Statements will be confined to a Minister or a Minister of State and the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group who shall be called in that order, may share their time and shall not exceed ten minutes in each case.
Issuing of fixed ticket charges and exercise of Garda discretion: Statements
I am grateful for the opportunity to address issues arising from last Thursday's "Prime Time" programme. I regret that comments made by me may have inadvertently resulted in concerns being expressed that I am prepared to use confidential Garda information to damage a political opponent. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I am happy to offer reassurances to Deputies on this point. I give a solemn assurance to the House that I am not in the business of receiving, seeking or maintaining confidential, sensitive information from An Garda Síochána on Members of this House, the Seanad or anyone in political life, nor are gardaí in the business of providing it.
As Minister, it is necessary that I am informed of certain matters. Section 41 of the Garda Síochána Act provides a clear statutory basis for the information provided for me by An Garda Síochána. In turn, I am subject to the laws of the land in respect of the use to which I might make of that information, but, more important still, I am responsible to the House for how I discharge my office. The House will appreciate that there could be exceptional circumstances where it would be necessary for the Minister of the day with responsibility for justice to receive confidential information on the activities of Members of this House. It would arise, for example, if Members of this House were also involved with organisations carrying out terrorist activities. However, all Members of this House and I can agree that it would be absolutely abhorrent if An Garda Síochána were to collect information on anyone, regardless of whether he or she is involved in public life, for political purposes. There is no question of that happening. There are simply no circumstances in which I would countenance the abuse of Garda powers.
For my part, as Minister for Justice and Equality and Minister for Defence, I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring confidentiality with regard to sensitive information and information relating to the security of the State. My discretion in maintaining confidences and not revealing information inappropriately is well known to many who have been writing and commenting on this controversy. On reflection, they would regard it as absurd to suggest I keep files on anyone.
I want to turn to the very particular circumstances in which I mentioned on "Prime Time" a particular incident involving Deputy Mick Wallace. I emphasise that, despite some of the subsequent commentary, I was making absolutely no allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Deputy Wallace in his dealings with An Garda Síochána. If I had been referring to some very serious incident involving the Deputy, no doubt he would have been immediately able to recall it. The manner in which I acquired the information was quite straightforward and there is nothing sinister about it. I have taken the allegations made about the integrity of the fixed charge notice system and the controversy that arose with great seriousness. In the circumstances, I asked that the allegations made be fully investigated and was briefed on the matter by the Garda Commissioner. During the course of one of our conversations in which a number of matters relating to the reports on the fixed notice charge issue were discussed, including circumstances in which gardaí exercised their discretion on traffic offences, the incident involving Deputy Wallace was mentioned by the Garda Commissioner. I most certainly did not request any information on Deputies and no big issue was made of the incident involving the Deputy. I have no doubt that the Garda Commissioner was mindful that Deputy Wallace might make public reference to the incident as part of the public controversy which was ongoing about fixed charge notices and, in these circumstances, he had a duty to mention it to me.
It is important to see this matter in perspective and context. Deputy Wallace and his colleagues put into the public domain a whole range of allegations about the operation of the fixed charge notice system and they had no way of knowing if they were true or not, many of which have since been disproved. They wanted to put in the public domain information on third parties, implying wrongdoing on their part, with no basis for any assertion of wrongdoing. Above all, they have been demanding transparency in this area. They wrote to the Taoiseach on 22 April saying the review which was taking place of the issue of penalty points must "address the lack of transparency surrounding the process". Their position seems to be that any information from whistleblowers, regardless of whether it is correct, should be placed in the public domain, but they are outraged when anyone provides information relating to this matter.
Despite the extensive nature of the investigation conducted under the supervision of Assistant Commissioner O'Mahoney and the report published, Deputy Wallace and other Independent Deputies continued to denigrate An Garda Síochána and sought to undermine public confidence in and damage the reputation of the force. They also rejected all of the conclusions contained in the report when it was clear to any fair-minded observer that some of the most serious allegations made had no basis in reality.
At the very start of the "Prime Time" programme Deputy Wallace stated gardaí should not exercise a discretion and that their doing so was unlawful. This was clearly a gravely serious allegation against An Garda Síochána. His initial comments were absolutist in this regard. I responded by saying gardaí could quite properly and lawfully use their discretion. I believed it was grossly unfair to suggest it was improper for gardaí to do so or that where a discretion was exercised in ease of a member of the public, the member of the public was engaged in some form of illegality. I believed that in the performance of my duties and functions as Minister for Justice and Equality it was necessary for me to ensure continuing public confidence in the force and that it was wrong of Deputy Wallace to pillory others for the proper exercise of a lawful discretion. It was my judgment that it was both necessary and in the public interest that I point out that he had been a beneficiary of that discretionary exercise. I believed there was an extraordinary inconsistency between what the Deputy had to say and what had actually occurred in his case. I made the point, not to make a political charge against him, nor for any personal benefit, but to defend the integrity of An Garda Síochána. I did not make any allegation of wrongdoing against him in his dealings with the Garda Síochána. In the context of the transparency demanded by him on this very issue and the information furnished to me relating to it, I was simply making the point that, like tens of thousands of others, he had been the beneficiary of Garda discretion being properly exercised.
