications for its consideration. The committee made a number of very helpful suggestions which are reflected in the new Road Traffic Act 2014 which was signed into law on 25 February. The offences where penalty points are being increased include speeding, driving while holding a mobile phone, dangerous overtaking, failure to obey traffic lights and driving without an NCT certificate. The new penalty points offences include non-display of an L plate or an N plate, contravention of rules at mini-roundabouts and a failure to respect a Stop sign. I pay tribute to rank and file gardaí up and down the country who properly implement the traffic laws in all weather conditions and at all times of the day and night. It is one of the tragedies of this whole affair that their good and continuing work and reputation have been sullied by the inappropriate behaviour of a few.

There is little point in improving or increasing the number of penalty points offences or enforcing the system if there is a lack of trust in how the system operates. Following recent revelations and the findings of the Garda Inspectorate, it is essential that any fault in the system is rectified and that we have a robust and credible system in place. This will be done.

The inspectorate's report makes 37 recommendations, some of which can be implemented now, while others will take a little time. The report was eloquent and found inconsistent and widespread breaches of policy by those charged with administering it and found no meaningful evidence of consistent quality management supervision, training and clear policy guidelines for its implementation. The report also found that there was no auditing of the cancellation process, either at Garda headquarters, regional, divisional or district level or at any level which would have identified these problems. That, of course, is a matter of concern for us all. The working group will ensure all of the recommendations made are implemented in the fastest possible timeframe. Many changes have been implemented since the O'Mahoney report was published. All of the key agencies involved are members of the group and they will work together to bring about improvements in the system and address the shortcomings highlighted in each of the studies conducted to date.

I am aware that gardaí have made considerable strides in putting in place measures identified in the inspectorate's report. These can and shall be acted on immediately. Work has also begun on recommendations that can be implemented in a matter of weeks and a plan of action has been agreed on those recommendations that require further consideration and, in one case or two cases, may require legislation. One measure referred to which I consider to be a very high priority is the so-called third payment option. A provision is included in the Road Traffic Act 2010 that allows someone served with a summons related to a fixed charge penalty points offence to pay the amount involved up to seven days before his or her scheduled court appearance. The introduction of this option will save a lot of court time, as well as Garda time. However, it has not yet been possible to commence it because the administrative structure for dealing with it is not yet in place. I understand gardaí have now agreed, in principle, to operate this system, but a number of administrative and technical matters have still to be resolved. When in place, the third payment option will bring about a significant improvement in the overall fixed charged notice system.

One of the major objectives of the new improved system must be to ensure penalty points are assigned in all cases where a traffic offence has been committed. A number of gaps in legislation have been identified and addressed in recent years. The definition of a driver's licence, for example, has been extended to include foreign licence holders. Drivers charged with an offence are now required to provide a copy of their licence for the court, but, unfortunately, in some cases, that does not appear to be happening. The Courts Service and the Garda are taking steps to ensure those persons who do not produce a licence are pursued and prosecuted. Some other matters remain to be dealt with and they will be addressed in the near future.

Chief Inspector Olson said in his report that the solution was entirely dependent on co-ordinated collaboration between the Department of Justice and Equality, the Garda, the Road Safety Authority, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, the Courts Service, An Post and various appointed contractors involved in the operation of the fixed charge processing system.

I fully agree with Chief Inspector Olson and am committed to ensuring that my Department engages actively with all parties to make sure the recommendations are implemented in full and with speed.

Finally, I would like to say something about the events of recent days and the whole issue of the possible unlawful taping of phone calls to and from Garda stations. Needless to say, this revelation came as quite a shock to the Government, but we acted quickly, if not immediately, by establishing a commission of inquiry. This is not a government that sweeps things under the carpet. That era is over, and if I have anything to do with it I will make sure that is the case. A series of controversies now surround the Garda, from bugging, tapes and collusion to penalty points, but the Government is now acting. The Cabinet decided there would be an open competition for the post of Garda Commissioner and that a new Garda authority would be established, providing better oversight of Garda operations. This is a very big change. The reforms will take time, but in the meantime I ask the public to continue to support and trust rank and file gardaí. They are the ones we meet across the counter, who walk the beat; they are the ones who work day and night, in all sorts of weather, and occasionally put their lives at risk. They are not to blame for any of this, in any way, and they deserve our continued support and trust.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. At the outset I must say that I bear the Minister no ill will on a personal basis or in a professional capacity. He is somebody whom I have observed over the years and I have considerable regard for his intellect, his work rate and many other attributes that he has displayed. Unfortunately, however, his handling of this particular issue on this occasion has been disturbing. It is deeply disturbing that we are here today and that the Minister has held out until now in issuing an apology to two people who, in the words of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, have done the State some service, and whose actions were "distinguished". I support the position of the Minister's colleague, Deputy Varadkar, in that regard. Even the Minister's apology today was less than wholesome. He said, in the context of the charge that was made that the whistleblowers did not co-operate, that he apologised to both and wished to "withdraw the statements made". He went on to say that it was never his intention "to cause any upset and, if any upset was caused..." but there was no need for that qualification. Upset was clearly caused in that case. At a later stage, the Minister went on to apologise for any offence that "may have been caused by any other remarks made by me". The Minister's use of the word "may" is something that I find difficult to accept, although the Minister is not unique in this regard. Some of his colleagues and some former Ministers from various parties, including my own, have sought to qualify apologies. It does no service to the Minister or to anyone else who seeks to find refuge in that kind of qualification. I am disappointed that the Minister chose to use that language. The Minister has accepted the evidence that has been presented that the whistleblowers acted in good faith, did not seek not to co-operate and would have co-operated with the O'Mahoney investigation had they been given an opportunity to do so and that, therefore, his statements were incorrect at the time.

However, there is still an outstanding matter here. While I know Deputy Wallace is well able to speak for himself, I find it quite unbelievable that, to date, the Minister has not apologised for his actions concerning that Deputy. In fact, if there is a resigning matter in all of this, it is the fact that the Minister used privileged information that was provided to him by the Garda Commissioner in a private briefing session to seek to gain some level of political advantage. To me, that is where the absolute wrong was committed by the Minister. In his failure to recognise the evidence and to apologise, it could be argued that the Minister was lethargic in coming to the conclusion that he got it wrong. He sought to get evidence to support the position he had taken at the outset and finally, when it was abundantly clear to him that he was wrong, he issued the apology. However, from the very start, somebody with the Minister's intellect and legal training, who understands the burden of the office he occupies, should clearly have known that to divulge any information provided to him in his capacity as Minister for Justice and Equality in order to gain political advantage was wrong. It was absolutely wrong. If the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources obtained information regarding an exploration or the potential for oil to be found in some part of the country and, as a result of that information, sought to buy shares in the company, he would be sacked immediately because he would have used privileged information available to him by virtue of his office to gain personal advantage. I do not see any difference between that action and the action the Minister for Justice and Equality took in terms of using the information that was provided to him. He did so to gain political advantage for himself, to make himself appear better than Deputy Wallace and to enable him to win an argument within the political sphere. The other action would have been financial, while the Minister's actions were political, and I do not see the difference.

I wish to quote from the Code of Conduct for Office Holders, of which the Minister, as an office holder, is well aware. It reads as follows:

In accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Acts, office holders shall, in so far as it is relevant, have regard to and be guided by the Code in the performance of

their functions and in relation to any other matters specified in the Code. This Code seeks to ensure that office holders must at all times observe, and be seen to observe, the highest standards of ethical behaviour in the carrying out of the functions of their office. Office holders are obliged to act in accordance with advice given and guidelines published by the Standards in Public Office Commission (Standards Commission) unless to do so would constitute a contravention of another provision of the Ethics Acts. Pursuant to Section 10(8) of the 2001 Act, codes of conduct will be admissible in proceedings before a Court or other tribunal or a Committee or the Standards Commission and any relevant provision may be taken into account in determining a matter.

Holders of public office have a duty to keep faith with the public trust placed in them by the manner in which they carry out their official responsibilities. This is a personal responsibility and requires them at all times to promote the common good, fairly and impartially, to conscientiously and prudently apply the resources of their office in furtherance of the public interest and to observe the highest ethical standards in the performance of their duties.

The Standards Commission has described ethical behaviour in the following terms

“A successful ethics regime is one which provides mechanisms whereby the sensitivities of political/public life can be handled, where competing interests can be reconciled and where individual legislators/executives can be guided in their difficult decisions by reference to the general principle that the public interest should always take precedence over the interests of the individual and, perhaps more importantly, over the interests of a political party whether in power or in opposition.”

We also have the farcical situation in which the Taoiseach has involved himself. He sidelined the Minister on Sunday. I do not claim to know what had the Taoiseach in Dublin or why he was minded to make contact with the Attorney General, but there is one thing I will give the Taoiseach credit for - he is politically astute. Whatever by-the-way remark was made by the Attorney General, when she indicated that there was some other issue of some relevance and that she could not talk about it over the phone, as he told us, if it was of such relevance, one would assume that she would have communicated it to Government previously. It seems to me that it was a by-the-way remark and the Taoiseach capitalised on it, from a political perspective, very quickly. He knew that if he had another issue, he had the Labour Party backed into a corner. The manoeuvring of the Taoiseach over the last two days was a classic case of political expediency, for which he may be caught out in the future. It has certainly backed the Labour Party into a corner, because the Taoiseach now has something on the Attorney General. It appears that she had been aware since last November of the information that is now of such serious import.

With the Attorney General and the Labour Party on the back foot, it protects the Minister because, as the biblical adage goes, it would be an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth - if the Minister went, the Attorney General would too. The Labour Party is once again joined at the hip with Fine Gael. In the fullness of time, the public will see the importance of the issue around the bugging of phones or the recordings made in Garda stations. However, it is not of such significant interest. Instead, it is being used to wrap another shield around the Minister.

There have a been a series of resignations on the Minister’s watch. He never really dealt with the resignation of the Garda confidential recipient. The chief executive officer of the Road Safety Authority, Noel Brett, has gone, exasperated with the Minister’s inability to provide an appropriate level of funding to the police force to carry out the kind of enforcement necessary to continue the reduction in road traffic fatalities. The Minister himself recognised earlier that there has been an increase in road deaths. John Wilson effectively took to the ditch and had to resign from the force. The Commissioner is now gone. Who next? Today on local radio, some of the Minister’s colleagues were prepared to push the blame on to the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality. It was he who failed, they argued, to bring the information to the Minister’s attention. The Minister also tried it with the Attorney General. The Minister puts all these people on the periphery while he continues to defend, protect and preserve his own personal interest over the interests of the Garda Síochána and the administration of justice in the State. The stability of the Government has been put at issue over the past several days to protect the Minister. It is bizarre.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The fixed charge processing and penalty points system have saved lives and are vital to our road safety. It is also vital, however, that citizens have full confidence in the systems. Will the Minister put on the record again not just the number of lives on our roads that have been saved but the massive reduction in traumatic road traffic injuries over the past several years because of the system?

What will happen next? It is quite possible that we will be back in the Chamber next week with Opposition Members demanding the Minister give more powers to the Garda to control crime. The difficulty for the Minister is striking the right balance between giving new powers to the Garda and dealing with its existing powers. Concerns have been raised about the weakness of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and whether it has the resources and legislative provisions to do its job properly. I am glad the Minister said he would deal with this issue swiftly.

There is no organisation in this country that is without its rotten apples. The Garda is no different. While we will never eradicate this problem, we must ensure we minimise it as best we can to reduce the harm that a few bad apples can do to this fine organisation. In all of my professional dealings with the Garda, I find it an extremely dedicated organisation not just in fighting crime but in dealing with child protection issues and domestic violence. I find the empathy of individual gardaí incredible, along with their commitment to their job, when one considers that dealing with such issues can lead to burnout.

Earlier, Deputy McGuinness claimed that the culture of the force caused the events we have been discussing today and over the past several weeks, as well as the condemnation of the two whistleblowers. It is a culture that has existed for longer than the three years of this Government’s tenure. In fact, it existed during the 15-year tenure in government of Deputy McGuinness’s party, when it talked about looking after whistleblower legislation but did nothing. It actually butchered the freedom of information legislation when it was in power, contributing more to that culture of secrecy and of what others describe as putting loyalty above the truth. I am glad that tonight we are starting this journey of making a difference in how our Garda Síochána will be run.

It is important that a strong Garda supervisory authority is formed which balances the rights of citizens with the operation of the Garda, and that gardaí feel comfortable in doing their job. However, it is not a simple sort of authority that can be drawn up overnight. What we can do in the short term is to give the extra resources and additional legislative support that GSOC needs. The time people are waiting for cases to be dealt with at GSOC is lengthening. It is important, so as to maintain the trust and confidence in the Garda Síochána, that those who guard the guards have the resources they need to do their job properly. I would have expected there to be more support for and discussion as to what is actually needed for GSOC. There is a need to restore people’s confidence in what is happening in the Garda Síochána.

Many members of the Garda Síochána feel battered and bruised by what has happened over the past several months. They feel their organisation, of which they are very proud, has taken a hammering, along with the people’s confidence in it and how it is perceived. Confidence in and the perception of the force must be restored forthwith. Will the Minister swiftly bring forward urgent legislation to strengthen GSOC’s resources to allow it get on with its job? Will he also bring forward his proposals for a Garda authority so it can be debated in the House and begin the process of restoring the people’s confidence in the Garda Síochána?

