I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.
Private Notice Questions. - Crime Statistics.
Is the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development taking the questions?
That Minister is more effective at zero tolerance than the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I made the point last night on the Adjournment, and the same applies now, that Deputies and Ministers should be in the House to take questions.
The Ceann Comhairle roundly chastised me once for being 30 seconds late arriving for questions.
It applies to both sides of the House. There is an order of the House that if there is a Private Notice Question on Thursday, it is taken from 4.15 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. The Chair just implements the orders of the House.
Has the Minister been notified? Somebody should make a telephone call at least.
Is there a rumour that the Minister is seeking political asylum?
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the implications for the authenticity of official Garda crime figures of documents published in today's The Star newspaper suggesting that conviction rates in one Garda division had been falsified; the steps being taken to investigate these claims; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether revelations today which allege the falsification of crime detection rates are true; the action being taken; if the manner in which members of the Garda Síochána are recording the level of crime and crime detection throughout the country is to be examined and its accuracy assessed; and if there are proposals to put in place new controls.
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will address the grave issues which arise from allegations of misreporting of crime statistics by some members of the Garda Síochána; the implications for official Garda statistics, for the reputation of the Garda Síochána and for the efficacy of law enforcement and justice in this country.
I apologise for my late arrival – I was given the wrong time. As the Minister for Defence informed the House on the Order of Business, the Garda Commissioner is gravely concerned that any doubt should be cast on the accuracy of information which may form part of the Garda annual report.
The commissioner, who was informed yesterday that The Star had information about the treatment of crime statistics for 2001 in Waterford city Garda district, appointed a chief superintendent from outside the region to review all aspects of the specific information received and also all crime reported and detected for 2001 in this district. Given the importance of the figures contained in the commissioner's annual report on crime, the chief superintendent's report will be made public.
I share Deputies' concerns about these allegations. While the Minister has no role and does not intervene in the compilation of crime statistics, it goes without saying that public confidence must be upheld in the bona fides of crime statistics emanating from the Garda Síochána, the organisation solely responsible for their compilation. It must be recognised that the crimes which are the subject of this controversy occurred in 2001, for which the commissioner's report has yet to be finalised. The Minister has been informed by the commissioner that the process of processing preliminary crime figures for 2001 is under way throughout the country.
The Minister considers that this situation underlines the need for caution in placing reliance on preliminary crime figures. He and his predecessors have called repeatedly for such caution inside and outside the House. As the Minister outlined to the House in a recent debate on a Private Members' motion, the reason for this is that preliminary figures are almost invariably subject to change as part of the validation process. To illustrate the wisdom of this, the final statistics in the recently published 2000 annual report show significant differences from the preliminary ones gathered during the year.
The Minister rejects the unwarranted generalisations made today about the validity and authenticity of official Garda crime statistics. He reminds the House that the current allegations relate to 14 alleged instances in one Garda district from a total of 107 districts. It is grossly unfair and empirically unwarranted to make the leap from the specific to the general. Any attempt to do so is an attempt to make political capital out of a localised issue, albeit an important one.
The Minister's record on crime is there for all to see. Between 1995 and 2000, there was an unprecedented drop in serious crime of 28.5%, making the 2000 crime figures the lowest for 20 years. Unprecedented levels of resources were given to the Garda, the courts and the prisons and the issue of prisons' revolving doors, which did so much to discredit the criminal justice system, was ended.
The newspaper allegations are serious but they do not and cannot be used to denigrate a record of achievement second to none in the field of criminal justice. The allegations are being carefully investigated and the results will be made public by the commissioner. The Minister is satis fied that all that can be done is being done and it is now time to await due process.
Is the Minister of State aware that Superintendent John Farrelly said on RTE radio this afternoon that the documents have proved to be genuine? How then, in the Minister's name, can she say that the Opposition is engaged in unwarranted generalisation? How does she know that this has not occurred in other districts or other years? Does she accept that her statement displays the complacency that has characterised the tenure of office of the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue? Is she also aware that the documentation, given to newspapers and me, contains a statement that the crime figures in this district were fudged for five years, that the whole station knew of it and that it was privately the biggest joke in the station? If that is the view of someone who put documents, which now appear to be genuine, into the public domain, is there not an unanswerable case for an independent investigation, led by an external authority, and for the establishment of a Garda ombudsman such as the one in Northern Ireland?