I believe I acted in the public interest and my doing so should have none of the connotations some have ascribed to it. However, as I have acknowledged on other occasions, none of us has a monopoly of wisdom. If Deputy Wallace believes I did him a personal wrong by mentioning it, I have no problem in saying I am sorry.
That is a first.
It may be helpful to clarify the issue of Garda discretion in dealing with road traffic matters. After our initial exchange on "Prime Time", Deputy Wallace acknowledged that it was okay for gardaí who stopped someone to exercise discretion but stated that, once a fixed charge notice issued, no discretion should be exercised by gardaí. In his view, no matter what the circumstances, individuals should go to court if they seek to have a fixed charge notice cancelled. What he does not take into account is that many fixed charge notices are issued as a result of speed cameras where there is no contact of any nature between the motorist and An Garda Síochána. This reinforces the need for Garda discretion, properly exercised, even where a notice has been issued.
The distinction Deputy Wallace now makes would be unjust and not reflect reality. If all of those who received fixed charge notices, in circumstances where the courts would inevitably dismiss any summons issued, were required to go to court, it would cause stress, inconvenience and financial loss to thousands of people, gardaí would be unnecessarily tied up in the courts and removed from regular policing duties, and there would be many thousands of unnecessary road traffic summonses to be processed by court clerical officers and backlogs in court proceedings, putting the Judiciary under unnecessary pressures. This would delay the hearing by the District Court of other criminal prosecutions to the detriment of the public.
The presentation to date on this issue, by Deputy Wallace and his colleagues, pays no regard to any of these issues and the public interest in ensuring a common sense, cost effective and humane approach. These are important issues to which I must have regard as Minister for Justice and Equality.
There are genuine issues that have to be addressed about the penalty point and the fixed notice systems. That is why I sought a Garda investigation and why new procedures are being put in place in accordance with the recommendations made. The Garda inspectorate will independently monitor the operation of the system and express its views on the reports that are furnished to it. It is also the reason the reports have been referred to the Oireachtas joint committee for its deliberations. I am, of course, happy to assist the committee in its deliberations if it asks me to do so.
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. We also agree that An Garda Síochána should be allowed to exercise a degree of discretion. Some people have sought to discredit the reports by saying that the Garda should not investigate the Garda. It is open to the Minister, the justice committee or the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to inquire into the matter also. There is an outside agency that could have a degree of oversight on that, should it be warranted. I was anxious to put our position in that regard on the record.
Unfortunately, having dealt with that point, we now face the situation regarding last Thursday night's "Prime Time" programme. Since then, the Minister has sought to completely confuse the issue regarding what he said and the privileged, private information he used on that programme to smear another individual. He has continually sought to mix that up with the reporting on the two reports last week. He is doing so in a skilled attempt to try to confuse people. I have said the Minister should resign and I stand over that statement. That is the position of our party. The Minister has clearly crossed the line. He knowingly and willingly abused his position to smear another individual with private, privileged information that came into his possession. He did this to a political opponent on national television.
Where does the Minister stand with regard to due process, natural justice and a person's privacy and any rights they might have with that? Where do the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Government stand on that? The Minister clearly made a predetermined decision to appear on that television programme and to use that private, privileged information in that manner. He set himself up as judge, jury and executioner of a political opponent. That is not on. Following last Thursday, the Minister made a statement yesterday. That raised further questions. The Minister referred to a general briefing and to the information about Deputy Wallace as being merely incidental. The Minister also said he did nothing unlawful. That is not for him to determine. He is happy to be judge, jury and executioner of another individual on RTE's "Prime Time" and, at the same time, he wishes to act as judge and jury in his own regard. Unfortunately for the Minister, that determination will be made by SIPO, the Standards in Public Office Commission, and the Data Commissioner. The Minister cannot behave like people in banana republics behave. As a modern society, we must have a degree of responsibility and own up to responsibilities.
We must look at the Minister's track record in respect of similar circumstances when he sat on this side of the House. We are judging the Minister by his own standards and by the utterances he made when similar situations arose over the years. In 2002, the then Minister of State, former Deputy Bobby Molloy, had an issue. The current Minister clearly said, "The Minister should recognise that his position as a Government Minister is no longer tenable and should resign. Such a monumental error of judgment might have been forgivable had it been made by a political novice serving a first term in the Dáil...". The Minister should apply that standard to himself. In 2010, the Minister stated, quite incorrectly, with regard to Deputy Willie O'Dea, that he willingly and publicly discussed, for his own electoral gain, confidential information furnished to him by a member of An Garda Síochána, and that such conduct was unacceptable by any Minister in any Government. Again, I ask the Minister and his colleagues to judge the Minister by his own standards. By those standards, he is not being consistent and is engaging in blatant hypocrisy.
The Minister spoke about his role and responsibility as head of the Garda Síochána. He is supposed to be the ultimate leader, but the Garda does not see leadership in him. There is an unhealthy tension, which we have discussed in this House on many occasions. The Minister has not made any efforts to foster and rebuild a decent working relationship with An Garda Síochána. I believe the Minister has compounded that unhealthy situation. He quoted the Garda Síochána Act regarding the role and responsibilities of the Garda in briefing a Minister. The relevant section of the Act permits the Garda to brief the Minister on three issues - the preservation of peace and public order, the protection of life and property and State security. Where does the briefing relating to a Member of this House or, indeed, a private citizen whom the Minister is due to face in a debate on a television programme come into play? The Minister is dropping the person who gave him that briefing into the mix, whether knowingly, willingly or inadvertently. There are serious penalties for members of An Garda Síochána who breach that section of the Act. The Act provides for a fine of up to €50,000 or six months imprisonment.