There is a massive need for a cultural change within the Garda Síochána. To some degree it has been protected from cultural change because of the strains it faces in fighting crime. For many years, the force fought the significant threat to the stability of the State from the IRA at the height of its activities. Over the past several years, it has taken the brunt of the fight against organised crime and a drug culture which, to some degree, has taken hold in our society. Gardaí have been battling these with reduced resources. One can see why bad practices slip in, whereby some individuals with low morals in how they carry out their jobs get away with such practices. There is a need for us to take on that culture and make it change. The majority of gardaí are completely committed and dedicated to their jobs and would be very much behind what we are calling for tonight.

I always expect these political charges and the toing and froing along with the distortions of what actually happened. That is what we do in this Chamber. However, if people delve down into what is actually happening, they will see the need for change in how the Garda works, as well as how we strike the balance between letting gardaí do their job and examining how they do it.

The penalty points system requires a significant review. I am glad the Minister has taken on board some changes as to how it will work. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is correct that it needs to be examined and changed.

I want to put on the record a matter concerning myself, in case it is brought up at a later point and it is claimed that I never referred to it.

This day last week, I myself was in court in regard to a fixed penalty points notice. It was a strange situation as I had no recollection of receiving a notice in regard to the fixed notice penalty points. I went into the court and explained that to the judge and he took on board what I said and the charge was struck out. Neither the fine nor the two penalty points that would have applied had I received the letter were imposed. I find it unusual that this sort of thing can happen and that people may not receive the correspondence. Something must be done in this regard so that if people must go to court, they will at least receive the two penalty points and the fine they should pay. This and other changes must come into play when it comes to doing a full review of the penalty points system.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is trua nach bhfuil an tAire Shatter anseo mar is chuige atá an díospóireacht seo dírithe. Tagann an leithscéal a ghabh sé níos luaithe sé mhí ró-dheireanach. Glacaim leis go bhfuil brón ar an Aire agus go nglacann sé leis go bhfuil sé ag gabháil leithscéil leis an mbeirt garda ar chaitheadh smál orthu toisc an méid atá ráite fúthu thar roinnt míonna. Ach tá an damáiste déanta. Tá damáiste déanta dá clú agus dá cáil agus do shláinte duine amháin acu. Theip ar a shláinte de thairbhe an bhrú mór faoina raibh sé le tamall de bhlianta anuas, na sé mhí dheireanacha ach go háirithe.

Measaim nár ghabh an tAire ach leath leithscéal agus go bhfuil gá le gníomh de réir an leithscéil atá eisithe aige. Cúig bliana ó shin is ea a thosaigh an tromluí don bheirt garda a dhein iarracht chróga droch-chleachtas nó caimiléireacht laistigh de chóras na bpointí pionóis a nochtadh. Ar dtús, dhein siad iarracht é seo a dhéanamh go hinmheánach, laistigh de struchtúr an Gharda Síochána, ach nuair a theip ar sin, chuaigh siad lasmuigh den struchtúr sin. De réir an dlí, chuaigh siad chuig an confidential recipient, Oliver Connolly. Nuair a theip ar sin agus nuair a rinneadh bagairt orthu go gcasfadh an tAire Shatter orthu dá leanfaidís lena líomhaintí, chas siad - bhí an ceart sin acu - ar thacaíocht a lorg ó Theachtaí Dála chun iarracht a dhéanamh an cheist maidir leis an gcóras a ardú.

Measaim go nglacann gach duine leis nach raibh na gardaí seo ach ionraic ó thús agus nach raibh i gceist acu ach córas, maith, ceart a bheith ann. Ní raibh siad ag iarraidh an Gharda Síochána a bhriseadh, an Coimisinéir Martin Callinan a bhriseadh as a phost nó fiú an tAire Shatter a bhriseadh as a phost. Ní sin a bhí i gceist acu. Is é a bhí i gceist ná a léiriú go hinmheánach go raibh fadhb ann agus gur cóir go ndéileálfadh an córas le sin. Táimid imithe beagán den bhealach le sin a dhéanamh inniu agus beagán eile ó thosaigh na tuairiscí ag teacht amach go raibh rud éigin mícheart leis an gcóras.

Today, the Minister gave a belated apology, but it should not have taken this long for him to admit the two men were right from the start or that former garda John Wilson and Sergeant Maurice McCabe were, in fact, courageous men. For two men within an organisation renowned for its collegiality and its closing of ranks when under attack to try to expose within the organisation of An Garda Síochána that there was a problem with the penalty points system was courageous. For them to continue having been rebuked was courageous. Instead of undermining them, dismissing them or attacking their characters, as happened in recent months, both by the former Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan, and the Minister, Deputy Shatter, they should have been praised from the start.

They were whistleblowers who should have been put up as an example to others, because through their actions they have managed to expose major flaws within the system. They have managed to expose malpractice and corruption within the penalty points system. However, their reward from within An Garda Síochána is a living disgrace. I do not know whether everybody has seen the harrowing account on television recently by former garda John Wilson. Even at this late stage, those who have not watched it should watch it and see how this man's health was broken by the controversy and as a result of how he and his colleague, Maurice McCabe, were treated. In his account he told how he was victimised and harassed within An Garda Síochána. A dead rat was hung from his door, he was arrested in public and was ostracised and sent on fool's errands around the county. His health broke because of this and he believes he has suffered a severe consequence as a result.

Nobody can say these were not courageous men. This should not have happened to them, but it did and as yet I have not heard anybody say that what happened to them was wrong. As far as I am aware, sanctions imposed against Sergeant Maurice McCabe within An Garda Síochána have not been lifted to date. They should be lifted forthwith. There should be recognition within An Garda Síochána that what happened was wrong and that the sanctions should never have been imposed on somebody who had the interests of An Garda Síochána and the penalty points system at heart from day one. If we had other courageous men and women like these two men in other organisations to highlight wrongdoing within those organisations, we would have a better society. These two men stood out, not only against An Garda Síochána and all its members, but also against the Department of Justice and Equality and the Minister because they believed they were right. They have been vindicated as having been right, but that vindication has not been fully validated by the Minister.

One of the big questions I have in regard to all of this concerns how Assistant Commissioner O'Mahoney got it so wrong, particularly when we consider the Comptroller and Auditor General's initial account and the subsequent account following the O'Mahoney report, the report of the Garda Inspectorate. These exposed major failings. They state there were consistent and widespread breaches of policy by those charged with administering the penalty points system. This totally contradicts the O'Mahoney report. The Garda Inspectorate report also stated that the accumulation of fixes over the years resulted in a technically deficient managerially uncoordinated and inefficient support system.

The Garda Inspectorate report made major recommendations and, thankfully, some of those are being acted on already. I acknowledge the Minister's hand in that and acknowledge his role and that of the Minister for Transport, Deputy Varadkar, in recognising the system needed to be changed. However, this could have happened five years ago. If these men were listened to five years ago, we would be in a far better place at this stage and their health might not have been affected.

What are the consequences for the assistant commissioner for such a shoddy piece of work? Does the Minister back the report of the assistant commissioner now? We are led to believe there is a new era of transparency and that the era of the nod and the wink and the backhanders is gone.

I have heard the Minister saying that the Garda Síochána needs to be beyond reproach, but that has not been the case here. In the Minister's summing up and question and answer session he should have the courage not just to apologise but to admit that he was wrong in his approach to these men from day one. He should admit that there have been consequences for their lives and, in one case at least, for their health and that he will do his damnedest to make his mistakes right. I see the Minister nodding his head. If he is unwilling to take those steps-----

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not nodding my head regarding anything Deputy Ó Snodaigh said. As he was speaking I read something and nodded my head.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hopefully, the Minister will acknowledge that the men have suffered consequences beyond the one line uttered by the Minister, because he was not willing to back them in full. Hopefully, the Minister will take whatever steps are required to make right the abuse, harassment, victimisation and ostracisation of both men in their work. One of them had to leave work because of it and is out of a job. I urge the Minister to consider that consequence.

Anne Ferris (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The backbone of a democratic state is a sense of trust between its citizens and its police force. Without that level of trust, a police force has no moral power and the citizen is no longer adequately protected by the State. In Ireland that sense of trust between citizen and police ran so deep for so long that our Garda Síochána has been able to retain its rare status of being one of the last unarmed police forces in the world. That trust is a precious aspect of Irish society and it behoves every Member of this House as democratic representatives of Irish citizens to do whatever is necessary to protect for the people of Ireland and the integrity of the Garda Síochána. We owe that to the people and to the members of the Garda force.

On 19 February I stated in this House that it was no longer appropriate for the Garda Commissioner to report to the Minister for Justice and Equality, if it ever had been. It sometimes takes a little while in Dáil Éireann for a good idea to gain currency but I am pleased that out of this whole sorry mess there is at least one seed of hope. Yesterday's decision by the Cabinet to establish a new policing authority is good news. It will be important for the new authority to have the right balance of international policing skills with community and democratic representation. We can learn much from other police jurisdictions about this. I would welcome a reciprocal presence of at least one shared board member who sits on policing authorities both North and South of the Border.

In my role on the justice committee I look forward to developing further, within the review of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, concepts such as the policing authority and the strengthened role of GSOC. However, as well as the complex and strategic organisational change that is ahead we need to consider the proper resourcing of the force. The substantial financial revenue that will be recovered by fixing the flaws in the penalty points system should be initially reinvested in the resourcing of the Garda to create a modern policing system that is fit for purpose.

On appointment to the Garda Síochána, each member swears an oath. Most of the 13,000 serving gardaí and the majority of the thousands of retired gardaí made their oaths in good faith and have conducted their working lives in accordance with that pledge. Given all that has happened over the past few weeks, it is worth reminding the House of the words of the Garda solemn declaration as sworn by every new garda: "I will faithfully discharge the duties ... with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and impartiality, upholding the Constitution and the laws and according equal respect to all people."

Does this oath that swears regard for human rights give scope to a member of the force to retain the details of an innocent two-year-old Traveller child on its criminal surveillance data recording system? It most certainly does not. Does the Garda oath that swears fairness, integrity, legal compliance and upholding of the Constitution give scope to a member of the force to illegally and secretly tape-record privileged, confidential client-solicitor conversations? Of course it does not. Does the oath to uphold integrity and fairness leave scope for the rampant abuse of the fixed charge processing system in the manner described by the report of the Garda Inspectorate? Any Garda I know would answer "no" to all of those questions.

We need to get back to a place where the Garda oath is respected by those at the top of the tree as highly as it is regarded by those at the bottom. It is not enough for our gardaí individually to know the difference between right and wrong, yet maintain silence in the face of an injustice committed by a colleague. We need a Garda culture that applauds and welcomes those members of the force who put their hands up to highlight wrongdoing. That is the real challenge for the next Garda Commissioner.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend the Garda Inspectorate on its report. It has done the State a considerable service in producing a very detailed report with a long list of recommendations. I thank and commend the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on having commissioned that report. In an attempt to politicise this debate it has been overlooked that the Minister, Deputy Shatter commissioned the report at a time when much less controversy surrounded this issue. The report completely vindicates the whistleblowers and the role they played, saying but for the amount of public scrutiny that was on the fixed points penalty system none of this would have arisen. That public scrutiny arose out of the fact that those whistleblowers did what they did. They did what they did because they felt no other option was open to them. It is very important that this House, this system of government and this Government vindicates whistleblowers. I have every confidence that the Government and Legislature will do so in the form of legislation which has already passed Second Stage in this House, to the debate on which many of us had the opportunity to contribute.

The report of the Garda Inspectorate vindicated to an extent the role of whistleblowers, particularly stating that this issue would not have been examined but for the public controversy and scrutiny which arose. I am not surprised and am very glad to note that the Minister, Deputy Shatter today put on the record of the House a clarification on the role of whistleblowers, and the two whistleblowers in particular. I greatly welcome that. One of the main recommendations of the Garda Inspectorate was that the Department of Justice and Equality immediately convene a chair of a criminal justice working group comprising the Department of Justice and Equality, the Courts Service, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, the Garda Síochána and the Road Safety Authority to oversee and facilitate the implementation of the recommendations in this report. It is key that all those recommendations be implemented to ensure public confidence is restored in the fixed point penalty system.

Like all issues, the story has moved on somewhat, and very quickly, since this report was published to yesterday's Government statement that a statutory commission of investigation is being established to examine the surveillance of telephone calls in and out of Garda stations. That came as a major shock to many people in this country, perhaps especially to members of the legal community, many of whom were on television last night, who would have been making and receiving telephone calls to and from those Garda stations. It is in the public domain that Ennis Garda station was among many stations which were the subject of an eTenders notice in 2007 for the provision of surveillance equipment.

It is a complete shock to know that surveillance equipment was used to monitor telephone calls in and out of the Garda station. Clearly, the expenditure of public funds was authorised for the provision of that surveillance system in 2007, and among the issues to be examined by the commission of investigation is who cleared the expenditure, who knew the expenditure would be taken by the State and, most importantly, who knew what the surveillance equipment would be used for.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next slot is to be shared by Deputies Pringle and Finian McGrath.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this evening's debate on the Garda Inspectorate report. The Minister finally, belatedly, gave a conditional apology today for impugning the integrity of two fine Garda officers. He stated: "If any upset was caused I hope that correcting the record today will put the matter to rest", and continued by stating "I apologise for any offence that may have been caused". This apology does not have much meaning, as the Minister was backed into a corner before he would apologise, and the act was in no way sincere. The Labour Party trumpets itself as the watchdog of the Government, but it took a Fine Gael Minister to call on the Minister for Justice and Equality and former Garda Commissioner Callinan to retract statements which sparked the series of events that have led to this.