A thorough investigation has begun and it would only be fair to await its results, which the commissioner will make public.
I asked if there should be an external investigation.
We must remember that we are discussing preliminary figures. In 2000 and other years, there was a difference between them and the final figures.
I am talking about falsification in other districts and in other years.
Why should there be a difference between the preliminary and final figures? A fact is a fact. It does not change because time elapses.
The distinction is that a check of the figures takes place around the country, as is happening now.
A check.
The Minister has always stated that preliminary figures should not be relied on as only the final figures matter.
The allegation is that this has been happening for five years.
The distinction is between using preliminary figures for this year, or any of the past five years, and using the full figures.
Does the Minister and her senior colleague stand over the Garda crime report for 2000? Why is the reassessment of the manner in which Garda crime figures are recorded in Water ford city confined to 2001 and does not include 2000? Is she surprised that Waterford city Garda district in the 2000 report records a detection rate of 68%, dramatically higher than any other district? Does she regard that as substantiating the statement in the document received by Members that privately this district's statistics are a joke? Is she aware that the next highest rate recorded in 2000 is for the Waterford-Kilkenny area, which at 58% is substantially above any other district? Does she agree that a checking of the figures should include a re-examination of those districts in 2000 and that an independent audit should be made of the veracity of the original documentation which led to the publication of the 2000 report?
Is the Minister aware that there are other gaps in the report for 2000 which clearly indicate major discrepancies and a failure to record accurately information by members of an Garda Síochána Will she explain to the House what, if anything, the Government has learned in the past five years, particularly in light of the Taoiseach's statement today that he does not see the need for a Garda ombudsman?
During this debate, we must be mindful that the crimes which are the cause of the controversy occurred in 2001 and that the Garda annual report for that year has not been finalised.
Does the Minister of State stand over the report? She should not evade the question.
Allow the Minister of State to continue without interruption.
The issue we are discussing today, the 2001 report, has not yet been finalised. We must await that report before any further decisions are taken. That said, I assure the Deputy that any necessary actions will be taken. There is no doubt but that the allegations in today's Daily Star merit an urgent response—
What about 2000?
However, they cannot be used to denigrate previous Garda annual reports.
The Minister of State will not reassess the 2000 report. That is an extraordinary abdication of political responsibility.
Why has the Minister of State tried to play down this disgraceful episode this afternoon? What does she believe is the motivation for this at a local level in Waterford city? If it is endemic in the Waterford city area, then how widespread does she feel this is? What punishment does the Minister of State feel is appropriate for individual gardaí who have doctored statistics in this way? Does she agree that this is a compelling case for the introduction of a police ombudsman? Clearly internal investigations, as we have seen, do not work.
Regarding the Deputy's question about how widespread this is, the Minister is fully aware that an incident such as the one being discussed, following other high profile cases, has the potential to damage the reputation and good standing of the Garda. We are aware of that. It is natural, therefore, that the question of independent oversight of the Garda should be raised by Deputy Gormley and others. The Minister has addressed the issue of a Garda ombudsman on a number of occasions—
He refused to do so for three years.
—along the lines of the police ombudsman in Northern Ireland, as has been suggested. Deputies will be aware that it is the Minister's view that it would not be appropriate to simply adopt the Northern Ireland model in this jurisdiction. I can assure the House that work is under way in our Department for the preparation of the legislation required to implement the measures the Minister announced for new inspection arrangements for the gardaí and for dealing with complaints against gardaí by the public. These measures will provide for the establishment of a fully independent Garda inspectorate which will have very extensive powers to examine any aspect of Garda operations. It will be open to the inspectorate to initiate such examinations.
In addition, the inspectorate will be responsible for handling complaints made against gardaí and will carry out its investigations—
When will we see it? It is not on the list for this session.
In the interim the Minister is entirely satisfied that the investigation arrangements mandated by the Garda Commissioner are more than adequate to get to the bottom of today's alleged incident in Waterford.
What will be the punishment for the individuals involved?
The first thing we must do is to get to the bottom of the issue, establish all the details and publish the report, as has been promised by the commissioner. Appropriate action can be taken thereafter.