As I said yesterday, the Taoiseach's response has been particularly weak, both when he was in Boston and in the House today. He expressed 100% confidence in the Minister. What type of message does it give to people in our communities when the Taoiseach can express confidence in a Minister having blatantly used private, privileged information to discredit and smear somebody? What does the Taoiseach stand for when he does not stand for people's rights, due process and natural justice? He was asked a simple question by Deputy Micheál Martin during Leaders' Questions today, whether he accepted that it was wrong, "Yes" or "No". He could not give an answer; he was unable to say it. The Government must not only act appropriately, it must be seen to act appropriately. In this matter, it is failing very badly. The Government need only look to the actions of President Obama, a real leader. He sacked the head of the Internal Revenue Service.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, how did he come into possession of the information which he revealed on the RTE "Prime Time" programme last Thursday night? Who briefed him? He said in passing in his statement that it was the Garda Commissioner. Has the Minister received similar information on other people? Is it now in his possession? Has he previously used this type of information against other people or, indeed, other political opponents?
There is a file on Deputy Kevin Humphreys.
What form did the briefing take? Was it an oral or written briefing? Who else was present at the briefing? Did the Minister discuss it with his Cabinet colleagues? With what other third parties has the Minister discussed this briefing? How did information on an incident pertaining to Deputy Wallace make its way to the Minister when it was not recorded on PULSE? Did the Minister ask for the names of any other political or public figures?
Does the Minister have any regard for the data protection guidelines? Does he adhere to them in his role as Minister and within his Department?
What has been evidenced in the past week is an unhealthy relationship or partnership between the Minister and the Garda Commissioner, Mr. Martin Callinan. The Commissioner is standing over and supporting the Minister in the face of the closure of 140 Garda stations and the failure to replace thousands of retired gardaí and hundreds of Garda vehicles whose period of service has expired. Garda morale is at an all-time low. The Minister knows that gardaí on the front line have spoken up against these issues. They have spoken to Members of both Houses about their concerns. The Commissioner has stood by the Minister and has talked about efficiency, modernisation and smart policing. Such is the anger among the ranks of An Garda Síochána that, for the first time in 35 years, gardaí did not invite the Minister to attend their conference. There were walk-outs at the AGSI conference. This demonstrates the anger on the ground. Despite this, the Garda Commissioner stands solidly behind the Minister in defending the cutbacks that are having an effect across the board.
In the past week, there were three serious moments that are very worrying for every citizen. The first concerns the Garda ombudsman's report, the public-interest investigation into what is known as the Kieran Boylan affair. A convicted drug dealer, alleged to have been in possession of heroin and cocaine worth €1.7 million, he had charges dropped against him without any clear explanation. He also benefited from a haulier licence after his conviction. The relationship of Mr. Boylan with some within An Garda Síochána at quite a high level is a serious matter.
The ombudsman, having completed four years in office, has reported to the public in a remarkable summary of the full report. The ombudsman has grave concerns about the level of co-operation from An Garda Síochána. The report refers to the Morris tribunal and states lessons have not been learned. The report refers to the failure to keep contemporaneous notes of issues surrounding the handling of informers, which issues were so central to all the crises associated with the tribunal. Very serious matters were raised, including the failure to co-operate continually. Only 17 of 62 requests for information were returned within the 30-day period. The Minister had nothing to say about that other than that he will pull the Garda Commissioner together with the ombudsman. We know that sources within An Garda Síochána briefed against the ombudsman's office on the weekend in question in the media, unchallenged by the Minister. He let the matter continue and issued no comment since.
Next was the penalty points debacle. Two Garda whistleblowers came across what they believed to be considerable malpractice in regard to the rescinding of penalty points that have been issued. They tried to raise those concerns through the appropriate Garda channel, the confidential receiver. They did not seem to get anywhere with that. I understand they brought the matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Road Safety Authority, and that they tried to make contact with the Taoiseach repeatedly. Having make all these attempts, they then took their concerns to Members of the Oireachtas, as was their right because they felt the matters of serious concern were not dealt with.
The Minister chose to ask senior police to investigate senior police rather than ask the ombudsman to carry out an independent examination of the serious matters in question. Was there a paper trail behind every single penalty point that was rescinded? If somebody said he was in a medical emergency and that points should not be issued, as was his right, there should be backup documentation to prove there was indeed a medical emergency. Where is the paper trail behind all the hundreds and thousands of penalty points that were rescinded? How can the motorist be sure the law applies as much to him as everyone else? These were the matters that very courageous whistleblowers put into the public domain. On the day on which the report was published, the Minister chose to go on the offensive against them.
This State was brought to the edge of economic crisis because too many people in the public and private sectors failed to blow the whistle and shout "Stop". The Government is preparing whistleblower legislation. What encouragement will whistleblowers receive from the Minister's attacks on the two courageous gardaí? One of the gardaí said he has been driven out of the force because of the choices he made. At a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, the Garda Commissioner spoke about hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. He must know the whistleblowers’ identities, however, because they went through the appropriate authorities.