Was that the case? It now appears obvious that the revelations about the bugging of Garda stations are what forced the Garda Commissioner's resignation. I wonder, if the imminent disclosure of the transcripts of bugged phone calls through discovery in the courts was not happening, whether we would even be hearing about this issue. The Minister's position is untenable because of his dealings with the whistleblowers - notwithstanding the conditional apology - as well as his undermining of GSOC, his use of confidential information against Deputy Wallace and now the taped phone calls at Garda stations. These indicate that the Minister is not the person to lead the Department.

The whistleblowers have been vindicated by the report of the inspectorate and not the Minister's statement. Because of this report they are now beyond reproach, if there was anyone, bar the Minister and the former Garda Commissioner, who did not believe them. Garda John Wilson and Sergeant Maurice McCabe made accurate claims regarding grave wrongdoings in the fixed charge processing system. Not only that, but they went through the proper channels, contrary to what the Minister stated in the Dáil at the time when he argued that the whistleblowers did not co-operate with an internal Garda inquiry on penalty point cancellations.

The inspectorate report states: "The inspectorate was told by senior Garda staff, that but for the public scrutiny, the extent of the deficiencies within the fixed charge processing system would not have been detected." That is not down to anything done by the Minister about these allegations but rather to the proper work carried out by the Garda whistleblowers. It is now up to the criminal justice working group, made up of all the fixed charge penalty points system stakeholders, to oversee and facilitate the implementation of the recommendations in the report. Judging by its content, there is much work to be done to rectify the shambles that is the fixed charge penalty system.

It turns out that Letterkenny Garda station in Donegal was one of 27 stations for which gardaí in 2007 sought a system to automatically record telephone calls and radio traffic. Will we now see convictions being overturned because of the illegal operation of the system in Donegal and other parts of the country? We can consider that the Morris tribunal into the activities of some gardaí in Donegal heard evidence that gardaí had bugged the station to listen to the conversations of detainees and people who were wrongly arrested. These activities were known for a long time. I remember at the time of the Morris tribunal that the only concern in official circles was to ensure that it was emphasised that this was a Donegal problem and existed nowhere else in the country. That was a lost opportunity for real and meaningful change in the Garda Síochána.

Reform from the top down is required to boost the morale of the force. An independent Garda authority would go some way towards introducing accountability, but the future appointment of commissioners must be examined as part of an overall reform. We know there is so much more to this, and overall reform is required with increased transparency and accountability. There are still many questions that need to be answered. I do not believe this is the Minister to guide the needed reforms through, and by his actions he has shown he is not fit to carry them out. I recognise the fantastic job that the vast majority of gardaí do on a daily basis in these hard times, but we also know that much change is needed now, on a much wider scale than we could have ever imagined, so that the force can do the job it was supposed to be doing all along. Those many gardaí working conscientiously to deliver effective policing deserve proper reform of the organisation. They need that new start now and they deserve the chance for it to happen under new leadership.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the Garda Inspectorate report on the fixed charge penalty processing system. Before getting to the detail of the report, I should say I have had major concerns in recent days about the general management and running of our justice system, which has been severely damaged and undermined, with a lack of trust in the system now emerging. This problem must be fixed now and we must start at the very top. Trust and confidence are major issues, and if the people do not have trust and confidence in a line Minister, he must go. Only then can we begin reform and change the action plan. The process must start at the top. The Garda Commissioner has gone but the Minister must also go. This is not a personal issue but it concerns the management and supervision of our justice system. I remind the Minister that this debate concerns the holding of a Minister to account, public service and leadership.

I use this opportunity to commend and thank our two great whistleblowers, Garda John Wilson and Sergeant Maurice McCabe, who have done this State a great service.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I challenge the Minister on his argument that some Opposition Deputies are anti-Garda or at least do not praise the Garda. The Minister is wrong. Many of us have brothers or other relations and friends serving in the Garda. These good people have never used politics or politicians to climb the greasy pole of promotion and have just done their job to the best of their ability. These people should also be remembered tonight, because they have taken the hit when all they wanted to do was serve the public. I will not take any lectures from the Minister on this matter, as these people want honesty, trust and professional policing.

The objective of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate is to ensure that the resources available to the Garda Síochána are used to achieve and maintain the highest levels of efficiency and effectiveness in its operation and administration, as measured by reference to the best standards of comparable police services. That comes from section 117 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, and we all agree on that principle.

We should remember another group that has been ignored in the debate - that is, the silent majority who complied with the law, took penalty points and paid fines before getting on with their daily lives.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have been let down, and it is important that we acknowledge that. The Minister indicated that in 2011 there were 514,959 fixed charge notices issued and, of these, 22,781 were cancelled. In 2012, there were 449,403 notices issued, with 21,960 cancelled. He also spoke about discretionary powers.

There should be discretionary powers to deal with emergencies and crises in people's daily lives but not for the friends and pals of politicians or senior gardaí. I will raise and fight that issue.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said there was no evidence of corruption. When people get away with this kind of thing, it is corruption.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said, "No individual should receive preferential treatment because of his or her perceived status, relationship or celebrity." Sadly, however, it has happened. I await the findings of the report.

I acknowledge and commend the Minister for apologising to the whistleblowers today. Many of us were rightly critical of the delay in doing so. We all want a Garda force that is effective, honest and has the trust of citizens.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I pay tribute to the former Garda Commissioner, Mr. Martin Callinan, for his 41 years of service to the community and the State in fighting crime and serious criminals. I wish him and his family the best.

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, stated:

...any use of Garda discretion to effect the termination of fixed charge notices must be applied in a fair, impartial and transparent manner and on 15 May 2013, I published seven crucial applicable principles to ensure this. They are as follows: 1. There must be no question mark hanging over the integrity of the fixed charge notice system and in the application of penalty points; 2. No individual should receive preferential treatment because of his or her perceived status, relationship or celebrity; 3. The law and any discretionary application of it to individuals must be administered fairly and with compassion and common sense; 4. No member of the Garda should feel compelled by a person's position, relationship or celebrity status to treat that person any more or less favourably than any other person; 5. There must be proper oversight and transparency to the discretionary decision making process and the applicable rules and procedures must be fully complied with; 6. All statutory provisions, regulations, rules, protocols and procedures applicable to the termination of fixed charge notices must be readily accessible to all members of the Garda and the circumstances, factors and procedures applicable to the termination of fixed charge notices should be detailed clearly on the Garda website for the information of members of the public; and, 7. Where application is made to terminate a fixed ticket charge, where possible and appropriate, material to support any application made should be sought while understanding in some circumstances no such material may exist or be obtainable. These principles were applied by the Garda Inspectorate ... it is unacceptable for any member of An Garda Síochána to use his or her discretion in regard to the cancellation of fixed charge notices or penalty points other than in a fair and impartial manner in accordance with the criteria which apply.

...in highlighting problems and helping to bring about real change. The most serious allegations specifically made relating to the fixed charge processing system and penalty points related to what were described as: shocking criminality by several Garda officers; serious fraud and corruption within An Garda Síochána; perversion of the course of justice by members of An Garda Síochána; Garda inspectors and superintendents perverting the course of justice on a massive scale; at least seven road fatalities resulting from the termination of fixed charge notices; hundreds of official Garda PULSE records altered and destroyed; and an allegation that the Garda had no discretionary power whatsoever to cancel notices.

To review and make recommendations on the use by An Garda Síochána of the resources available to it, with the objective of achieving and maintaining the highest levels of efficiency and effectiveness in its operation and administration.

The review shall encompass all aspects of the operation and administration of An Garda Síochána, including–- the structure, organisation and staffing of An Garda Síochána;

- the deployment of members and civilian staff to relevant and appropriate roles;

- the remuneration and conditions of service of members of An Garda Síochána, including an evaluation of annualised hours/shift pay arrangements;

- the appropriate structures and mechanism for the future resolution of matters relating to pay, industrial relations and attendance matters.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I come from a family that is very proud of the integrity, professionalism and dedication of gardaí. My grandfather, James Fehilly, was a member of the IRA who fought for the freedom of this country and was one of the first gardaí to take up duty. He served in Ballina and Cahir and retired in Rush, County Dublin. As I grew up in Boyle I was always confident of the professionalism, dedication and integrity of gardaí who defended the State in difficult times. I am not a politician who takes potshots at the professionalism of gardaí in doing their difficult duty. I wish Mr. Martin Callinan and his former officers well now and in the future. They have served the State.

Penalty points were introduced in 2005 and have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The Minister said, “There must be no question mark hanging over the integrity of the fixed charge notice system...” Gardaí should have impartiality to pursue the matter of penalty points in a transparent manner, but what happened in the system was wrong. I have four penalty points. I had six. This time next year I hope to be down to two and in 2016, before the next general election, I hope to be canvassing with none. Two points is two too many. I probably drove too fast and I took the charge. Nobody should be able to escape penalty points. That is only fair. I was given two, if not four, of my penalty points on the Lucan Road. I was driving to Leinster House at 6 p.m. for a vote. The speed limit goes from 80 kph to 60 kph before coming to the M50, which I think is unfair, and I was pulled in by gardaí. I gave them my name and was given two points. I could have said I was on the way to vote in the Dáil. I cannot understand why that law still applies because, unlike my constituency colleague who was not travelling to Leinster House but driving around Roscommon, I think it is wrong. However, he decided he was above the law and that it did not apply to him because he was a Deputy and well known. That is wrong. He said it was corrupt, yet he is one of the Independent Deputies who highlighted the issue. He should not lecture Deputies on how to conduct their business because, in his own words, he was corrupt. He got off and was not given four penalty points. That is wrong.

In 2005, 396 lives were lost on the roads. In 2012, 162 lives were lost. Unfortunately, that number rose to 190 last year, but I understand the number will be lower this year. However, many thousands of lives have been saved, which is welcome.

What is the Minister's view of the comments by the Data Protection Commissioner on the obligations of An Garda Síochána to protect the privacy of people's personal information held in the penalty points system? This is a serious question which needs to be addressed. It is not always a case of black and white. This is a grey area.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any time I listen to a debate about the security forces I am acutely aware of the shortcomings that are outlined but, having served in the security forces, I find it stomach-churning to hear issues debated with a lack of understanding, often by people who are less than role models themselves. I am also conscious of the lack of resources across the spectrum and the fact that, as we speak, gardaí and members of the Defence Forces are working in difficult situations and putting their lives on the line at home and abroad. It is important to acknowledge that the security forces have the full backing of this House. They should not be used as a political football.

I was not going to allude to penalty points but I changed my mind after listening to Deputy Feighan, who has nearly as many penalty points as the Roscommon county football team. We recall receiving penalty points, which are always accrued because we did 31 mph in a 30 mph zone, but we never reflect on the many penalty points we did not get even though we were speeding or breaking lights. That is an inherent characteristic of Irish society, and the Members of this House are representative of Irish society. Members of this House include good, decent and hard-working people but also some rogues. It is important to realise that we are not all angels.

I am a strong believer in allowing gardaí to exercise discretion, provided it is done in a fair and practical manner. With respect to the issues that have caused controversy in recent months, Chief Inspector Olson produced a thorough report which contained a large number of recommendations. This is welcome, but how many reports have we received with recommendations that were implemented on an ad hoc basis? It is important that the Minister provide the necessary funding to implement the inspector's recommendations.

The Minister, Deputy Shatter, has been a lightening rod over the past several weeks. I do not wish to patronise him, because he does not take kindly to being patronised, but it is widely acknowledged that he is a very hard-working and reforming Minister who takes a strong interest in his portfolio. However, viewed from the outside, great effort and time appear to be spent on image, spin and producing legislation - the Minister, Deputy Shatter, is probably one of the Ministers who are least vulnerable to this accusation - and not enough attention is given to managing Departments and ensuring legislation is implemented correctly. Perhaps Ministers should concentrate on their jobs rather than running up and down the country to announce ten jobs in a burger joint or 200 jobs in a high-tech industry. I am not here to attack the media, but they put the political establishment and the Government under pressure to project a good image. The best image a Taoiseach, a Minister or anyone else can project is to do the job he or she is elected to do.

The Garda Commissioner was correct to resign because he was going to be made into a scapegoat in the coming weeks. His initial assessment was incorrect, as was the Minister's, but I am glad the Minister has chosen to apologise. I welcome the intervention by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, who I am sure is getting flack from his Cabinet colleagues. That direct, fresh-air approach is needed and it should not be used as a battering ram to attack other Ministers. It should give rise to a more open and transparent system.

If the Taoiseach instructed Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality on Monday to approach the Garda Commissioner regarding the issue of taped conversations, why did he not give the letter to the Minister until the middle of the following day? Why was the Minister out of the loop? Can a case be made for ministerial responsibility? Whether it is due to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste or media pressure, Ministers getting involved in areas outside their responsibility causes difficulties and confusion, with the result that people lose sight of what is required from them.

