Vol. 819 No. 1
66. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his position on recent proposals from some members of the European Commission that a European-Union-wide reform of current visa policy should take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41925/13]
Will the Minister tell us his plans in regard to the Schengen agreement? How will the new procedures, which will start with the United Kingdom next year, operate? Does he foresee our responding to the recent proposals of Commissioners Tajani and Malmström for a common short-stay visa programme for the 28 EU members rather than for non-Schengen members?
Regulation (EC) No. 810/2009 establishing a community code on visas, known as the Visa Code, regulates the EU common visa policy. I am not aware of any formal legislative proposals for reform from the European Commission Directorate-General for Home Affairs, which has responsibility for policy in this area. The Deputy may be referring to an article published by the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry recently which put forward some proposals in regard to visas and tourism. In any event, the relevant regulation falls within the scope of Title V (Area of Freedom, Justice and Security) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, Ireland was not automatically bound by the provisions of the regulation. Ireland has not to date exercised its option to participate in the regulation and does not, consequently, participate in the current common visa policy which is the subject of the Deputy's question.
It is long established Government policy that Ireland will only participate in immigration-related measures falling under Title V to the extent that is compatible with the common travel area, CTA, shared by ourselves and the United Kingdom. Participation in the common visa policy would mean that Ireland would, in turn, be required to participate in the Schengen Agreement on border controls. The fact is that the CTA could not continue to operate if Ireland were to participate in the Schengen Agreement while the United Kingdom did not.
This is particularly relevant given the Government's focus on maximising to the greatest possible extent the potential of the CTA. This is evidenced by the Irish short-stay visa waiver programme for holders of certain categories of UK visa, which this Government introduced in July 2011. In the 18 months following the introduction of the programme, visits from the countries covered by it increased by approximately 38%. Building on this measure, work is ongoing on the development of short-stay CTA visa arrangements which would allow tourists and business visitors to travel to the CTA, with first arrival in either jurisdiction, and thereafter to travel freely both within the island of Ireland and between Ireland and the UK. In other words, the outer perimeter of the CTA would operate like a mini-Schengen zone. This would represent a historic breakthrough in the manner in which the CTA operates. It is planned for the roll-out of such arrangements to take place in 2014. Prior to their introduction, the necessary technical and operational arrangements, including the capture of biometrics for visa applicants, need to be put in place between the two jurisdictions.
All of this having been said, my Department keeps under review Ireland's position as regards all measures adopted under Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in line with Government priorities and policies as necessary and participates in discussions on the common visa policy at the visa working party of the Council.
With regard to the short-stay visa waiver programme, some time ago the Minister told one of my colleagues that he did not keep data for visitors who had first come through the United Kingdom on a UK visa. Is this still policy? The Minister read a figure showing the increase in tourists from some of the 17 countries involved such as India and China. Clearly he is liaising closely with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, in that regard. It was introduced initially as part of the jobs initiative plan in the middle of 2011. Does the Minister have any intention of changing this and seeing how we can maximise the amount of additional visitors? It was in L'Express that the Commission first mooted this proposal for a wide-ranging programme for the European Union in general for the areas not covered by the Schengen agreement. It was part of the European economic recovery programme to boost tourism revenue by €500 billion.
I have a simple view which is that we should do whatever is practical and possible to increase the number of tourists and business visitors to the country, but we must do so in the context of agreed arrangements with the United Kingdom for the common travel area. This is the subject of ongoing discussions and as I stated, I expect new announcements to be made in this regard in 2014.
The Central Statistics Office figures for tourist visas in respect of the countries covered by the visa waiver programme indicate that such visits increased by almost 21% in the 12 months after the introduction of the programme compared to the number in the 12 months preceding it. Comparing the figures for 2010, the last full year before the programme was introduced, with those for 2012, the increase is 38%. The programme has been widely welcomed by tourism promotion agencies and tour operators. The retail sector has stated an increase in tourists from the countries mentioned is visibly apparent and some major retail outlets are now starting to employ individuals with the linguistic skills to facilitate our additional new visitors from some of the relevant countries. I will maintain a continuing interest in considering what we can do to extend the number of visitors to this country and participate closely with our European Union colleagues. We must do this in the context of preserving the common travel area. The last thing we need to do is create a situation where borders will be reimposed between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. These are all important considerations in how we deal with matters.
Question No. 67 is in the name of Deputy Sean Fleming but the Deputy is not present. The next question tabled by a Deputy who is present in the Chamber is Question No. 77 which is in the name of Deputy Mick Wallace.