We have had the Garda ombudsman's report and the penalty points debacle in which the Minister chose to shoot the messenger, the whistleblowers, rather than shed more light on these issues. Next was the Deputy Mick Wallace debacle on “Prime Time”. We now know the Minister was briefed by the Garda Commissioner on these matters. Under what remit was he operating? Was there a legal requirement? What was the legal basis? Could the Minister refer to the legal basis, under sections 41 and 62 of the Garda Síochána Act, in respect of which the Commissioner would have given him the information? How did the information make its way from the two gardaí, who did not charge the Deputy but who instead gave him a brief slap on the wrist, to the Garda Commissioner without its being filed within the system? Why did the Commissioner feel it was essential to give the Minister that information? Was the timing not fortuitous? When did the Minister receive the briefing from the Garda Commissioner?
Let me read to the Minister his press release some years ago on the then Minister, Deputy Willie O’Dea, who had to resign: "It must be presumed that any such information, when furnished by a member of the Gardaí, to a Government Minister would be expected to be kept confidential and disclosed to no other persons, other than to members of Cabinet within the confidentiality of Cabinet discussions, where the information is sufficiently serious to require such discussion." The Minister continued:
Such conduct is entirely unacceptable by any minister in any Government. Such conduct by a Minister for Defence, part of whose constitutional duty is to secure the security of the State, renders the Minister unfit for Cabinet office.
Deputy Shatter is the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister for Defence. He has a unique array of powers that very few, if any, Ministers have in the developed world. With these powers comes access to some of the most sensitive information. We expect the Minister to use that wisely. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a man such as the Minister, who has undoubted intellectual and legal capacity and who is not just an ordinary legal practitioner but one of great repute, felt it would be acceptable to make the intervention he made in the debate in question. I cannot figure it out. The Minister was entirely wrong.
What was the legal basis for the information provided to the Minister? When the Minister was on "Prime Time", he did not name the exact date, time and location of the incident in question. How is it that a journalist got hold of that information after the "Prime Time" debate and was able to contact Deputy Wallace with specific details on where he was stopped? How did that information come to be in the hands of a journalist such that those questions could be asked?
Who in An Garda Síochána felt it necessary to get that information to a journalist to assist the Minister? Does he not find that strange? I certainly do. I would like to get his thoughts on that.
A very unhealthy relationship is developing. It is a disservice to the overwhelming majority of members of An Garda Síochána who have very low morale as a result of cutbacks and all of the challenges they have faced. They need to be assured that those at the very top of An Garda Síochána answer questions and deal with them effectively, and that the Minister of the day holds them to account, deals with issues of legitimate concern and does not let them down.
Deputies Daly and Wallace are sharing time. They have ten minutes in total.
We obviously have very limited time. The Minister said he is not in the business of getting information from An Garda Síochána, and it is not in the business of giving it to him, and that we can all be reassured. I am certainly not reassured.
Yesterday, the Minister claimed he was at a briefing on the termination of fixed charge penalty notices where the information in regard to Deputy Wallace came up. Today he told us there was a conversation with the Garda Commissioner. Why did a briefing on the termination of fixed charge penalty notices have any relevance to Deputy Wallace, who did not benefit from a termination in that regard?
I wonder how the Garda Commissioner would be privy to such trivial information about an event that did not register on the radar and took place over a year ago. Was it at this briefing or conversation that the Minister received Garda information regarding Deputy Flanagan, which the Minister released in his press release at the same time as he issued a report in which he alleged that he was unwilling to co-operate with Garda investigations, that he cancelled meetings and so on?
Is he not aware that under data protection legislation it is unlawful for him to divulge such information? There is a view that it would, in fact, be a criminal offence. Not only that, but what the Minister divulged was not information but misinformation, because the incident as he described it did not happen in that way. He has again taken this opportunity to accuse some of us on this side of the House of wildly bandying around unfounded allegations with some spurious motivations. The reality is that the root of this investigation happened because of the bravery of two whistleblowers, honest members of An Garda Síochána, acting in the best interests of the force, who wanted to know why, while honest gardaí decided to not exercise their discretion and give penalty points, senior officers cancelled them for reasons that had no valid basis.
Those people went through every correct channel to ensure the information was heard and they only came to us in desperation. Why did the Minister choose to have an investigation which his friend, the Commissioner, Mr. Callinan, told us before it had even started would reveal there was no culture of writing off of penalty points? Yet, that even limited inquiry revealed that 40% of the terminations were improper or are the subject of disciplinary investigations. It is hardly a vindication.
I have some questions for the Minister. He said some of the most serious issues have been dealt with. The biggest problem I have with his report is my inability to believe it. In the report he stated he got the information in October, and that his Department was furnished with the information in September by the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Transport. He is on the Official Report of the Dáil on at least six previous occasions as having said the same thing.
My problem is that I have correspondence from the Taoiseach dated 22 July where he says he gave the Minister's Department the information on that date. I have further correspondence from him dated 13 August and 14 September, when he again says he gave the Minister the information. I note the Minister told the media he has an inconvenient habit of telling the truth. Therefore, I can only assume that if he is telling the House that, it is the Taoiseach's correspondence that is a lie because both of them cannot be telling the truth.
How can an investigation which starts on the basis of a lie have any credibility? Where is the supporting information for all of the claims written in the report? How do we know the claims have been substantiated when it is the very same gardaí who were accused of this malpractice who adjudicated and investigated themselves?