It is important that Garda personnel be rotated to other tasks, particularly in respect of the drugs squad. Across the globe, drugs squads have been shown to be vulnerable to corruption. I ask the Minister to consider rotating staff between all areas of the Defence Forces and the Garda.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on the report of the Garda Inspectorate. Some of the matters that have come to light in recent days are scarcely believable and point to potentially serious defects in the administration of justice in this State. I hope the new commission of investigation will cast a light on the performance of all Ministers for Justice over the past three decades. It is unfortunate that the group of "others" - the fourth group in the Dáil - did not get an opportunity to comment on recent matters, because the shocking reports given to the Dáil earlier today by the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Shatter, raise serious questions about the Minister and the Attorney General. The Minister failed to deal adequately or swiftly with issues brought to his attention by Garda whistleblowers, and it now seems he is not keeping abreast of issues raised with his Department pertaining to the recording of incoming and outgoing calls to Garda stations.

I have always been a strong supporter of the proposal to establish an independent Garda authority. It was the policy of my former party, the Labour Party, for several decades, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, prepared a very fine paper on the subject while he was in Opposition. I hope the proposals in that paper will form the nucleus of the new independent Garda authority.

I welcome the report by the chief inspector of Garda Inspectorate, Mr. Bob Olson, as significant in its own right and I have studied it carefully. For the past four or five years I have been raising the issue of the enforcement of road traffic laws and fixed charge notices. I salute the courage and determination of Sergeant Maurice McCabe and Garda John Wilson and commend them on their service to the Irish nation. The Garda Inspectorate report vindicates both men and the information they presented about anomalies in the penalty points system. I welcome the Minister's correction of the record of the House this afternoon and his comments in relation to the whistleblowers' conduct. I also commend my Dáil colleagues Deputies Mick Wallace and Clare Daly on their work in this area. I welcome the Garda Inspectorate's recommendations on the establishment of a criminal justice working group, the updating of the fixed charge penalty system manual, the need to improve the notepad tracking system and the need to investigate the issue of penalty points offences committed in company cars or hired cars.

The report deals with the 5% of penalty points notices that were removed. The other side of the coin, as the Minister will be aware, is the failure of the courts system to impose points and the Judiciary's flagrant disregard for laws that were passed by this House. A recent judgment by Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan in the High Court has confirmed that section 55 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 precludes District Court judges from allowing offenders to make donations to the court poor box to avoid incurring penalty points for certain road traffic offences, but this practice continues. There was an incident recently in which a well-known business person involved in a charity avoided a conviction by paying €250 to the court poor box.

Section 55 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 clearly states: "Section 1(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 does not apply to a penalty point offence (within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act of 2002)." The Minister has informed me in replies to parliamentary questions that 1,255 defendants in 2012 and 1,754 defendants in 2013 avoided penalty points convictions in court by making donations to the poor box. That is an appalling lacuna. The Minister has stated his intention to reform the law relating to the use of the court poor box with the criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill. However, in the meantime, I urge him to ensure that there is full and proper enforcement of section 55, which was enacted by a commencement order signed by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, on 1 June 2011. This is particularly pertinent because of Mr. Justice Hogan's judgment in the case of Kennedy v. Gibbons, [2014] IEHC 67. Significantly, Mr. Justice Hogan ruled in that case that the cumulative effects of section 55 and other provisions of the Road Traffic Act on penalty points offences were such as "to override the District Court's power at common law to accept a donation to the poor box in lieu of proceeding to a formal conviction in the case of those road traffic offences which attract the application of penalty points on a mandatory basis." Mr. Justice Hogan's judgment categorically places central importance on section 55 of the 2010 Act. I strongly urge the Ministers, Deputies Shatter and Varadkar, to consult An Garda Síochána and the Courts Service, including by ensuring that a specific direction is sent to the President of the District Court, so that all parties are aware of the judgment and its implications, thereby ensuring that persons charged with road traffic offences attracting penalty points cannot avoid conviction by making donations to the court poor box. This issue is just one strand of the overall fixed charge system, but it is significant and has been largely ignored. The Minister has an opportunity here to remove that significant anomaly on that side of the penalty points issue.

I note that the Minister has prepared a detailed action plan on the inspectorate report and I look forward to the implementation of that report.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Nolan is sharing with Deputy Ciara Conway.

Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I begin my substantive contribution, I want to acknowledge the role played by the former Commissioner, Deputy Callinan, over his distinguished 41-year career. It did not end in the best of light, but we should not define the man, nor his record of service, by one event, one month or one year in his tenure. He certainly did much good work for the State in his role as Garda Commissioner. In my exchanges with him over the brief period I have been in this House, through the Committee of Public Accounts, I found him in other areas, apart from the penalty points, to be diligent in his work. I acknowledge and commend him on that.

I welcome the publication of and the debate on the Garda Síochána Inspectorate report. I acknowledge and commend the Minister for Justice and Equality on his commissioning of that report, which is a point that is often missed. I also acknowledge the large role played by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, and his team in doing much of the underlying analysis and work which form the basis upon which the report was prepared. In fact, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which has been debated at the Committee of Public Accounts and will be the subject of a report that the committee is preparing, is one of extraordinary clarity, detail and good work, and is a real example of the public service and the organs of State doing their job extremely well.

However, it must be pointed out that both the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and the Garda Inspectorate report are much more damning and harsh with regard to the actions of the Garda than the report that was prepared by the assistant commissioner, Mr. O'Mahoney. That contradiction between the internal report and the external reports points to something worthy of note: that the internal investigation was definitely not as meaningful or, perhaps, as thorough or damning as it ought to have been.

For the Garda Síochána, this has been a particularly damaging time. Its reputation has been tarnished and its trust has been damaged by endless headlines, allegations, reports and perceptions, be they with regard to GSOC, whistleblowers, penalty points or, now, the taping of conversations in Garda stations. It is reported or suggested that perhaps Mill Street Garda Station in Galway could have been one of the stations involved.

When I spoke to the former Garda Commissioner, Mr. Callinan, on the penalty points issue at the Committee of Public Accounts, I tried to ask him what would constitute corruption in his view, because the assistant commissioner's report stated that there was no criminality or corruption, and we had a rather long interchange without any satisfactory answer being given. I still find it difficult to accept that there was no corruption in a system which was clearly abused for the gain of others and that we have been unable to find a way of showing that. I understand that this has been referred to GSOC to look into and it may probe it to a greater extent, and, in fact, that three members of the force have been disciplined on the basis of the O'Mahoney report, but this is something that was so widespread, according to the report, that there must have been more to it.

I welcome Monday's announcement of the establishment of a Garda authority. This provides a strong future for the Garda. It is something that was in the Labour Party manifesto and I am glad that it has now worked its way in, through Cabinet, as a Government decision. When up and running, it will allow for a properly functioning, transparent, public-oriented and publicly accountable Garda. I am sure the Minister is completely committed to seeing that through.

I will have to put on the record - because if I do not I will be neglecting my duty to my constituents - that there is a great deal of controversy, worry and angst with regard to the administration of justice, the Garda and, in fairness, Deputy Shatter, as Minister for Justice and Equality, and I am receiving constant telephone calls telling me that he should resign, that this is a sham, etc. At all times, I have been able to sit down with constituents and go through it step by step. However, it has got to the stage at which we really are in a very serious position and the public's patience is at an end. I wanted to say to the Minister that today, on the radio, on Galway FM, I again stated that the Minister for Justice and Equality had nothing to answer for, but we are in a position of utmost good faith at this point. If anything, following the most recent revelations over the past number of days, we are at a very high standard where we must have full disclosure. Everything must be explained, such as why there were delays in letters, where the information was, why it did not come out and who was responsible for not delivering it. All of this information is pertinent, and the matter is causing severe worry. It is no longer an issue of process; it is an issue of who knew what and whether there is a cover-up. This is what we are getting out there. We need the utmost good faith and not merely technical correctness but for everything to be brought out and put forward in a full and transparent manner. I had to say that to the Minister.

Ciara Conway (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend the report of the Garda Inspectorate, which clearly vindicates the assertions of the whistleblowers. I welcome the Minister's apology to the whistleblowers and correction of the record in this House about their alleged non-compliance with the investigation, but the fact of the matter was that they were not asked. I am glad that the Minister has apologised to the former Garda Wilson and Sergeant McCabe in this instance.

The Government decision to establish an independent Garda board is pertinent and important. There is no doubt that this has been a long-established policy of the Labour Party. It did not make it into the programme for Government but, as my colleague Deputy Nolan stated, I am glad that it has now made its way into Cabinet and that we have had a decision on it.

The past couple of weeks and months have shaken the public in terms of how justice is administered in this country. The vast majority of people have little interaction with the Garda. They are law-abiding persons who go about their business and, for whatever reason, never come to the attention of the Garda. However, we are human and fallible and sometimes our foot is on the accelerator in the car and we go too fast. The one time we have any interaction with the Garda is when penalty points are being given out.

Penalty points were introduced in this country to improve the standard of road safety because for far too long we had lost too many young lives to speeding and careless driving. What has shaken the public in all of this scandal is the knowledge of that one time when most people interact with the Garda, which is when they receive penalty points. The general assertion is that everybody is equal before the eyes of the law. However, in this instance it has been clearly shown that factors such as celebrity, membership of elite groups and political status meant that some were more equal than others. I for one am really glad that this report has come out and shown the way in which justice was being administered and the fact that there were abuses of the system.

For the vast majority of people, their interactions with the Garda Síochána are at that level.

I will move on to the news that has broken over the past 24 hours in respect of the alleged illegal taping of conversations in Garda stations. The Garda station in Waterford was one of them, a matter documented in court in respect of the conviction of gardaí. Going back to 2002, prior to the establishment of GSOC, reports of detection rates in Waterford Garda stations were falsely documented. A report from the RTE website states:

A long-awaited report on an internal Garda investigation into crime detection rates in the Waterford Garda Division has still not been completed, months after the initial allegations were made.

[I]t was claimed that some figures compiled in the Waterford Division were not accurate and that some recorded crimes were reported to have been detected, even though nobody had been charged with the offences.

An internal Garda inquiry was set up to investigate the matter and to give an exact definition of what had or had not been "detected".

A Garda spokesperson said today that the report still had not been finalised and there was no indication as to when it would be completed.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In Greek mythology, the punishment for hubris - pride, arrogance and an excessive belief in one's own capabilities and worth - was handed out by the goddess Nemesis. In Greek tragedy, it was often the cause of the downfall of those riddled with guilt. This Government has been collectively responsible for a significant amount of hubris since its first day in office. However, the Minister for Justice and Equality has managed to manifest the execution of this hubris and it has come without any redeeming defect. The Minister has spoken in the Dáil over the past few days, and particularly today, with respect to the most extraordinary 48 hours in my experience in politics. These events have come at the end of the penalty points controversy, the Minister's contemptuous attitude towards whistleblowers, the sacking of the confidential recipient, disturbing revelations of spying at GSOC and, finally, the stunning ignorance of anything to do with the latest revelations on recordings. We have been asked to believe the incredible account that the Taoiseach gave to the House this morning concerning the timeline of the Cabinet's discovery of the recording issue. If the Taoiseach's account is taken as true, the Attorney General has serious questions to answer in regard to her communication of vital information to the other Cabinet members. An issue that was quickly judged by the Taoiseach and the Cabinet to be worthy of a full inquiry headed by a justice of the Supreme Court was allowed to sit on the Attorney General's desk from November of last year, apparently without her realising its seriousness. In the end, it was only raised by the Taoiseach when he contacted her on another matter. If he had not contacted her, how much longer would we have had to wait before she brought it to the attention of the House and the Taoiseach? What are the lines of communication between the Attorney General and the Minister's office? Are they functioning as they should be? Evidently not, given the failure over four months to communicate this issue to the Minister's office. We know that the Taoiseach, who has professed his full confidence in the Minister for Justice and Equality, waited almost 24 hours before informing us of the serious issues with an aspect of the administration of justice for which he is responsible.

This morning, we learnt that the Garda Commissioner resigned his position following a visit from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality on Sunday night. This is the same Secretary General who failed to pass on the urgent letter from the Garda Commissioner to the Minister, Deputy Shatter, until after the Commissioner had resigned.

An Garda Síochána was founded on the principle of community policing and relies on the good faith and trust of the communities. It operates within the fabric of trust of the citizens of this country. The handling of the penalty points controversy, the response of the Minister to the concerns of the Road Safety Authority and, particularly, his reaction to the whistleblowers has been marked not by a desire to manage the administration of justice but, rather, by a desire to crush dissent from his opinion.

The interesting timing of the revelations of the past 48 hours may have overshadowed the impact of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate's report but it cannot take away from the fact that it vindicates ordinary decent people who took a brave decision to blow the whistle. These are people with families, who are married with children and who over the past two years have carried the stigma of being labelled. For two years we failed to act on the concerns of the whistleblowers, even after the Taoiseach passed on details of Sergeant McCabe's concerns in July 2012. We still failed to act. For over two years, the Minister for Justice and Equality has done nothing to address the serious allegations set out in Sergeant McCabe's dossier. These allegations include assault, abduction and, ultimately, the brutal murder of Ms Sylvia Roche Kelly. Nothing was done.

Sergeant McCabe brought these concerns to the Garda confidential recipient, Oliver Connolly, a political supporter of the Minister, only to be told, "If Shatter thinks you're screwing him, you're finished". This is in line with the pattern of the Minister's behaviour with regard to the suppression of dissent. The Minister has since washed his hands of the Garda confidential informant, firing him and failing to provide any explanations for Mr. Connolly's extraordinary statements to Sergeant McCabe. His actions have resulted in the independent oversight of An Garda Síochána being left in complete disarray.