On a point of order, I am alarmed by this. The new system to guarantee five questions for each spokesperson is not in place today, but the rule under which questions fall if the Deputies who tabled them are not present has been introduced. This means that spokespersons have limited opportunities to raise issues. There is a miscommunication. I ask for some latitude from the Chair on this occasion as it is the first time we are dealing with this new process.
I cannot do so because there was a vote on the Standing Orders involved. We can take up this issue-----
Deputy Sean Fleming is here now.
I have to press this issue because it is very important. I have two questions. First, was it communicated to party Whips that all Deputies with questions on the Order Paper would have to be present today? Second, why is it the case that we, as spokespersons, have not been guaranteed five questions? If the new rules are in place, they are in place. If the Chair is saying Standing Orders have been passed, they state clearly that there should be five questions. The five questions for my party have not been guaranteed. I asked just one question.
That is not the rule.
That is what has been implemented.
No, it is not. Five are included in the lottery.
I will say briefly that the Whips were informed. On the Deputy's second question, it is a lottery. The Deputy is next. I ask him to introduce his question. He has 30 seconds.
Forty.
Thirty.
I want to-----
The Deputy was not here when the question was called.
I wonder whether there is a feud. I was being courteous to my colleague by letting him speak.
This is reform, lads.
This is reform. I was being courteous to my colleague by letting him speak, but now because of that, I cannot ask a question in the Chamber. We have not yet moved on to the next question.
We have. The Deputy was not here. He missed the opportunity.
I call Deputy Mick Wallace who has 30 seconds to introduce his question.
77. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality when he will publish the new fixed charge processing manual as recommended by the GPSU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46595/13]
87. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he is committed to the 12 recommendations made in the GPSU report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45962/13]
101. Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he has implemented the set of recommendations made in the GPSU report which he accepted as principles to be adhered to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45981/13]
The GPSU report dated April 2013 clearly sets out, as one of its 12 concluding recommendations, that an entirely revised fixed charge processing manual, to include the 24 relevant documents the GPSU had to examine to find out what the fixed charge policy actually was, be compiled, distributed and communicated to the Garda Síochána. Unusually, the GPSU report set out a strict time limit of three months for this to happen, but the Minister and the Garda Commissioner have failed to comply with this recommendation. Seven months on all that has issued is a four page circular dated 30 August, almost five months after the date of issue of the report. Will the Minister tell the House when he expects to be able to comply with the GPSU recommendation to revise the fixed charge processing manual-----
The Deputy should simply introduce the question. He will have two further opportunities to ask questions.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 77, 87 and 101 together.
The report dated April 2013 from the professional standards unit in the Garda Síochána looked at the processes and systems in place for the cancellation of fixed charge processing notices. The report complements the report prepared by Assistant Commissioner John O'Mahoney on his examination of the allegations of irregularities in the operation of the fixed charge processing system. The two reports recommended a number of changes aimed at ensuring tighter administrative procedures were correctly followed throughout the force in the cancellation of fixed charge notices.
The two reports were published on my Department's website on 15 May. In publishing the reports I welcomed their recommendations for enhanced safeguards to ensure integrity in the fixed charge processing system. In addition, in order to provide even further public reassurance on the effectiveness of these changes and with the agreement of the Garda Commissioner, I asked the independent Garda Síochána Inspectorate to review the changes and make any necessary supplementary recommendation and then to review their implementation after 18 months. The inspectorate is making progress in this work and I expect to receive its report shortly. Its assessment of the recommendations made in the two Garda reports and any further recommendation in this area which it feels is warranted will be put in the public domain via its website.
The Garda Commissioner issued a directive with revised cancellation procedures in regard to fixed charge notices to all members of the Garda Síochána on 30 August. The revised fixed charge processing user manual and procedures must await the report of the Garda Inspectorate as it will be necessary to take account of any recommendation from that source. I also provided the two reports for the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality for its consideration and advice on any further recommendation or procedural or legislative change which is desirable in this area. I have also consulted my colleague the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport on the matter.
I am absolutely committed, as is the Commissioner, to the introduction of whatever improvements are necessary to ensure continuing public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the implementation of road traffic laws by the Garda Síochána.
The Minister did not really explain why it had taken more than the three months the GPSU had set down. One could be forgiven for thinking the recommendations of the GPSU have been disregarded by the Minister.
When the GPSU issued its 12 recommendations, the Minister chose seven and stated that they contained vague principles with which he could possibly work and to which he could perhaps give consideration. Does he have the appetite to give a commitment - on the record of the House - to the effect that he will implement the 12 recommendations set out in the GPSU report? I accept that matters take time but given that the GPSU imposed a strict time limit of three months, I am baffled as to why - some seven months later - nothing has been done. One could be forgiven for thinking that there is a lack of seriousness on the part of the Minister in the context of dealing with the recommendations of the GPSU.