Does the Minister of State agree that this incident is only the latest in a series of incidents which indicate serious slippage in the morale of the Garda, in the standards of training of the Garda and in its operational standards? I remind the Minister of State of some of the incidents on the list: Abbeylara, Abbeyleix, the proven fabrication of evidence in a recent court case, the "blue flu", the McBrearty affair and the Garda tyres scandal. I could go on.
A question, please.
We have just had Question Time with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; is the Minister of State aware that in other parts of our community, misreporting, to put it mildly, on the level we seem to be talking about here would not only give rise to penalties but to lifetime exclusion from schemes for people who engaged in fabrication on a fraction of that level?
Does the Minister of State accept it is time for a major re-examination of how we account for the standards of the Garda? Does she agree this is far too important to be left to the Minister and that we need an independent system of verification and supervision?
Again, we must exercise caution in what we are saying. The Minister has exercised caution again and again about relying on preliminary figures.
He has done nothing again and again.
It is not correct to refer to what we are discussing as misreporting.
Of course it is.
We must remember that we are talking here about preliminary figures.
There are no figures.
I hope Deputy Howlin has another opportunity to ask a question but if Members continue to interrupt, the Chair, acting within Standing Orders, will have to finish with questions sooner than normal.
We must be very careful not to leap from the specific to the general in this case and say there is a specific situation in preliminary figures. Those figures are not final figures and there has been no publication—
Why would one have preliminary figures with the PULSE system?
—of final figures. As I said at the outset, currently there is a check across all the 107 districts into the preliminary figures brought forward by those districts. All Ministers for Justice would be aware of preliminary figures at each stage of the process but they are never final figures and there is always a wide discrepancy between the preliminary and final figures.
The figures can be cooked.
All Ministers, including this one, caution strongly against relying on preliminary figures.
For Deputy Shatter's information, we are not involved in any way in compiling the figures or in any way with what happens—
But the Government takes the credit.
Deputy Shatter indicated that he would like to ask another supplementary but he will deny himself that opportunity if he continues to interrupt. The Chair does not mind if he does not want to ask another supplementary.
The temptation was too much.
As for credit, of course the Government is entitled to claim credit for putting an extra 2,000 gardaí on the streets and closing the revolving door.
We have heard all this many times.
While Deputies may have heard this many times, they should bear in mind that in 1997 there was a major revolving door system in prisons.
A revolving Minister.
This Minister and Government have stopped that revolving door.
The Minister of State revolves around questions but does not answer them.
I am answering the question directly.
Again, Deputy Shatter, I ask you to cease to interrupt. I would prefer if the Minister of State did not answer questions which come by way of interruption.
I have specific questions. Does the Minister take this matter seriously? Has the Minister been informed that the gardaí believe the documents published this morning are genuine? Has she been told that? If she accepts that this is a serious matter and the documentation is genuine, as stated on RTE by Superintendent John Farrelly – I checked the website before I came in – then does she accept at least some of the allegations in the newspapers, which have been accepted as genuine, that this fraudulent practice has gone on for five years? In those circumstances, does she not accept that it is absolutely imperative that the investigation would at least encompass figures for the last five years for the district concerned, if not for the whole country, if there is to be any credibility attached to the crime statistics published by An Garda Síochána? Will the Minister of State accept that the compi lation of statistical facts should be handed over to the Central Statistics Office which handles the provision of statistics for other areas of public activity and public life in the State? It could independently validate and publish more efficiently the statistics on crime upon which important decisions are made.
I assure the Deputy that the Minister believes it is vital that we ensure full transparency of the investigative process. The results of the investigation will be brought forward and made public. We should not jump to conclusions on that issue until we get the full report.
Will the Minister of State answer the questions I asked?
The Deputy wanted to know if we take the issues seriously. We and the Minister take the issues seriously. The Minister has been informed about this issue. We are awaiting the report and the necessary action will be taken.
Has the Minister of State been told they are genuine? None of my questions has been answered.
The Chair does not have control over the questions which are answered. I call Deputy Shatter.
Has the Minister of State been told the figures are genuine? If they are, why has this gone on for five years since that is the accusation contained in them?