Not only were Sergeant McCabe and the other whistleblowers subject to isolation, intimidation and having their allegations ignored; they were then subject to a disgraceful discrediting by the Minister and others. He falsely accused Sergeant McCabe of non-co-operation with the Garda investigation when, in reality, he had not been invited to an interview in the process. Sergeant McCabe, a decent and honourable member of the force, deserved and received an apology, although some argue it was not whole. This apology is owed not just by the Minister but by all Ministers who continued to express support for the Minister, Deputy Shatter, while he refused to acknowledge his ill-judged comments about these decent people.

I acknowledge that the Minister has corrected the record of the House and apologised for his false statements and the hurt caused to Sergeant McCabe and Mr. Wilson. Why it took so long is another matter and one can only wonder about the pressure brought to bear on him relative to the pressure brought to bear on those decent individuals. The silence from the Labour Party benches on this issue has been deafening. They have long sold out on their commitments on economic matters and on their promises in the areas of disability and mental health in return for the delivery of a social agenda. In this, they see Deputy Shatter as a key ally and turn a blind eye to his conduct in office. This is just one more item on the long list of betrayals of the party's value system since taking office.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These statements are on the report of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate on the fixed charge processing system, and we should stick to that.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the commitment of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar. I disagree with him on economic matters but, because of his capacity for straight talking and honesty, I was proud of him when he made specific comments outflanking the Labour Party in his criticism of the attack on its workers by Aer Lingus.

I entirely agree with his criticism.

Fine Gael and Labour came to power on the promise of a democratic revolution. Many took that to mean a commitment to reform the way of doing politics and the political structure, but that has not been the case. It has been a case of hubris. The democratic revolution was simply about securing power based on the belief that power in itself was sufficient. We are now seeing the effects of that hubris - the effect of an excess of arrogance from which the Government suffers.

Many serious issues need to be addressed in this country. I refer to the attack on workers to which the Minister for Transport, Deputy Varadkar, referred, and conditions and pay. Instead, we are becoming involved in saga after saga with respect to the difficulties in this country. We have spent the past four weeks in this House discussing the successes of Government and the saga under discussion has gone on and on. We have wasted week after week, yet the Government continues to show poor judgment and indulge in self-congratulation in respect of the programme for Government. We have reached the point at which we will not accept any more arrogant and aggressive aloofness. It is time for humility. I urge the Minister to bear that in mind in contemplating Mr. Wilson and his family and Sergeant McCabe and his family. We must bear in mind their conditions at work and the pressures that have been piled on them by this House. They are isolated in their place of employment. Some days they are supervised and other days they are not. They feel unwanted by the State. As the administrative head of justice in this country, the Minister should make a further effort to acknowledge their dedication, commitment and above all their actions on behalf of their community, this country and the Dáil.

Seán Conlan (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many speakers have referred to what they would like to happen to the fixed charge processing system and the fact that reform is required. The current system is not without flaws and the new system that has been introduced is likewise not without flaws. Under the current system one receives one fixed charge notice. If one does not receive the fixed charge notice - we do not have an infallible postal system - the first one knows about it is when one receives a summons. It is totally unjust that the system in place allows for a person to receive a summons in the post when a fixed charge notice has not been received and there is no ability to pay the fine. I know people to whom that has happened. There should be a system in place to allow one to pay the fine for so many days or weeks after one receives the summons rather than wasting the time of a court and adding to that the additional costs involved in having to appear in court and explain the situation.

I have previously heard arguments as to why a proof-of-service system is not practical for the fixed charge system, but from a justice perspective, individuals need to know why they are expected to appear in court if they have not received a fixed charge notice. The situation must be addressed as a matter of urgency because it does happen. I know people to whom it has happened.

The taping of telephone conversations in Garda stations has been going on for 30 years. It is not the fault of the Minister, Deputy Shatter. The Minister first became aware of the matter this week and the Taoiseach first became aware of it at the weekend. One could ask which Minister for justice, if any, was ever aware of the recording of telephone conversations in Garda stations and whether it was sanctioned by any Minister for justice or any Garda Commissioner in the past 30 years.

Given that there are only approximately 2,500 tapes – that is the information available currently – that suggests to me that the recordings were more ad hoc than systematic. If that is the case, does it mean it was done by individual superintendents in individual Garda stations, or was it done at a higher level? I agree the approach being taken is correct. However, to lay blame at the door of the current Minister is the wrong place to start. We must find out who sanctioned the recordings initially and whether it was something that developed on an individual basis in individual Garda stations. We can start to make judgments when we find the facts but until such time as we do, we should hold back and be wary of casting aspersions on anyone. As yet, none of us know the facts. I could speak at length on the issue but that is all I will say at present.

We need to put in place a new fixed charge processing system. The current system of receiving a notice from Thurles is not infallible or without flaws and needs to be remedied. The important issue is road safety, not the collection of revenue for the State, and that should be our primary focus. We must ensure good practice and that people observe the rules of the road rather than focusing on revenue generation, which seems to be the focus of attention for many.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The events of the past two days, with revelations of widespread institutionalised violations of civil rights by gardaí, coming in the wake of the penalty points scandal and the bugging of the GSOC office, represent without question a crisis for the justice system in this State and for the Garda Síochána and the coalition Government.

The country is still trying to come to terms with the revelation that telephone conversations to and from Garda stations were routinely recorded for many years and under successive Garda Commissioners and successive Ministers for justice, including the current Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, and Commissioner Martin Callinan, who has now resigned. The implications of that for the civil rights of citizens and for the integrity of the justice system are profound. One could ask whether innocent people have been convicted of offences they did not commit as a result of that and whether guilty people will walk free because their convictions might now be found flawed on the basis of the systematic eavesdropping.

The Minister’s speech this morning did absolutely nothing to address the true depth of the crisis or to acknowledge his own central role in it. On the contrary, he could not wait to rush through his highly questionable narrative about his knowledge of the Garda recordings before he launched into yet another of his tirades against the Opposition and those who dare to challenge his performance as Minister. He did not even have the grace to acknowledge that there is deep public concern reflected in the Oireachtas on all sides and that the country has only begun to come to terms with the enormity of what is being revealed. The narrative the Minister skipped over is quite incredible. The GSOC report of June 2013 relating to phone call recording in a particular case stated: “On consideration of the ruling of the court the Garda Commissioner may wish to re-evaluate his practice regarding the recording of such calls and the consents required if it is to be permissible to use such recordings in evidence.” Is it credible that the report was not noticed by the Department of Justice and Equality and that its importance and implications were not realised or brought to the attention of the Minister when it was published? If it was brought to the Minister’s attention then he misled the Dáil this morning. If it was not brought to his attention then that is an admission of gross incompetence on the part of the Department of Justice and Equality.

Is it credible that the Minister only saw the letter from the Garda Commissioner at 6 p.m. on Monday? If that is indeed the case, it shows a truly astonishing level of incompetence, or worse, in the Department of Justice and Equality. One could ask what it says about the role of the Attorney General and the level of communication between the Attorney General and the Minister.

Are we still expected to believe that the Garda recording scandal was not central to the decision of the Garda Commissioner to resign? The questions are multiplying and neither the Minister, Deputy Shatter, nor the Taoiseach has done anything to address them properly. Their contributions raise far more questions than they answer.

We are told that reform of the Garda will now accelerate. I hope and trust that it will. We are told that the latest scandal will be fully investigated and I hope it will be, but we must also have full accountability and full information from the Minister for Justice and Equality and from the Government. The Minister and the Government have failed to provide that accountability and information. With respect, I believe the Minister should indeed leave office. The Attorney General must also account fully for her actions, or lack of them, in all of this as the case may be. Are we now going to have a situation where the Labour Party in government is calling for the resignation of the Fine Gael Minister for Justice and Equality and as a quid pro quothe Fine Gael Party in government is threatening to call in turn for the resignation of the Attorney General, a Labour nominee?

Instead of looking after number one, each of these parties should consider the great damage their prevarication has caused. There can be no more riding this out. It is long past time that the cold light of day was faced and that this coalition removed Deputy Shatter from ministerial office and if the suspected failures of her office are confirmed, the Attorney General should follow fast on his heels. In his statement this afternoon the Minister, Deputy Shatter, said: "I hope that my correcting the record of the Dáil today will put this matter to rest" - well he might so hope.

This minimalist apology would have had more credibility if it had expressed the hope that his correcting the record would have gone some way towards addressing the great hurt and harm intentionally done to Garda Sergeant McCabe and to the former garda, John Wilson. For the Minister, Deputy Shatter, it is all about getting beyond this mess, primarily of his own making, and at the least cost to himself.

Sadly, there is little in this latest address by the Minister, Deputy Shatter, to this House that comes anywhere close to a real statement of contrition. Let the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste note well that the Minister's attempts to ride this out further will cost their parties dearly.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will proceed to questions following the statements. The order of the House did not provide for a time limit on individual questions and, to be as fair as possible to all concerned, I propose a time limit of two minutes for each question and two minutes for the reply. I will take questions in rounds from each of the main groups, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, the Technical Group and others in that order for as long as time permits. One hour is allowed for questions. As there are only two Deputies present so far, I will not be rigid in the time allocation. I call Deputy Niall Collins.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will confine my questions to the issue of the Garda Inspectorate and the report. I flagged two issues when I spoke earlier. First, there was what we would describe as the premature leaking of the report. Can the Minister give us an undertaking that the next time important reports are due - important reports such as the Cooke and the Guerin reports are due and they will be discussed - that they will not be leaked to the media and that the Members of the Oireachtas will rightfully have first view of those?

Second, I asked the Minister in my initial contribution about Mr. Robert Olsen of the Garda Inspectorate in the context of it having been detailed in a newspaper interview that he had never met the Minister and that they - or at least the Department of Justice and Equality - shared the same building. Could the Minister comment on that?

Third, on the vacant position of Commissioner, the Minister has appointed Noreen O'Sullivan to act in an interim capacity and the Minister said that the position will be filled by open competition. On the consequential back-fill vacancies that will occur, the recently departed Commissioner conducted a round of interviews to fill deputy commissioner posts and an assistant commissioner post. Now that former Commissioner Callinan has departed the scene will interviews take place again? In other words, will the process that had taken place under the stewardship of Commissioner Callinan be declared null and void and will the process start again once a new Commissioner has been appointed, or will those vacancies of deputy and assistant commissioners be filled by open competition also, or by what process will they be filled?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take the Deputy's questions in the order he raised them. I can absolutely assure him that I did not leak the inspectorate's report. A query came into the Department of Justice and Equality from a well known journalist who clearly had substantial knowledge of what was in it. I was asked would I do an interview and I explained I could not do an interview on the substance of the detail of the report because the following day it was being brought to Cabinet and then it was to be laid before the House and I agreed simply to make some general comments. I give the Deputy my absolute assurance that I did not leak it and the individual who was responsible for the report would know I did not leak it. As to where it came form, I cannot answer that. We all know in political life that stuff emerges and it is a mystery, on occasions, how it does. I did not leak it; I had no intention of leaking it. It was my intention to bring the matter into Cabinet, brief colleagues on it and do what we ultimately did, which was later that day to lay it before both Houses. That is basically what happened in relation to that issue.

In relation to the Garda Inspectorate, one of the issues that arises is that the Garda Inspectorate is independent. I have met with GSOC which is also independent in the circumstances of seeking to resolve issues of difficulty that arose between GSOC and An Garda Síochána. In the context of the Garda Inspectorate, there have been some very important issues with which it has been dealing, and it is important it deals with them independently, including the fixed ticket charge issue. It is correct to say that I have not personally met Mr. Olsen. I am looking forward and hoping to do that at a time when I will not be open to a charge in this House that if I had met him I was in some way trying to impact on his independence or subvert him. I am conscious of the brouhaha that arose when I asked - not demanded or insisted - the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to brief me on the other issue and it requested to brief me because matters had appeared in the newspapers and if I had not had a briefing the next thing is that I would have been criticised in this House for knowing nothing about the issue. I have not personally met him. I know that in relation to the issues where he sought information, it had been furnished to him by departmental officials in my Department. It is not out of any disrespect for him that I have not met him. It is out of respect for the independence of the inspectorate and some issues it is dealing with. I am very conscious at this moment that it is about to embark on the review that is to take place similar to the Haddington Road agreement. The last thing I want is any of the Garda associations being of the view that I am trying to influence unfairly the outcome of that. I hope the Deputy understands there are issues there of relevance.

On the final issue the Deputy raised, there was a TLAC-style competition with regard to the vacant posts he mentioned in An Garda Síochána. The outgoing Commissioner was one member of the group. The outgoing Commissioner has given great service to this State.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must ask the Minister to conclude.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy asked me three questions and the Acting Chairman said she would give some leeway.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They completed that process and there is an appointment to be made.

I hope it will be made relatively shortly. It would be unfair on the individuals who went through that process to require that it be started again. It is not an issue to which I have given much thought in the context of the events which have happened in the past 48 hours, but I would have understood it would still have been appropriate. There has been a proper interview process and names have been put forward and it would be appropriate for an appointment to be made. I do not see any reason to impugn the integrity of the group which engaged in the process. I hope in the not too distant future that the matter will be dealt with.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a number of Deputies have arrived, I must be more conscious of the time allowed.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the Dáil on 23 May 2001 the Minister questioned the then Minister with responsibility for justice, former Deputy John O'Donoghue, about allegations made which became the subject matter of the Morris tribunal in County Donegal. In particular, he asked whether the Minister would confirm whether there was an allegation that gardaí in County Donegal were bugging conversations between solicitors and their clients. Obviously, he was aware of this practice, or certainly raised concerns about it when he was in opposition. Will he confirm, given that he had such an interest in the area, whether on assuming office he asked the Garda Commissioner, Mr. Martin Callinan, whether this practice was continuing and whether he could absolutely guarantee that it was not ongoing? I would like him to clarify this.