I would like to deal briefly with last week's "Prime Time" programme and the Minister's allegation that I was stopped and cautioned by gardaí last year for the use of a mobile phone while driving. While I could not recall the incident at that time, I have since confirmed that a Garda car pulled up beside me while I was stopped at traffic lights at the Five Lamps in Dublin. I was not stopped or cautioned, and none of the gardaí got out of their vehicle. As others have noted, the politically motivated and personal attack on me represents a serious abuse of the Minister's power and privilege. I can confirm that I have written to the Standards in Public Office Commission and Data Protection Commissioner requesting them to investigate the matter.
Throughout our campaign for an independent public inquiry into the termination of fixed charge notices, we have only spoken of the issue of discretion in regard to fixed charge notices on the PULSE system. The Minister has consistently tried to misrepresent our position on discretion. I will make things clear for him once again. We have never stated that there should be no discretion in cases where, for example, someone is speeding to hospital with a sick child. Rather, I have repeatedly said that this use of discretion must be subject to proper monitoring and oversight in order to ensure it is not open to abuse. At the current time, as the Minister knows, there is no legislation to provide for this discretionary power. This was confirmed by the Attorney General in 2006, who stated that if gardaí exercise this discretion it must be recorded. This recommendation was clearly not followed as the internal review found that the lack of paper a trail was one of the two main problems identified. In addition, the foremost authority on traffic legislation, Robert Pierse, has gone further and said under the current legislation the exercise of this discretion by gardaí is unlawful. Despite the Minister's claims, I am not opposed to discretion, as long as it is lawful and subject to a system of transparency, monitoring, oversight, appeal and a formal application process which can be evidenced by a paper trail. Furthermore, it should be a well publicised system which is accessible to all members of society, not just those who can count a senior garda among their circles of friends.
The Minister continues to misrepresent our position in order to minimise and rubbish the serious issues at hand, which have impacted on road safety, revenue for the State and, ultimately, the application of the rule of law in this State and whether it can be considered to be uniform, consistent and fairly applied. Since I and three other Deputies raised these issues, the Minister has tried to ridicule us, skew the debate and misrepresent our position, and has shown a fundamental lack of respect for us as elected representatives and for the meaningful operation and functioning of the Legislature.
Why did the Minister stoop to these unparliamentary levels? What is he trying to hide? If these issues are so minimal, why was he afraid to exercise his powers to order a special inquiry or to refer the matters to the Garda Ombudsman Commission and have them investigated in a transparent manner? That is the only way public confidence in the system would have been restored. Was he afraid that the ombudsman might act in an independent manner?
He repeatedly dismissed our calls for a public inquiry and has refused to explain why he did not use one of three options available to him to have this matter externally investigated. He told us that the internal review would answer all our questions. The truth of the matter is that the internal review was discredited as early as 7 December when the Commissioner rubbished it and said there was no basis for the allegations. It was discredited by the failure to interview or protect the two whistleblowers involved. Imagine the situation. Two whistleblowers came forward and provided a dossier which was a sample of what was going on, and nobody interviewed them. One could not make it up. The investigation was discredited by its terms of reference which were narrow, disproving, dismissive and minimising.
Finally, the Minister was not able to release the names of people who have had their fixed charge notices terminated. I did not ask him to do so. He was not able to release the name of a superintendent who has terminated almost 1,000 fixed charge notices for every offence possible. Some 700 terminations were squashed with excuses such as "Garda seeks cancellation" and "Garda wants termination". Serious questions must be asked, but the Minister chose to release the name of someone who did not get a fixed charge notice terminated, and who did not even receive a fixed charge notice.
The Minister says he released my name in the public interest. Is he serious and does he think people believe him? I do not think they do. It is not we who are undermining the Garda Síochána; it is the Minister.
That concludes statements. We will now move on to questions and answers and I ask Members to be brief. I thank them in advance for their co-operation.
I will repeat some of the questions I asked in my opening statement. Will the Minister outline in detail the process by which he came into possession of the information he used on "Prime Time"? Does he have similar information pertaining to other people, including politicians? Did he request similar information pertaining to citizens or politicians? Has he previously used similar information against other people or political opponents in the fashion in which he did last Thursday night?
In regard to the briefing, can he tell us the exact format it took? Was it oral or written? Who was present at the briefing in addition to the Minister and the Garda Commissioner? Are those people bound to secrecy or confidentiality? Will they respect the data protection legislation? Was the content of the briefing given to the Minister discussed by him with his Government colleagues?
In regard to the incident to which Deputy Mick Wallace referred, which it is fair to say is an unrecorded incident, will the Minister explain how it made its way to him through the system? Does he recognise and adhere to the data protection legislation in his role as Minister and within his Department?
I thank Deputy Niall Collins for the questions he has raised. By way of context, I refer the Deputy to the entirety of subsection 41(1) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, which provides that the Garda Commissioner shall keep the Minister and the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality fully informed of certain matters. The Deputy was somewhat selective in his reference to subsection 41(1)(a) only, which deals with matters relating to significant developments concerning the preservation of peace and public order in the State, the protection of life and property in the State, and the protection of the security of the State. He chose, however, to leave out the rest of the subsection. Under paragraph (b), the Minister must be informed by the Garda Commissioner of "significant developments that might reasonably be expected to affect adversely public confidence in the Garda Síochána", which is a matter of particular importance in regard to the issue we are discussing. Paragraph (c), meanwhile, refers to "matters relevant to the accountability of the Government to the Houses of the Oireachtas", which is also pertinent. Finally, paragraph (d) refers to "any other matters that, in the Commissioner's opinion, should be brought to the Minister's attention".