I will repeat the question. Can the Minister of State clarify the difference between preliminary figures and final figures? Why, in the context of the PULSE computer system, are figures now described as preliminary? Can she indicate in the context of the year 2000 what the difference was between the preliminary and final figures and in what way the figures were doctored? Can she confirm to the House that she has been informed that the documentation available on this matter to Members of the House and the news media is accurate and valid and reflects documentation which came out of the Waterford district?
Deputies will be aware that the National Crime Council in its first report entitled "Crime In Ireland" made a recommendation that the Minister should establish an expert group to examine, among other matters—
The Minister of State is not answering any questions.
That is an example of why the Parliament does not work. It is a disgrace that the Minister of State does not have the information to answer the questions she has been asked.
—the collation of information relating to crimes reported and recorded by the Garda Síochána, while being mindful of the capabilities of the Garda PULSE computer system. At the time of the publication of that report in November the Minister indicated he would give full and early consideration to that recommendation.
He has not adopted a single recommendation in that report. It is irrelevant in relation to the issue we have raised today.
As regards the annual report of An Garda Síochána and the distinction between preliminary—
Has the Minister of State been told the documents are genuine?
I have been told I cannot answer any more questions asked by way of interruptions. I must answer them in the order they are asked.
I asked the Minister of State properly, but she ignored my questions.
As regards the preliminary figures versus the final figures, the preliminary figures are those issued during the year. The only figures which are appropriate are the ones published in the annual report of An Garda Síochána. At present, the process of validating the preliminary figures for last year is being undertaken.
It is all irrelevant.
Why should there be a difference?
We are not taking questions by way of interruptions. I will accept a brief question from Deputies Crawford and Gormley. The order of the House was to conclude at 4.45 p.m.
This is a complete waste of time.
As we lost four minutes at the start and as the House is not adjourning, I will allow the four minutes now. I will accept a brief supplementary question from Deputies Crawford and Gormley and a reply from the Minister of State.
Has it been clarified that the documentation is authentic? It was made clear in an earlier discussion that if a farmer makes what is called an intentional mistake, he or she will not be paid the special beef premium, suckler cow premium, slaughter premium or extensification payment for that year.
That is not appropriate.
It is appropriate to farmers who are being penalised because they make a genuine mistake which is classified as intentional.
Does the Deputy have a question because I want to allow Deputy Gormley to ask his question?
The Minister of State said the preliminary figures may not be correct. Surely figures entered into a computer—
The Deputy is making a statement. Does he have a question?
Why do figures which are entered into a computer have to be altered at the end of the year? We want a straight and simple answer. Why must the figures be changed? Who directs that they must be changed and for what reason?
I assure the Deputy that the Minister or the Department does not give any direction about the compilation of the figures.
Who else changes them?
The Minister accepts the 2000 figures in good faith because they are the final figures in the Garda annual report. He did not have any role or input into their compilation.
It is incredible.
He is responsible to the House for An Garda Síochána.
The Minister must await the commissioner's report into the allegations before commenting on the media response on which the Opposition has already commented. The preliminary figures for serious crime for 2000, for example, were 77,000 and the actual figures were 73,000. I do not know why that is the case. We received preliminary figures, but the figure we published was 77,000.
They were doctored.
Did the Minister of State ask?
Whether it is the current Minister, the former Minister, Deputy Owen, or any previous Minister for Justice—
The Government introduced the PULSE computer system.
I call Deputy Gormley to ask a brief question and then the Minister of State will make a final reply.
Did the Minister of State ask?
The key thing Deputies must remember is that every Minister consistently says to the Opposition that they cannot rely on preliminary figures but on the final figures published.
The computer is a liar.
I ask the Minister of State to allow Deputy Gormley to speak and not to respond to interruptions.
Does the Minister of State accept that while the Minister may not direct these matters, he is allowing the bad eggs to continue in the Garda Síochána by not taking the necessary or appropriate action? What is "the necessary or appropriate action" which is a phrase she used in her response?
The necessary and appropriate action will be determined by the report. We have asked for a report on the situation, which is being compiled. A senior Garda person is in charge of that report. The commissioner said it will be published. The relevant and appropriate action will be taken at that stage.
Has the Minister of State been told the documents are genuine?
I asked that question four times, but the Minister of State would not answer it.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.