Why did the Attorney General go straight to the Taoiseach with the revelations about recordings of telephone calls in Garda stations without first briefing the Minister?

How many questions am I allowed ask?

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has two minutes in total.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who sits on the working group established in November by the Garda Commissioner following his consultations with the Attorney General on 11 November? Was the Department of Justice and Equality aware of the working group's remit? Why did the Attorney General not inform the Department and the Minister that a working group had been established by the Commissioner to investigate the recordings? Did any official from the Department sit on the working group?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy knows, there was a great deal of concern about events taking place in County Donegal. There were allegations of which I was aware. I had no means of establishing their veracity and raised appropriate questions in the House. Eventually the Morris tribunal was established. I was the Fine Gael justice spokesperson at the time. My former colleague in this House, Mr. Jim Higgins, MEP, was the justice spokesperson immediately preceding me. He did a lot of work on the issue, as did Deputy Brendan Howlin, now a Minister. When Mr. Higgins took up another position, I was justice spokesperson. I proposed motions in the House which ultimately led to the Morris tribunal.

I had no information to suggest that what has now been revealed was taking place in Garda stations. I was simply told there was an issue in County Donegal and I raised questions. All of us in the House are familiar with the Morris tribunal which sat for a very long time and produced a report. It is some considerable time since I read the report, but I have no recollection of any finding that there was a taping operation going on in Garda stations throughout the country. If there had been, we would have all known about it a long time ago. When I was appointed, I did not ask the Garda Commissioner whether there was a telephone system in Garda stations to tape telephone calls. It would not have occurred to me that such a system was operating. I again reiterate that the first I knew of it was in the briefing I received in the Department - a detailed briefing by officials - on Monday evening. Towards the end of the briefing the Taoiseach contacted me and I joined him and the Attorney General for a conversation.

I was not present on Sunday, but I understand the Taoiseach and the Attorney General who work extraordinarily hard and extremely long hours were working in their Departments. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding they were both working. It may have been the case that the Attorney General was working at home; as I have not asked this question, I do not want to give a version of which I cannot be sure for fear of someone accusing me of misleading the House. My understanding is a conversation took place in the context of a set of civil proceedings which I referenced earlier but into which I cannot go because of the fact that matters are pending before the courts. The Attorney General briefed the Taoiseach about her concerns.

The Attorney General is extraordinarily hard-working and for fear of some new myth developing, she and I speak to each other regularly about new legislation being drafted. As it happens, this was not an issue with which I was personally familiar. Of course, I knew proceedings were taking place, but as Minister, I am not involved in the day-to-day engagement in these proceedings. They are dealt with through the Chief State's Solicitors office and the Office of the Attorney General and counsel who are appointed to deal with these matters.

As I said previously, there is no more mystery about this. As I understand it, both the Attorney General, having assessed the full background as information became available to her, and the Taoiseach took the matter very seriously. I took it very seriously. During the course of this evening Deputies have raised some of the issues of concern. There are all sorts of possible implications, which is why a decision was made to have an independent commission of inquiry to address the matter. I cannot put it any further than this. It would be unfortunate-----

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Minister.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to say this as it is very important. There is absolutely no reason for the Attorney General to be subject to any criticism. She cannot answer for herself in the House, as she is not a Member. I know that she works extraordinary hours because there are occasions when she and I speak to each other on the telephone at 6 a.m. about issues and legislation. On this issue we had not had a conversation. I was not aware of the concerns which had arisen any sooner than Monday evening and cannot add any more to this.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked another question and if I am given leeway, perhaps he might come back in and we will get to it.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister clarify who sits on the working group established by the Garda Commissioner in November last year following his consultations with the Office of the Attorney General on 11 November? Was the Department aware of the working group's remit? Why did the Attorney General not inform the Department of Justice and Equality and the Minister that a working group was being established by the Commissioner to investigate the recordings? Does any member of staff of the Department sit on the working group?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have all of my papers on this issue with me. I had them in the House this morning. I am advised by the departmental officials that no one from the Department sits on the working group. The first I knew of it was in the past 24 hours. Today is Wednesday - I am trying to re-focus on timelines in order that no one shoots me for them. I do not know who sits on the working group. I presume it involves officials from the Office of the Attorney General and An Garda Síochána. It seems to be a working group organised by An Garda Síochána; I am not entirely clear, as I do not have the letter with me. The letter I read did not detail who was on the group. My understanding of it is that it is working through issues relating to the tapes. I am advised by the departmental officials that no one from the Department has been or is on the group and we are not privy to who is on it. I am sure it is a matter that can be clarified.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Earlier the Minister asked me to check my file and come back to him. That is why I am here.

Earlier today and in a previous debate, I raised a number of issues with the Minister. He wrote to me on 28 February and suggested that were I to give him the details, he would arrange to have the matter followed up. I await a response from the lady in question as to how she wishes to proceed, because it is her call.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Earlier today and in the previous debate, I pointed out to the Minister the serious difficulties she faces. Would the Minister encourage whoever is investigating this case to deal with it as a priority? Would he consider meeting Sergeant Maurice McCabe, John Wilson or the lady about whom I have just spoken in order to learn from them the precise extent of their complaints? The Minister also asked me to check on the Lucia O'Farrell case. Again, I pointed out to the Minister that it is a case in which all the details have been given to him by the lady in question.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is right.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She has received acknowledgements from the Department of Justice and Equality. It might be worth the Minister's while to refer to the UCD Sutherland School of Law, where two barristers have stated that in this context, they respectfully request that consideration be given to including the case of Shane O'Farrell in the files to be examined by Mr. Guerin. That letter was sent to the Taoiseach on 28 February. Consequently, it is clear there is a case to be answered in this regard. The point I was making in respect of Shane Farrell and his mother, Lucia O'Farrell, is that there are such questions on the investigation, how the case was handled and what happened afterwards from a number of different Government agencies that would inform the Minister as to the weaknesses in all this.

The other issue to which I referred and about which the Minister asked me to revert to him was that of the profiling of Travellers on the PULSE system. Because this is such a serious matter which infringes the human rights of individuals and families and is extensive, I asked that the Minister arrange for an investigation or even talk to Sergeant Maurice McCabe, who obviously is in possession of the material pertaining to this matter, and ask him what he considers to be the issue. The Minister should do so to inform himself in order that he knows what he is dealing with when he is speaking to the Garda or whoever will investigate this matter. Finally, I referred the Minister to the loss by a family of a daughter and a granddaughter and the fact that in the course of the investigation, GSOC has failed to date to get appointments with the investigating gardaí in a Cork Garda station. I find that to be absolutely incredible.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take these matters in reverse order. First, the Deputy has raised a case regarding a matter in Cork of which I am not aware. Everyone in this House who has an interest in these issues is familiar with the report that was produced by GSOC arising out of the Boylan case, in which it made a complaint about the length of time it took to get some information and documentation from An Garda Síochána. I had previously told the House in respect of this matter that while substantial documentation was furnished over an extended period of time, it was quite clear that this was an issue of great concern to GSOC, and arising out of that - I revert to a conversation Deputy Collins and I had a few minutes ago - I took with great seriousness the concerns expressed by GSOC. We organised in my Department a meeting with the then Garda Commissioner and the head of GSOC to discuss the difficulties that had arisen. For some time - I am now talking about last summer - there had been ongoing discussions involving GSOC and An Garda Síochána on the creation of a new protocol to ensure issues of difficulty were dealt with between them and that there were strict timelines for dealing with issues, with some matters addressed where unexpected difficulties could arise. Those protocols had not been completed and as the talks in my view had gone on for an unduly lengthy period, I urged them to bring matters to a conclusion. Ultimately, the protocols were completed and agreed and were signed in September of 2013. As part of the arrangement that was to be put in place to prevent the type of situation that the Deputy describes from arising, it was arranged that if GSOC encountered difficulties such as an inability to access materials for an inordinate length of time, or protocols not being complied with, an official in my Department would be informed. If need be, the official in question would resolve the matter with the Garda Síochána or sit down with the heads of the Garda Síochána and GSOC and mediate a solution, because one cannot have such issues dragging on. Consequently, if there is a difficulty, we have a mechanism to deal with it, and I urge that it be dealt with. The Deputy can communicate to the person concerned that if it is believed that GSOC is having this difficulty, it should invoke this mechanism and it should be resolved.

As for the other few issues raised, I am conscious of time, but the Deputy raised the issue of a letter I sent to him. I appreciate that he now has come back with what might be described as a modified presentation from that made earlier, because he previously berated me about this matter on the basis that he had told me about it and I had told him there were procedures in place that should be followed. The Deputy raised a serious issue in this House in an earlier debate. I had concerns about it and met him just outside the confines of the Chamber. I explained to him that I did not know the detail of the matter. I explained to him that if he wrote to me detailing the circumstances of the individual, I would have the matter looked into. Out of concern, I wrote to him a short number of days thereafter stating:

Dear John,

Earlier this week you raised the issue of a female member of An Garda Síochána who took a complaint of sexual harassment to the confidential recipient. I am not aware of any details of what is alleged to have occurred, other then what you said in the Dáil and what has been reported in the media. Any such allegations of the type described are, of course, operational matters that would fall to be dealt with under the procedures in place in An Garda Síochána for dealing with complaints of this nature. However, if you forward the details of the case to me, I will arrange to have the matter followed up and will revert to you in due course.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To put it on the record, the lady in question did go through the process.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, as she still awaits an outcome, the Minister can understand the reason she may not have the confidence in the process that one should have.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When I get the reply from her, I certainly will raise the matter directly with the Minister.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but that is the exact reason I invited the Deputy to give me the details. Clearly, I cannot follow it up without her agreement and until I get the details. However, I am very happy to do it.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked whether the Minister would meet Maurice McCabe or John Wilson. Will he meet them?

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I call Deputy Mattie McGrath.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issues they are dealing with now are being dealt with by GSOC in the first instance and secondly by Mr. Guerin. In the circumstances, we should let those processes take their course.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My final question pertained to Lucia O'Farrell.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that issue, I must write to the Deputy.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister yet met the families of the Omagh bomb victims, as the Taoiseach has promised me several times here?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise, but could the Deputy repeat the question?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister yet met the families of the Omagh bomb victims?

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has nothing to do with this issue.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach has told me several times in this Chamber that the Minister would do so at his request.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is not in order.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In a separate question, would the Minister now-----

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, that question is not permitted. It is not on the order.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not on the order.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. We are taking questions on the statements on the Garda Inspectorate report on the fixed charge processing system.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Questions on statements. Obviously, the Minister has not, but I will move on. It simply is not credible for the Minister-----

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who wrote that question for the Deputy?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry?

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should continue.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me, Deputy Buttimer. You are Chairman of a committee, as the Acting Chairman has reminded you. Have some manner, please.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Continue, and there should be only one voice.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think I have the floor, Acting Chairman.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You have the floor.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I have the protection of the Acting Chairman?

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Continue. Your time is ticking away.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is but I cannot continue if I am going to be interrupted.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please continue.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In spite of the Minister's self-professed 6 a.m. phone calls with the Attorney General from his office on the many mornings he is in early, has he confidence in and is he in charge of his Department if it took him 15 days to read a very important letter from the then Commissioner? I think the Minister informed us this morning that he got a phone call from the Taoiseach and that the first he heard about this was at 6 p.m. on Sunday but that it took him until 12.20 p.m. on Monday to read the letter. Surely the officials in the Department deal with the Minister. The Minister questioned Deputy McGuinness about not getting a letter but what guarantee have we that the Minister gets letters sent to him when the Commissioner's letter took 15 days to be read, although not dealt with, by him and in spite of the fact senior officials, the Commissioner and the Attorney General were in meetings about the very same topic?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can only tell the Deputy what happened. This letter apparently arrived in my Department on 10 March. It arrived in the context of issues relating to the civil action that was taking place. I understand there was some initial meeting on 10 March and a further meeting on 11 March. I think the substantial focus on the part of officials in the Department was on the proceedings, which I cannot go into in any detail. Clearly, the letter had information that was of importance. I can only say to the Deputy that it was not furnished to me. I can say to him that an enormous volume of correspondence of a very important nature comes into the Department of Justice and Equality on a daily basis. This would not be the only important piece of correspondence that would be received. Both during the day and going home in the evening, I would normally take a substantial amount of papers and correspondence with me.

In the context of the events of that week, I do not have my diary in front of me but my recollection is that Deputy Niall Collins, Deputy Mac Lochlainn and I follow each other around with some regularity and we would have spent all of the Wednesday morning on the DNA database legislation. From what I remember, I think that week - I am open to correction - the Cabinet meeting was on a Wednesday and not a Tuesday. That would have occupied my full day that day. On the Friday, I was in the Department of Defence. On the Thursday, the Secretary General of my Department was at the Committee of Public Accounts and I think he spent some considerable time, because the committee was dealing with other matters, waiting to deal with matters at the committee. As events fell, the letter was not furnished to me.