I wish to repeat something I have already said in very straightforward terms. I have no information about any Member of this House. I do not seek information about Members of this House. The only occasion on which I raised an issue with the Garda Commissioner about a Member of this House related directly to my concerns about how that Member was treated in the context of matters which, for reasons I could not understand, appeared in the public media. I communicated my concern about that to the Commissioner.
I did not seek any information in regard to Deputy Mick Wallace. The transparency which everybody has been insisting upon is something which I myself have been insisting on in regard to every aspect of not just the fixed-charge issue, but the related issues that have been reasonable to raise in respect of the manner in which members of An Garda Síochána apply and exercise their discretion in regard to road traffic offences. I have been seeking to ensure I have the maximum information. There were some issues not addressed in the reports and I sought some additional information in regard to those. In fairness to Deputy Wallace, as he has rightly said, discretion can be exercised in a number of circumstances. Most people in the State have a family member who has experienced either being stopped by a garda or, as in the Deputy experience, being at a traffic light when a garda knocks on the roof or window to warn one about something. It happened to me many years ago in a different context. It turned out the warning I got was wrong because there was not an issue.
(Interruptions).
There was no issue because I was driving along a route one could drive along and a traffic garda was confused about the issue.
(Interruptions).
In the context of gardaí exercising discretion before fixed-charge tickets are issued, as an aside during our conversation the Commissioner mentioned to me the incident to which Deputy Wallace referred. Deputy Niall Collins asked me how the Commissioner knew of the incident. I do not know how he knew of the incident. Did I get a briefing in writing on it? I did not. Did I go looking for it? No, I did not. It was an aside in a conversation.
In the context of the issue we are discussing, I have said - I am sorry Deputy Wallace did not acknowledge it - that if he feels I did him some personal wrong by mentioning this issue, I am quite happy to say sorry to him, which is what I have said. However, I must make the point that Deputy Wallace's views on this particular issue are like shifting sands and we have had a variety of different presentations. One is that gardaí should never exercise their discretion. The next is that it is okay if they exercise discretion if a fixed-notice charge is not issued but where such a charge is issued, one should have to go to court. If anybody checks the "Prime Time" record, they will see that the Deputy shifted from the first view before moving on to the second view. He was very adamant on the second view in regard to fixed-notice charges that if one has been issued, individuals should be taken to court. I have explained why the discretion should still be exercised.
I cannot add a greater enlightenment to this matter. The only reason I raised it was that Deputy Wallace, as I said, was effectively saying that gardaí were acting unlawfully in exercising their discretion. He said again this evening that there is no lawful basis for it and if the law is changed he will be happy with it. I know the Deputy has read the report and, in fairness to him, he accepts aspects of what is in it. The report details a variety of circumstances in which fixed-notice charges are issued, often by speed vans. The effect of that is that in the case of a medical practitioner rushing to an emergency, a parent bringing a sick child to hospital or a husband transporting his pregnant wife to a maternity unit, for example, there is no way those circumstances can be known by the person operating the speed van. We must have a discretion exercised so that individuals are not unnecessarily brought before our courts.
There is no question of my personally seeking information about any Member of this House, in any circumstances, in respect of any issue. It is simply that this was brought to my attention. Deputy Wallace says he wants maximum transparency in this area. In the context of the case he was making that gardaí were acting unlawfully in exercising their discretion, I thought it was reasonable to point out that he was a beneficiary of that discretion and that others should be treated just as equally as he was treated.
I remind Members, including the Minister, to be as brief as possible in their questions and answers.
I read the Minister's press release from 2010 in regard to events involving the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea. What has changed in his view of such matters in the interim?
The Minister referred to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection 41(1) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. He is giving quite a large scope to the Garda Commissioner under these provisions in respect of what seems essentially to be case of handing over tittle-tattle. How did the Commissioner pick the information up from a traffic garda right through sergeant, inspector, superintendent, chief superintendent, all the way up to himself?
Is it common practice for a Garda Commissioner to report to the Minister when people have been stopped and not charged on a matter? How long did this meeting last because it seems the Minister went through a great deal of minutiae? Do these general briefings take a long time because it seems like a long series of briefings if the Minister got the name of every single member of the public who was stopped that week and not charged or benefited from discretion? Who was at the meeting? Were any of the Minister's special advisers present? Was his private secretary present? Was it just him and the Garda Commissioner? What other senior members of the Garda Síochána were there?
If an individual has not been formally reprimanded why is that information retained? How does it work its way up the system if there have been no charges and nothing has been put on PULSE? What is the Minister's opinion on how a journalist managed conveniently to get their hands on information about the specific incident in which Deputy Wallace was stopped? How were the specifics presented to him because he did not refer to the specifics in the "Prime Time" debate?