I have no idea at all why Deputy Wallace always thinks the worst of me or why he ascribes particular motives in respect of various events that occur.
The Minister did not help his case in that regard when he appeared on "Prime Time".
The Garda Commissioner issued his instructions on 30 August in order to ensure that the relevant procedures would be tightened up and that any issue of concern would be addressed. I am sure that when it has completed the work it is undertaking, the Garda inspectorate will report to me. When we receive that report, it will be considered with the utmost seriousness. In the meantime, the Deputy may rest assured that the relevant issues of concern were addressed in the Garda Commissioner's report on 30 August. The Deputy was not in the House earlier when I made reference to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the acceptance by the Garda Commissioner of the recommendations made by him. The matter has substantially moved on but it appears the Deputy may be locked in something of a political time warp, particularly as he feels the need to continually and obsessively raise and pursue this issue on each occasion on which I am present to reply to questions to the Department of Justice and Equality.
I call Deputy Clare Daly, who also tabled a question on this issue.
I am somewhat taken aback-----
Sorry, I called Deputy Clare Daly.
Does Deputy Wallace not have another 60 seconds to ask a supplementary?
As I was saying, I am somewhat taken aback that the Minister would ever be of the view that I might think the worst of him. That is a little unfair. All I am seeking to do is ensure that a level of accountability will be introduced in the context of certain aspects of policing. I apologise for not being present earlier and for missing the Minister's reply to an earlier question. Will he confirm whether GSOC has direct access to the PULSE computer system? It may have been granted such access but I have not heard whether that is the case.
Does the Minister have any intention of publishing the appendices to the internal review that was carried out in respect of the penalty points episode? Rather than being informed that someone said that X or Y happened, we would love to know from where the evidence came and the facts relating to the position on this matter. It is bad enough that the report was carried out internally and was not independent. It would be good if we could identify from where the relevant evidence came. I do not think the worst of the Minister at all. I have actually met worse individuals than him.
I appreciate that the Deputy is in search of his appendix. The appendix to the report was made available to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality in order to facilitate any deliberations in which it may engage in the context of dealing with the O'Mahoney report. Unless I am very much mistaken, I presume this is the appendix to which the Deputy refers. It is the responsibility of the joint committee to report on the material it has received and to hold any hearings it deems appropriate. As I stated earlier and as the Deputy would know had he been present, should the joint committee make any recommendations on foot of any deliberations in which it might engage, these will be considered with great seriousness.
The problem with the Minister's answer is that the relevant information has been in the public domain for months. What has emerged in the interim is a new four-page circular in which it is acknowledged that all was not well in the state of Denmark. Said acknowledgement runs contrary to the Minister's assertion to the effect that everything was fine. Changes were recommended but what the GPSU suggested, namely, that an entire set of procedures should be introduced and made available to all on the website, has not come to pass.
The other problem the Minister has is that one of the individuals who blew the whistle on this issue is out of a job, while the other is not entitled to do his job appropriately because he drew attention to this matter. The Minister indicated that if there were problems they would be addressed, and that procedures had been tightened up. The problem with his statement is that he also told us there were no problems with the procedures in the first instance. We are telling him again that there were problems with procedures, as has been acknowledged by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Garda Professional Standards Unit and many other organisations. There is still a problem and the Minister has not addressed it or given a commitment to do so, as he said he would.
I will certainly relay to my colleague the Danish Minister for justice the Deputy's concern about the State of Denmark. I do not know what the Deputy knows about the State of Denmark or how it deals with these issues, but she makes an interesting analogy.
More procrastination from the Minister.
The position is simply that important changes were required to address issues that had arisen, as I made explicit and as the O'Mahoney report detailed, and in respect of which proper procedures were not complied with in some instances. In this regard, disciplinary action has been taken against some members of the Garda. I described as exotic some of the substantive decisions made where procedures were properly complied with. However, some of the more serious allegations that were made - for example, that road fatalities resulted and people lost their lives because of Garda failures in this area - proved to be untrue and unsubstantiated. One of the individuals to whom the Deputy referred retired from the force and was not pushed out, as the Deputy put it.
I said he was unable to do his job.
The individual in question retired after more than 30 years in the force. I recall the same individual appearing on TV3 and condemning the O'Mahoney report about 30 minutes after we published it, at which point he would not have had time to read it.
The Minister has made incredibly derogatory remarks about somebody who served his time as a garda. His comments amount to a complete dismissal of the difficulty that a serving garda is currently enduring in seeking to carry out his job. The Minister can hide behind various smart-alec remarks but the reality is that he has not committed to the measures he said he would introduce to address these issues. The reports that were commissioned, including the O'Mahoney report, sought at every stage to minimise and downplay the claims made by the individuals in question, and the Minister is continuing that tradition today.