I went to Mexico for the St. Patrick's Day ministerial arrangements and did a series of things in Mexico through the Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I was not back in Dublin until the Friday. The reality is, and the way matters worked out, and as we know from my reply earlier today to, I think, Deputy Mac Lochlainn who raised it, the Taoiseach had a conversation on the Sunday evening with the Attorney General. I was briefed on it on the Monday. The letter was not furnished to me. I was briefed on the matter but was not told of the letter. I did not receive a letter but my officials, in fairness to them, gave me a sufficiently detailed briefing for me to engage with the Taoiseach and the Attorney General on the issue. I received and was made aware of the letter from the former Garda Commissioner only on the Tuesday, as I detailed earlier today in the statement I made to the House.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it is fair to say that we are agreed that these are very serious issues.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With which of the two issues are we dealing?

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about the issues that are currently at the core of this controversy around the illegal recording of conversations in and out of Garda stations. I assume the Minister thinks these are really serious issues. In all of his answers, the Minister has said he was not told about these serious issues. The Taoiseach briefed myself and the Fianna Fáil leader and told us that he phoned the Attorney General about an unrelated matter on Sunday evening and the Attorney General told him, when they had dealt with that issue, that she had a very serious issue she needed to discuss with him. They met and the Attorney General then told the Taoiseach about this issue of the illegal recordings of phone calls in and out of Garda stations.

When did the Attorney General give this information to the Minister? Does he have any explanation as to why the Attorney General told the Taoiseach and not the Minister, as he has suggested?

The Taoiseach also told the Dáil that he sent the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality to talk to the former Garda Commissioner before he resigned. Is it appropriate that the Taoiseach should send the Secretary General of the Minister's Department on this mission given that he is the Minister responsible?

Is it appropriate that the working group does not have representation from the Department of Justice and Equality on it and that the Minister does not even know who is on it and that he never thought to ask who is on this working group? Is this not of concern to him? He also said he did not receive the former Garda Commissioner's letter of 10 March, which he said his Department received on 10 March, and that he did not receive it until yesterday. Has he established why this was not brought to his attention before then, working on the assumption that we are both agreed these are extremely serious matters?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to the issue the Deputy raised, I have already gone through the matter. These are serious matters and when I became aware of the extent of this matter, I took it with great seriousness, as did the Taoiseach and the Attorney General. In the context of the working group, this, as I understand it, was an internal Garda working group and there was a representative of the Attorney General's office, I am advised, on it. There was no one from my Department on it. What was happening within this group was that it was seeking to ascertain the extent of the problem and how many tapes there were. I cannot give the Deputy a specific answer as to at what point it was established how many tapes there were. My understanding of what happened, which reflects exactly what the Taoiseach said earlier, was that there was a substantial number of tapes found and that there was a change in the system in 2008 which changed, in some way, the technology. I am still not clear on how many recordings exist and I cannot definitively say from which Garda stations.

This is why we want the matter inquired into. I know that the interim Commissioner is having this matter examined in great detail and I expect she will report to my Department on the matter. It is important the Attorney General's office is aware of the maximum amount of information so as to ensure that appropriate detailed terms of reference are given to the individual to be appointed to carry out the statutory inquiry.

There is no mystery about how this occurred. I have detailed how it occurred. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that recordings of this nature were going on for some considerable time going back many years through the lifetimes of a series of Governments. I want to get full detail of this and full details of what implications it might have for our criminal justice system, our civil law system and any litigation that is taking place.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister did not answer my two questions.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. I cannot be accountable for that. I call Deputy Regina Doherty.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to protest.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You can protest as much as you like but I am trying to manage a situation where there are 24 minutes left and there are eight other speakers. There are two minutes to ask the question and two minutes to answer it. I cannot judge whether the question was answered properly.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister did not answer my questions at all.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry but Deputy Adams can ask one of the other speakers from his party to repeat the question.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not very fair on me.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry but I cannot do anything about it.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is farcical.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputies are going to have to decide-----

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People are watching this and they want answers.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not need Deputy Mac Lochlainn to interrupt or get involved.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I raise a point of order please?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why not?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Because I am saying so and because there are time restraints.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is farcical.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are eight Deputies who wish to contribute - Deputies Regina Doherty, Joe Higgins, Seán Crowe, Catherine Murphy, Pearse Doherty, Shane Ross, Jerry Buttimer and Richard Boyd Barrett.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me, but I indicated-----

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are now 23 minutes left on the clock. If eight people take four minutes each, that makes 32 minutes, which means some Deputies will not get in. I cannot have this sort of carry on-----

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not carry on.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask for the co-operation of the House to allow Deputies-----

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is farcical.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Mac Lochlainn can call it farcical but I am trying to manage a situation that is unsatisfactory.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Mac Lochlainn is playing politics.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Buttimer should stop being a hound dog.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now call Deputy Regina Doherty and Deputy Mac Lochlainn will be taking a walk very soon if he does not stop interrupting the proceedings.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has been playing politics with this for the last three months.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Regina Doherty, without interruption.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I indicated twice at 8.10 p.m.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. I have the list in front of me. I ask Deputies to reduce their contributions so that the eight people can get a chance; otherwise, it is over.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister would just answer the questions we would be happy.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to talk fast. I wish to ask the Minister about the very first inquiry that GSOC made into the fixed penalty charge system. Does the Minister know what gave rise to that inquiry? Does he know why the report was never published? Does he know if there was communication between GSOC and the Minister's predecessor, the then Minister for Justice, former Deputy Dermot Ahern? Does the Minister know if any actions were taken by the former Minister arising from the unpublished GSOC report? Will the Minister now publish the report?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This was a report that was sought, as I understand it, in 2007 on the fixed charge processing system. GSOC conducted a substantial examination of the system and produced its report in 2009. I genuinely do not know why it was not published and I am not going to attribute any motive for its not being published. It is a very detailed report which seems to have been sent to the former Minister, Dermot Ahern, on 30 April 2009, accompanied by a letter from the commissioners Mr. Conor Brady and Ms Carmel Foley of GSOC. The report contains a series of recommendations for effecting various reforms and changes. Some of the recommendations mirror those contained in the report of the Garda Inspectorate. However, the Garda Inspectorate's report also makes a lot of additional and different recommendations. It is my intention to publish the report on the Department of Justice and Equality website.

The letter sent to the former Minister, Dermot Ahern, gives an indication of how the investigation originated. It references that on 20 December 2007, following consideration of a recommendation from GSOC, as provided for under section 106(2) of the Garda Síochána Act, Mr. Ahern's predecessor, the late Deputy Brian Lenihan, requested GSOC to undertake an examination of practice, policy and procedure in regard to the fixed charge processing system as operated by the Garda Síochána. The letter goes on to say that the examination report has now been completed and that the report, with recommendations, "is presented herewith". The letter points out that the commission would have hoped that this exercise could have been completed by an earlier date but that due to an initial backlog of complaints and an onerous caseload, priority in resourcing allocation had to be accorded to operational matters. The presentation of the report was also somewhat delayed by the untimely death of the late chairman of the commission, Mr. Justice Kevin Haugh, who had a particular commitment to and interest in this project. The letter is quite lengthy so I will paraphrase-----

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister not to paraphrase the rest because we are over time.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would be happy, when we publish the report on the website, to also publish the accompanying letter because it synopsises one or two issues of relevance and importance. I would have thought that it was a report that warranted publication. Its recommendations certainly have not been implemented in full, although some elements of the Road Traffic Act 2010 sought to reflect some aspects of the report. If other recommendations contained in this report had been implemented, some of the difficulties that have been disclosed may well have been avoided.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The former Garda Commissioner sent a letter to the Minister regarding the taping of conversations in Garda stations on March 10. Did the Minister have any conversation or contact with the Garda Commissioner on that or any other issue between that date and the date of his resignation? What does the Minister know of the Garda Commissioner's decision to resign? Did the Minister know that the Taoiseach was sending the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality to meet the Garda Commissioner? What message did the Secretary General relay to the Commissioner? What was the content? Was the Minister in on that and did he consent to it? What was the effect of that visit on the Garda Commissioner in the context of his decision to resign the next day?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Deputy Higgins to repeat his very first question.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the Minister have any conversation with the Garda Commissioner between 10 March, when the letter was sent, and the date of the Commissioner's resignation?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the letter that the Garda Commissioner sent to the Minister he referred to himself as being the "data controller" vis-à-vis the recordings. However, a massive report from the Data Protection Commission states that representatives of that office went to Garda Headquarters in 2011 and that they had elaborate discussions on all data-related issues but not once was the issue of recordings raised or mentioned in the report. Who is to blame there? Was it concealed from the Data Protection Commission? What does the Minister know of that and what will he try to find out in that regard?

I ask the Minister to also address the giving of criminal intelligence numbers to children, including children of members of the Traveller community, as he knows happens with the PULSE system.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are now ranging far and wide and way beyond the confines of the report of the Garda Inspectorate but I will do my best to respond to the Deputy's questions.

I will truthfully say that I do not recall whether or not I had phone conversations with the Garda Commissioner between 10 and 15 March, when I would have gone to Mexico. I certainly did not talk to him from Mexico. I genuinely cannot recall whether I did. Certainly, there are occasions when we would talk about issues. I have no recollection of having a conversation with him about any issue that week but I cannot say that for definite, 100%, because I do not make a note every time some brief matter arises about which we would have conversed. I do not recall talking to him that week but I cannot say that for certain. I cannot say for certain that this issue was never the subject of a conversation between the Garda Commissioner and myself.

Regarding the Data Protection Commission report, as the Deputy quite rightly says, it is a very large report covering a period of years. It praises An Garda Síochána for compliance in some areas. There is also a very important critique of some issues that need to be better addressed and dealt with. The Deputy is absolutely right - as my reading of the report confirms - that there is no reference to this particular issue. Quite clearly, from what we know of the data protection legislation, if one is going to maintain data in the manner in which it appears that data was maintained, it would fall under that legislation.

This, clearly, was not a matter of which the Data Protection Commissioner was aware.

I want to correct a point I made earlier as my official has just clarified it for me. I am advised that the Garda working group is not and was not a working group in the Attorney General’s office but an internal Garda working group. For fear that there is wrong information in that regard, this was an internal Garda working group examining issues relating to the tapes, presumably to get a full handle on the extent of what was happening in so far as there was some uncertainty with An Garda Síochána. I am also advised that there was no member of the Attorney General’s office on the working group either.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we continue, I want to seek the views of the House. It is now after 8.50 p.m. According to the order of the day, this business has to be completed by 9.30 p.m. and 15 minutes, from 9.15 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., is allowed for the Minister to respond. It also states a Minister or a Minister of State shall take questions for a period not exceeding one hour before then. That hour will be up in 13 minutes. Does the House approve that the order be changed to allow questions to continue until 9.15 p.m. and that the Minister will be called then? Is that agreed? Agreed.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sergeant McCabe was refused access to the PULSE system. In the light of the information given today and the Minister’s apology, should he have access to the system again? The Taoiseach has said he sent the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality to meet the Garda Commissioner. I presume it was because he was concerned by what he had heard about the recordings in the Attorney General’s report. Why did the Attorney General brief the Taoiseach and not the Minister who was the line manager in this matter?

Will the Minister outline the possible impact the practice of recording telephone calls in Garda stations may have on pending court cases? Is he concerned about the impact these various controversies are having on rank and file gardaí?

The Minister has claimed he does not know who is sitting on the working group established by the former Garda Commissioner in November 2013. Will he give us the information on who is sitting on it? What is its remit? Does he not think it was strange that the Attorney General did not inform the Department of Justice and Equality or him that a working group was being established by the Commissioner to investigate the recordings?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I emphasise that it is my understanding that it is an internal Garda working group and that the Attorney General does not have an official on it. I hope the Deputy will ensure he passes that information on to Deputy Gerry Adams who had left the Chamber before I made the correction earlier. This is a complicated issue as it is, without some inadvertent piece of information giving rise to another controversy.

As to what impact this might have on litigation, I have to be very careful what I say about this matter. Where there is pending litigation, be it criminal or civil, I dare not say anything that could prejudice its outcome. Those who are before the courts or engaged in litigation will receive appropriate legal advice on its implications. I do not know the extent of the litigation. I do not know what material is included in these tapes. I am aware, from advice given, that there is material of great importance and relevance to one particular case. The focus on that case and the work done arising from it have set the alarm bells ringing - if that is a reasonable way of putting it.

As the Taoiseach told the House, there are approximately 2,500 tapes. As part of the commission of inquiry that will take place, these tapes will have to be transcribed to ascertain the importance or otherwise of the information on them. That will not be an easy exercise and obviously will take some time. Then there is the question of what might have been digitally recorded and what might be on an old-fashioned taping system.

There are many issues on which I, the Taoiseach and the Government, as well as all Members, require clarity. However, I do not have that information. I assume the work being done within the Garda force will give us greater clarity as to whether there are additional tapes, on how the digital recording system worked and exactly which Garda stations are affected.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A data protection code of practice was worked out between the Data Protection Commissioner and the Garda in 2007. It appears there was intensive work done to get the code in place. For it to have legal force, rather than it just being guidance , it must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas under section 13(3) of the Data Protection Act 1988 which states:

Any such code that is so approved of may be laid by the Minister before each House of the Oireachtas and, if each such House passes a resolution approving of it, then—(a) in so far as it relates to dealing with personal data by the categories of data controllers concerned—

(i) it shall have the force of law in accordance with its terms,

This issue comes under European law, too. In the past year the European Commission launched an inquiry into the independence of Hungary’s data protection ombudsman. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner recommended that the Garda destroy any material that was not subject to a disclosure order. Will the Minister agree that this is a breach of the data protection legislation and that it is wrong to destroy files obtained either legally or illegally? Is it correct that their destruction could potentially lead to the collapse of a case if it seeks to use them?