I will answer the last question first. All I can say is that the Deputy should ask the journalist. One thing the journalist will be able to confirm is that they got no information from me. I do not know where the journalist got the information. It seems to me that it was only after the journalist got the information that Deputy Wallace had a mature recollection of the particular event. I certainly did not talk to the journalist. I can say that categorically. Perhaps the journalist to whom the Deputy refers might confirm that to him. I do not have a habit of giving journalists information of a confidential nature about individuals.
The Minister never did that.
Journalists find me quite awkward, as some of them might tell the Deputy-----
Not only journalists.
-----because I do not reveal information until it is appropriate to reveal it. That is the reality.
The Deputy asked how did the information reach the Commissioner.
Except for Pat Kenny.
Let us deal with the more amusing part of this. Of course I do not get information on a regular or any basis about who might get warnings from the gardaí. This arose as an aside. I am assuming it arose in a normal human context in circumstances in which first the Commissioner, who, as the Deputy says, has wide powers under the Garda Síochána Act 2005, would be conscious that there is a lot of controversy around the fixed ticket issue, that I have already addressed it in several ways and that I was very determined to know everything to do with how Garda discretion is exercised. In the context of questions that may arise in this House, and this has arisen this evening, he has an obligation to ensure that I am informed of matters relevant to the accountability of the Government to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I presume that he may have concluded, just as Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan said something about how the gardaí dealt with him, that Deputy Wallace might do so at some stage and I could be asked a question about it. The information was incidental, I presume in circumstances in which Deputy Wallace was so critical of the gardaí for exercising a discretion to ease the position of some people who had violated the Road Traffic Acts where there were humanitarian reasons for doing so. It was something of a curiosity that Deputy Wallace had benefited from the gardaí exercising their discretion. I certainly did not go hunting for the information.
I thank the Minister.
I asked a question that was not answered. Who was at the meeting?
I will come back to that.
I will group questions from Deputies Daly, Wallace, Kevin Humphreys and Healy-Rae. I call Deputy Daly and I ask her please to be brief.
We know the Minister got the information during a chat and he does not know where the Garda Commissioner got it but could he tell us when the chat took place? Was it during that chat or a different chat that the Garda Commissioner gave him the information that he divulged about Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan? In the press release that he issued last week he said the Commissioner has a legal obligation to keep him fully informed of issues of national security and so on. Had he kept the Minister informed of his own penalty point termination? Did he explain how when that took place he was allegedly going to a high level briefing and that he happened to be driving his own car even though a State one had been issued to him at the time, and why it was very near his own house even though it was at 10.48 in the morning?
The Minister has made an enormous issue of discretion but does he not accept that we have tabled questions to ask him for the legislative and procedural protocol that lays down the basis for discretion on at least five occasions and he has never furnished us with the answer? Does he accept that the Attorney General has questioned how discretion is applied and that it needs to be transparent? Does he accept that his own internal inquiry found that discretion was not properly applied and that the foremost legal people in the field say that there is a problem with discretion? One man's discretion is another man's favouritism. That was always the basis on which we raised the issue of discretion about when penalty points were awarded and when they were terminated. Is it the Minister or the Taoiseach who is lying about where they got this information?
The Deputy should be aware in future that we do not use that word here.
Does the Leas-Cheann Comhairle want me to reply to that question now?
I have to take a group of questions together. I call Deputy Wallace.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Deputy should withdraw that word.
Deputy Durkan will have to resume his seat. Deputy Daly has to withdraw the word 'lie'. I do not know the context-----
My definition of lying is that if I have one piece of information in which the Minister for Justice and Equality said he received information in October and I have another piece of information from the Taoiseach telling me that he gave that information to the Minister in July; they cannot both be true. If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle did not understand me: one of them must be telling an untruth. I would like to know which one. Does that clarify it?
The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
On the allegation of lying-----
I will call Deputy Durkan in a moment.
Is Deputy Durkan allowed to admit that he is lying?
(Interruptions).
On the allegation of lying-----
The Deputy has withdrawn that word.
Can the Leas-Cheann Comhairle give an indication to the House as to the response to the allegation of lying and the normal response of the Chair?
Deputy Daly has withdrawn that word. I do not know what Deputy-----
I just want to know which one of them was not telling the truth.
Has the Deputy withdrawn the word?
I just want to say-----
A conditional withdrawal is not acceptable.
We only have a short time. The Deputy has withdrawn the word. I do not know the context.
It should be an unconditional withdrawal not a conditional withdrawal.
The actual word has been withdrawn.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is happy with the conditional withdrawal.
We are running out of time.
I would like to ask the Minister, aside from when he got the dossier, when did he first get news of whistleblowers coming forward with allegations of malpractice? What month was it, please?
I thank the Minister for coming into the House and making a statement and taking questions because this is the proper forum for this discussion and debate which has not happened in the past. I welcome the Minister's coming in to the House.
I confirm that it is not only journalists who find him awkward but a few of us in the House do so as well.
How dare the Deputy say that?
I have three questions but first I want to put them in context because this discussion and debate is a disclosure of personal information. It is not about penalty points or all the dossiers or any other issues which are starting to cloud it.
I am similar to the Minister but I was in the wrong. I got a tap on the window from a garda and got the finger. I said sorry and moved on. That is the context in which I am asking this question. Can he tell the House are all discretionary decisions by the Garda Síochána recorded or only the high profile individuals? It is fundamental and important that we understand what type of records are being kept about Members of this House and high profile individuals. I do not believe that has been addressed.