The Deputy did not ask a question.
I will make a brief reply with regard to the announcement made on foot of the publication of the O'Mahoney report to all members of the Garda on 30 August. The Garda Commissioner made it very clear that measures had been implemented and steps taken to ensure proper procedures are applied in dealing with an issue that is of importance and that I regard as important. The Deputy does not treat it as important but sees it as something that she can repetitively raise in the hope of a getting a headline somewhere.
I am hoping to get an answer.
In the context of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, it is open to members, if they so wish, to invite the two individuals to whom the Deputy referred to make a presentation-----
The Minister said that six months ago.
-----and provide evidence that would undermine anything contained in the O'Mahoney report, as opposed to simply being abusive of the report and the individual who conducted it. If it can be substantiated with hard evidence that there are misrepresentations in the report, I will take the matter very seriously.
Why does the Minister not bring on the hearings?
It is for the joint committee to deal with the matter.
The final issue is that no police force in the world could operate with an individual within the force who felt free to simply publicly distribute, whenever it suited, all confidential information about all aspects of the work done by that police force.
That is completely false.
I ask Deputy Thomas Pringle to introduce Question No. 78.
Are we not on Question No. 68?
The relevant Members were not in the Chamber.
On a point of order, it is disappointing that certain Opposition Deputies have taken advantage of the adverse position in which other Opposition Deputies find themselves. Sinn Féin submitted questions as normal, including having nominated Deputies. We were not informed that the Deputies who tabled the questions had to be present in the Chamber and, as a result, we lost an opportunity to question the Minister. I checked with the secretary to the party Whip, who confirmed that we had not been informed that Deputies had to be present.
It is disappointing to see Members of the Opposition taking advantage of that. They should not do so; it is wrong.
The matter can be taken up with the office of the Ceann Comhairle. I call Deputy Thomas Pringle.
The Whip of the Technical Group read the amendments to Standing Orders before they were introduced so we knew how the system would operate. That is why so many Technical Group Members are in the Chamber - to avail of the opportunity to raise these questions.
78. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans for the first National Missing Persons Day and its objectives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45973/13]
The question arises in respect of the Minister's plans for the national missing persons day, its roll-out and operation. It arises from the initiative of the transition year students from Davis College, Mallow, County Cork and the forget me not campaign. That the national missing persons day will take place this year is a great tribute to them.
I am pleased to inform the Deputy that planning for Ireland's first national missing persons day is at an advanced stage with an inaugural event to be held at Farmleigh House, Dublin on the morning of Wednesday, 4 December 2013. I am pleased we have been able to advance rapidly a proposal from Davis College and missing persons representative groups, who also sought such an event. The initiative of Davis College was extremely important.
The missing persons day is being developed with a number of objectives. First and foremost, it is intended the day will recognise and remember those who have gone missing and the lasting trauma and impact on their families and friends. The day will also draw public attention to open or unsolved missing persons cases with the possibility that new information may come to light. It is also intended to highlight information on the range of support services available and to recognise the contribution of the voluntary groups that provide support in the community to families, as well as the many organisations involved in land, mountain, sea and river rescue. It is also my intention to promote the proposal I made during the Irish Presidency for a European-wide event and to call attention to Ireland's missing persons day as the basis for similar initiatives across Europe. We have had contacts with a number of our European partner countries in this context. I look forward to joining the Garda Commissioner, the families and friends of missing persons, and the many voluntary organisations working in our communities on this important occasion of remembrance and support.
This has the potential to be an important day for the families who do not know what has happened to their loved ones. Anything that can raise awareness, possibly through the attention this receives throughout Europe, is helpful to reconnect people with their families. That is vitally important and I wish the event well.
In the context of the planning for the event, we are engaging generally in the lead-in to it with the media and we hope the broadcast and print media will be encouraged to contribute to the importance of the event and to draw attention to individuals who are missing in the hope that information will be made available to the Garda Síochána or family members. In the days leading up to the event, I hope there will be increased public knowledge in the area to the benefit of the families concerned.
It is my hope that this will be the first event of this nature. It is my hope that, as our European Union colleagues look in, we can get to the point where we agree a missing persons day across the European Union. When people go missing in Ireland, it may well be that they are in other European Union countries. Engagement across the EU of the broadcast and print media may well result in the whereabouts of individuals becoming known when their whereabouts have not been known for some time. I look forward to the event. After the event on the designated day, I look forward to feedback about changes or initiatives that we should include in the event when we run it for the second year.