Was there a risk analysis carried out, as any other organisation would do, when the recording systems switched over from analogue to digital?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is over time.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister can get back to me if the information is not readily available. It would be extraordinary if no risk analysis was carried out.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I find it extraordinary that information on the tapes has emerged in the way it has. At the highest levels within An Garda Síochána work is necessary to understand fully the extent of the taping and where it took place. I am not clear on the extent to which, if any, information recorded is accessed or used. I am very conscious, not just as Minister for Justice and Equality but as a lawyer, of the serious implications of this in the context of issues that could arise.

Therefore, I find all of this and the manner in which it is being dealt with very "unusual", to use a neutral word.

In regard to destruction, I presume the Deputy refers to the destruction of the tapes that have been found. At this moment in time, I do not believe this is something that should occur. It could result in a miscarriage of justice, where there is information on a tape that might be of relevance to some form of court proceeding. If information emerged on the tapes on other matters, destruction of the tapes could result in that information ceasing to be available. This is an issue in respect of which great care and caution needs to be undertaken.

I believe there is no question of anything being destroyed, until such time as what is contained on these tapes is known and understood and the statutory commission of inquiry has undertaken and completed its work. Subsequently, there may be a view, based on the recommendation of the commission of inquiry, as to how the tapes should be dealt with and what should be done with regard to information on them. I do not want to prejudge that, but there can be no question of their destruction at this time. That would be a serious matter.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to take the Minister back to some of the information he provided earlier today, where he said the Garda Commissioner's letter explained: "there was a legislative underpinning of such recording contained in an Act of 2007". Can I take it from this that there was no legislative underpinning of these recordings up to 2007? Can I take it also that there is at least a likelihood and possibility that these recordings were illegal and in breach of the law and that offences could have been committed? Is this an issue the Minister wishes to pursue? Does he want to pursue the issue that whoever sanctioned these recordings had no legislative underpinning and could have been in breach of legislation?

The second issue I wish to ask about concerns the Attorney General. The Minister provided the Dáil with information that the Attorney General was made aware on 11 November 2003 of the existence of the tapes and of the possible existence of other tapes. He then went on to say that she had no knowledge at the time of the circumstances surrounding the making of the tapes, the background to their being made, the content or the number of tapes. The Minister has told us what she did not know, but what did she know? Did the Garda Commissioner phone her and say they had found some tapes - perhaps they could have been recordings of the latest documentary - and did she not ask what they were about? I am sure she knew they were tapes of conversations within Garda stations. She must at least have had that basic information. If not, when did she get the basic information on them?

Is the Minister alarmed, with the passage of a number of months, that this information was not brought to his attention? When this information was brought to the attention of the Taoiseach, it resulted in a commission of inquiry. Unfortunately, we see in the courts today that it has resulted in an impact on trials that are due to take place. Therefore, is the Minister concerned that the legal adviser to the State did not bring this to his attention when she found out the seriousness of the issue?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot speak on behalf of the Attorney General in respect of details I do not know. My understanding is that on her side, this particular issue arose in regard to a piece of litigation involving two different people that was taking place and that tapes were disclosed or found that could be of relevance - and proved ultimately to be of relevance - to this litigation. This is my understanding of the November issue. I understand the focus was on this piece of litigation. I do not know the timeline as established by the working group the Garda Commissioner set up, but clearly the Attorney General became very concerned and alarmed and I presume at some point the scale of the issue became clear. However, I do not think it was clear in November. When it became clear, she, appropriately, briefed the Taoiseach and that is the position.

The Deputy mentioned some trials today may have been affected by this. It is not a national secret that I spent most of my day in the Chamber, so I am not familiar at the moment with events that happened in the courts today. Obviously, the implications of this are serious and that is the reason the issue is being taken seriously.

The Deputy asked about the 2007 legislation I referred to earlier. As I understand it, that is legislation which ensured the legality of recording a 999 call. A tape can be made of such conversations automatically. There is legislation regarding taping, such as telecommunications legislation. For brevity, there was a 1983 Act and a 1993 Act. The 1983 Act seemed to require that if a conversation was taped in these sorts of circumstances, the taping required the consent of both parties to the conversation. The 1993 Act seemed to change the law to require only the consent of one of the parties to the conversation. However, I do not pretend to be an expert on this aspect of the law.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is an offence committed if there is no consent?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Clearly, the legal implications of all of this are a matter to be considered by the statutory commission of inquiry.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before Deputy Ross contributes, I ask him to be conscious that Deputies Buttimer and Boyd Barrett have yet to put their questions and we have just eight minutes for the three of them and the Minister must reply.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have just two questions for the Minister. First, can he explain what happened to the letter and what discussions were there in his office in regard to this in the extraordinary five days between 10 March and the Minister's departure to Mexico? What was going on, what inquiries has he made and what action is he taking as a result? My second question was asked also by Deputy Higgins, but the Minister did not get around to answering it. What did the Taoiseach tell the official to tell the Garda Commissioner when he went to see him?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have already dealt with the matter relating to the letter. I explained that, as has been explained to me, it arrived on 10 March. It contained information that was relevant to the issue we have been discussing, but there was also information which was primarily focused on particular sets of civil proceedings. I understand that information was the initial focus of any engagement by officials in my Department and that it led to a meeting that took place on 11 March. I was not furnished with the letter. The officials in my Department were dealing with it in the context of the pressures of that litigation and the requirements that court orders of discovery be complied with. That litigation affected the State, the Department of Justice and Equality, An Garda Síochána and involved the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, the Office of the Attorney General and counsel appointed to represent the State. My understanding is there were consultations and engagements along that route. The matter was not discussed with me at that time.

I do not recall whether the Deputy was present when I explained to the House that I spent a large part of the Wednesday morning in question dealing with the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Bill in the Oireachtas Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. I do not recall at this moment what I was doing on the Wednesday afternoon. I may have had been at some event, but simply do not remember at the moment. The simple position is the letter was not furnished to me.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did anybody tell the Minister it existed?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I spent Friday in the offices of the Department of Defence in Newbridge dealing with defence matters. We had meetings there dealing with a variety of issues of importance to the defence brief and the Defence Forces and discussions on a variety of defence matters, therefore I was not in the Department of Justice and Equality on Friday.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked a second question about what the Taoiseach told the official to tell the Garda Commissioner.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, the Minister may come back to it later.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is very important.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has 15 minutes to wrap up so I presume he can come back to it.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He can deal with it then.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All Members of this House should all join to support the men and women of the Garda Síochána in doing the work they do. It is important we continue to show support for them. This morning the Minister spoke in the House about road fatalities. Can he outline the reductions in road fatalities as a consequence of the introduction of the fixed charge notice and penalty points system? The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, addressed the House this evening on the fixed charge processing system in terms of a 21st century strategy which was brought to Cabinet on 12 March. As the Minister knows, one of the recommendations was that a criminal justice working group be created by the Departments of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Justice and Equality. Is it intended that this group will report to the Cabinet or to the Houses of the Oireachtas so that we can have an insight into that? It is important that the Minister give us an insight into the timeline regarding the inspectorate and where we go in terms of the creation of the oversight authority. It is extraordinary that Fianna Fáil, whose members have been shouting and roaring for three months, is absent from the House now.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Attorney General briefed the Taoiseach about the seriousness of the bugging, the Minister was briefed on Monday and then the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality went to see the Garda Commissioner. Did the Minister know the Secretary General of his Department was going and what he was going to say to the Garda Commissioner or what he did say? Could the Minister give us a simple answer?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In response to Deputy Buttimer, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, and I stated earlier that the fixed charge notice system has had a very dramatic and beneficial impact despite the administrative and management dysfunction that has been identified. There were 396 fatalities on our roads in 2005 and this had been reduced to 162 in 2012. As I said earlier, even a single fatality is one fatality too much, but it is a very dramatic reduction. Unfortunately, last year the numbers increased to 190 but it is still a far better position than in 2005 and fortuitously, so far, as we come to the end of the first quarter of this year, I am advised that fatalities are somewhat down on last year. I hope that continues to be the case.

It is important to put this in context. In all the criticism of the Garda Síochána that has been voiced, both the rank and file and management have taken very substantive action to try to ensure that our roads are safer and that people drive safely. In my initial statement to the House I detailed the extent of Garda activity and engagement in that context. I will not repeat it because we are time constrained. Saving lives on our roads is not simply about Garda engagement but is about people being compliant. The GSOC report of 2009 detailed the importance of compliance in reducing traffic accidents. If we were to judge the system of fixed charge notices against such criteria provided, clearly it has been successful. Both the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar and I would like to see the figures decrease further.

The recommendations made for administering this system are of great importance. I have set the timelines and the action plan has been published. The working group will report to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar and me. From time to time we will report to our Government colleagues on progress being made. I have no difficulty with our occasionally reporting to the House. So far this working group has met twice, so, clearly, it needs some time to complete the work is doing.

On Deputy Ross's question, as I said previously, I was present with the Taoiseach and the Attorney General at the meeting that took place in the Taoiseach's Department on Monday evening. The Secretary General to the Government, Mr. Martin Fraser, was present and later we were joined by the Secretary General of my Department. The concerns around this issue and matters relating to it were discussed in great detail. The Secretary General of my Department was not "dispatched" but was asked to discuss matters with the Garda Commissioner and he did so that evening. I cannot add to that any further.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What matters was he told to discuss with the Garda Commissioner?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He was asked to discuss with the Garda Commissioner issues that had arisen regarding the tapes that had been found, the nature of the recordings and the serious implications for the Garda Síochána of what had become known.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That completes the question time. We have just over ten minutes for the Minister to reply to the overall debate.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is nobody here from Fianna Fáil.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all of those who contributed to this debate. Deputies raised various points, most of which we have travelled through in the extended question and answer session we had. I do not want to delay the House unduly by repeating matters I have already addressed. We have substantially dealt with all the substantive issues I am not going to respond tonight to political charges.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that very little of the contribution to the debate this evening by Members opposite dealt with the detail of the report of the Garda Inspectorate. It is a very detailed report containing very worthwhile recommendations some of which involve administrative change and some change in legislation. Some of the recommendations affect the Garda Síochána and relate to the courts and how they address road traffic issues. In light of all the concerns that have been expressed about this issue it is extraordinary that in five hours of discussion one would be hard pressed to find a reference to the detail of the recommendations being considered in any extensive way by any Members opposite. It is in the public interest to deal with this issue. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, and I are committed to implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the Garda Inspectorate.

Those familiar with the report will know there are some recommendations that can be implemented with reasonable speed, with some to be implemented in the medium term and some in the long term. The long-term recommendations will be particularly beneficial in ensuring that in future there will no difficulties of the nature we have seen. They involve an amount of expenditure which neither Department has available overnight, as the inspectorate acknowledged, while not expecting that such funding would be discovered overnight.

I hope that when one moves away from political debate involving charge, counter-charge and allegation, we can all agree in the House on at least one objective that should not be a matter of political controversy - that is, to make our roads safer and bring a further reduction in the level of fatalities.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is much focus on the important area of road fatalities but not enough is put on people who are seriously injured and whose lives are blighted by serious road accidents. They do not appear in fatality statistics but their lives and those of families are forever affected by serious traffic accidents. We have at least that one united objective of trying to ensure we make our roads a good deal safer than they are. It is not just a matter of Garda enforcement; it takes in the public's attitude and the need for people to behave responsibly. It also encompasses the safety of our road system and the need for people to obey traffic lights, as well as the behaviour of pedestrians. It is alarming that there appears to be an increase in pedestrian fatalities. From reading some of what was said at the conference held by the Road Safety Authority last week, I was not absolutely clear whether some of the pedestrian deaths had arisen from pedestrian behaviour, driver behaviour or a mixture of both. Probably all of us in this House have been guilty of the behaviour that is emerging internationally of driver distraction, which I referenced very briefly. On occasion we have all driven cars while speaking on telephones, and one of the enforcement issues for gardaí which can result in action is when somebody is holding a mobile phone - or cellphone in the United States - and speaking while driving. Most cars are now fitted with equipment to enable people to engage in conversation without holding a mobile phone, and there is a growing concern that the extent to which people are distracted by phone calls results in serious accidents. The perception some years ago was that once a person was not holding a phone, he or she would be relatively safe. One can understand how that may not be the case, as an individual may be particularly engaged in a conversation, irate or stressed on the telephone, which could have fatal consequences either for a driver or others. We must give some further thought and consideration to the area, although it goes beyond any issue in the inspectorate report. It is a concern in the road safety sphere and I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, is giving serious thought to it in tandem with the Road Safety Authority.

There is also the question of communicating with young people. Far too many road fatalities are young men, either teenagers or in their early 20s, and much of the advertising and communication about the danger of driving at excessive speed bypasses too many young people, unfortunately. As a result, too many die on our roads.

It has been a long day and I appreciate the contributions made by Members. I will not say I was enthralled by the repetitive calls for my resignation, which seemed to form part of a single transferable speech that some Members deliver. There have been some important discussions on substantive issues. It is important, although it was not officially part of the discussion this evening, that we get as much information as possible on the issue of the tapes, their numbers and usage, their availability and storage, as well as their relevance to either current or past court proceedings.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where are the Fianna Fáil Members?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That concludes the statements on the Garda Inspectorate report.