I accept the Minister’s assurances that there are clear barriers in place to ensure that information collected, whether as a result of Garda discretion, investigation of offences or for any other reasons, will not be used for political debate. Will he affirm that?
I have already said that.
Through the Chair.
I am just asking that it should not be done.
This affair has raised questions about the impact on civil liberties, as well as how information is recorded and comes into the public ether. Will the Minister explain clearly how this information came all the way up to the top of the Garda and was then given to the Minister as a kind of gossip?
If the Standards in Public Office Commission or the Data Protection Commissioner find against the Minister, will he resign or will he have to be sacked?
This is a very sinister and dark time in politics. It is down to the Minister-----
(Interruptions).
Deputy Healy-Rae’s father turned off more lights in this country.
I would like if he would answer the question straight.
I will come back to some questions Deputy Clare Daly raised. She seems to have a difficulty with me issuing a statement on Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan. He wrote to have a fixed-notice charge cancelled. Subsequent to it being cancelled, he then complained about it being cancelled. When all of this came out into the public arena, I asked that the matter be investigated by the Garda Commissioner.
The Commissioner had points cancelled too.
Subsequent to that, I received a letter from Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan, in case the Deputy believes I was meddling in some way. I was anxious to get to the bottom of the issue.
On 21 March, Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan wrote to me. He stated:
Dear Minister Shatter,
As you may have noticed from my contribution on the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012, I made it clear that fixed-charge penalty points were removed from my licence. Please find below the names of those who contacted me.
He was blaming other people for this happening. He then named one individual but I am not going to name that person in the House.
Wait until “Prime Time” later.
The Minister will name him later tonight.
Use it on Vincent Browne later.
He continued in the letter:
This was an individual who was among those whom I met at a meeting in Roscommon County Council in 20 December and to whom, along with others present, I casually mentioned that I had just been caught on my mobile phone while driving. It was Mr. [Blank] who rang me after the meeting to say I would not be getting points.
Well, it was not me.
He then went on to say: “I do not bear any malice towards Mr. [Blank] for this but I believe the truth about this situation must be established in order that such an event does not re-occur.” Later he named a particular garda, now retired, of a named Garda station who contacted him about the fixed-charge penalty points which were issued to him for using his mobile phone while driving on 3 June 2011. The letter continues:
I told him what happened and he said I should write to the station with the details and the points would be removed. He insisted it would be the right thing to do. I subsequently wrote a letter outlining the situation. The points in question were never applied to my licence. As in the previous case, I do not bear any malice towards the Garda in question.
(Interruptions).
Could the Minister just answer the question?
The letter continues:
In fact, I believe it was a genuine attempt to help me. While in this case I believe I would have had a very strong argument for having the points removed, it does not change the fact the system used is open to some. This must change.
If at the end of this process [I do not know what process the Deputy is referring to] it is decided that I should in fact have received penalty points, then I am asking you, as Minister for Justice, to have them applied to my licence. In order for the more substantive issue of penalty points removed to be dealt with, it is essential that the system be devised that is open and transparent. The current system does not come close.
I do not believe Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan was particularly open and transparent. I recollect this brouhaha all arose-----
Could the Minister just answer the question I asked?
-----out of a newspaper report. Whatever appeared in the newspapers about Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan’s initial imbroglio with this issue, I did not raise it. The journalist who reported it first would know I did not raise it. My only role in this particular matter has been to ask the Garda Commissioner-----
What about the Minister’s press statement last week?
-----to investigate the matter. In the context of the two reports I received about the fixed-charge ticket issue, I inquired whether the investigation into this matter, on which Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan had written to me and was anxious to have investigated, had completed. I was informed by the Garda Síochána that any relevant person had been interviewed except Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan who refused to engage with the Garda Síochána when it requested to meet with him. So much for the sincerity of his request to me on 21 March 2013.
Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan
Does the Minister have the whistleblowers' numbers?
In case Deputy Clare Daly thinks that I had any hand or any part in anything to do with Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan’s points, I did not.
Thank you Minister. We must conclude.
What about the Minister’s press statement last week?
On the whistleblowers, what I said last week and what the report shows is that some of the more extreme allegations made against members of the force are not valid. One of the more extreme allegations, which one Sunday newspaper gave much airing to, was that nine people had lost their lives on the roads because a fixed-charge ticket had not been paid. Each of those matters was investigated thoroughly.
They were other allegations about widespread corruption in the Garda force. Deputy Clare Daly says she does not accept the report that has been published. I deliberately asked the Garda to conduct a comprehensive investigation. It was done under the aegis of an assistant commissioner. There were five chief superintendents and four superintendents plus a Garda team involved. That report has gone to the Garda inspectorate which has an independent remit over an Garda Síochána. If there is anything that it is concerned about arising out of the two reports, it has the remit to investigate it further. Deputy Clare Daly and the two Garda whistleblowers, one of whom has been on a broadcasting station, have rejected every conclusion reached on every issue. When the justice committee chaired by Deputy David Stanton addresses these matters, any of the issues can be addressed openly, transparently and in public. This is the very reason I referred to these reports to the Oireachtas justice committee.
Who was at the meeting?
The Minister did not answer the question I asked.
The Minister did not like the questions we asked.
We must conclude. I apologise to those Members who did not get in.