Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 2014

Vol. 834 No. 2

Leaders' Questions

Last night on the national broadcaster's "Six One News", elements of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate report were leaked and the Minister for Justice and Equality gave an interview about the report and reforms that may emanate from its recommendations, in advance of any consideration by the Cabinet of this report. He did so in a selective and self-serving manner. This brings the level of news management and damage limitation synonymous with the Government to a new level. It was wrong in the context of the gravity and impact of the report. I have been asking for this report for a number of weeks in conjunction with other issues we were discussing in the House. However, for obvious reasons it was not ready for publication some weeks ago.

It appears the report indicates major administrative dysfunction, the failure of management oversight and a context and a sense of material that is absolutely in stark contrast to the O'Mahony report into penalty point cancellations. It would appear that the report is a vindication of the whistleblowers who brought these issues to light. One of the whistleblowers was interviewed by the Garda Síochána Inspectorate, which in itself is interesting. At the heart of this issue is the treatment of whistleblowers in the system. The whistleblowers in this case were isolated, undermined, denied access to records and to the PULSE system. They were told by the Garda Commissioner that their behaviour was disgusting. The Minister for Justice and Equality, however, brought it to a new level when on the floor of this House he said they did not co-operate with the investigations of the authorities and, in particular, with the O'Mahony investigation.

A question, please.

He went outside the House to say their accusations were wild and groundless and lacked evidence. I ask the Taoiseach to consider that if the whistleblowers in the Neary case had been treated in that manner what the outcome would have been. Has the Taoiseach spoken to the Minister for Justice and Equality about this matter? I know he finds it very difficult to unequivocally apologise to anyone, but in light of this report I ask the Taoiseach to ask him to apologise unequivocally for his misleading comments and for undermining the whistleblowers concerned. If he cannot apologise, will the Taoiseach apologise on behalf of the Government for the treatment meted out to these whistleblowers on this specific issue?

Allegations were made by a whistleblower in September 2012 in respect of the operation of the fixed charge processing of penalty points. This matter has been the subject of very lengthy discussions in this House and in committee. There has been an internal Garda report and the O'Mahony report, both of which were referred to the Garda Síochána Inspectorate by the Minister for Justice and Equality which was the right and proper action. That Garda Síochána Inspectorate report is an overview of the two reports and the entire process. I have not seen the report but I understand it contains a lengthy series of recommendations and the report will be presented to Cabinet this afternoon by the Minister for Justice and Equality. I understand it contains a lengthy series of recommendations which the Minister accepts and he will recommend their implementation to Cabinet. Some of these will require some legislative and resourcing initiatives. The Garda Síochána Inspectorate report and the overall review being carried out by GSOC will mean that this matter will have had intensive and very focused scrutiny about how it should operate. I agree with Deputy Martin that the Garda whistleblower was engaged in conversation and discussions with the Garda Síochána Inspectorate about this matter and this has probably helped the Garda Síochána Inspectorate to provide a full and comprehensive analysis. The difference of opinion between the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda whistleblower was in regard to the matter of a claim that deaths resulted from the non-imposition of penalty points. That matter was referred to quite clearly in the report published by Assistant Commissioner O'Mahony.

The Minister will publish this report today and it will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This House can discuss the report as can the joint committee. This will be in advance of the GSOC report which will be published and debated in this House. The dysfunctional aspects which have come to light will be the subject of serious focus in order to put it right and make it fit for 21st century systems.

In so far as apologies are concerned, I have already said that the Minister for Justice and Equality had one interpretation while Sergeant McCabe had a different interpretation. That matter was the subject of intense discussion in the House. The Minister for Justice and Equality will be responding to the report when the House orders time for its discussion.

With the greatest of respect, what is obvious over the past year is that the system tried to bury this issue and the Minister went along with that modus operandi, despite the Road Safety Authority sounding alarm bells with him. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, accepted the credibility of the whistleblower on this issue and I know he stood his ground with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report found about 67,000 cancellations, in contrast to about 600 in the O'Mahony report. It is not as if there was no evidence. The Road Safety Authority recommended that it would go to GSOC in the first instance but the Minister refused that recommendation; he had to be dragged screaming to get the report to GSOC eventually. The bottom line is that there is no difference of opinion. I refer to what the Minister said about the whistleblowers in this House on 1 October 2013: "Having engaged with Members of this House and published material they did not co-operate with the Garda investigations that took place."

His whole tone and demeanour was to isolate and undermine the whistleblowers and present them as unreliable mavericks who could not be trusted. That was the import of what he was at. There was no difference of opinion. He said outside the House that their presentations were wild and groundless. He should apologise. This should not descend into narrow definitions and disagreements. The Minister led the way in undermining people who were bringing to the surface issues of public importance, no matter how uncomfortable for some people. The whistleblowers were undermined. It goes to the heart of how a system and a Government treats whistleblowers. The Minister is very culpable with regard to the remarks he made on the floor of this House. It is quite shocking, unacceptable and disgraceful that he has not within him the capacity to do the honourable thing and say he was wrong to say what he said on the floor of the House and that he was wrong to seek to undermine the whistleblowers in this instance. That is what should happen now and let us not continue dancing on the point of a pin.

This is the first time that a Government is prepared to change the system. It is all very well for Deputy Martin to come in here every week with his righteous attitude when he forgets that in 2003 his Government did nothing about a report. The Attorney General gave advice in 2006 and nothing was done.

This is the first time something is going to be done about this. The recommendations from the Garda Inspectorate report are following on from the Mahony report. Some are being implemented now, some will require legislation, but all will be implemented. We have the GSOC report to come, which will be published and debated here.

When Deputy Martin says it is not the case that there was no evidence around, he is right. There are three instances from 2003 when the Government of which he was a member sat back and did nothing about it when it had the opportunity to do so.

That is pathetic.

The Taoiseach does nothing but press rewind.

All I am pointing out is that the Deputy comes in here with his righteousness every week, but he ignored all these things when he had the opportunity to do something about them.

The Taoiseach has been pressing rewind for three years now.

Just like everything else, this is the first time a Government is facing up to doing the thing properly by dealing with the dysfunctionality that has been pointed out. As the Deputy well knows, whistleblowers in this country have always faced the wrath of those who might be affected by the issues of concern they raise. I pointed out to the Deputy before where the Minister for Justice and Equality was coming from and where the whistleblower was coming from. Deputy Martin does not want to focus on the important matter because his own Government, on three occasions, refused even to follow the Attorney General's advice. Of course, he cannot remember that.

The Taoiseach should take responsibility for his own actions.

This is going to be done now. The Garda Inspectorate report will be published today and will be debated in the committee and in the Dáil. The GSOC report will be published and will be debated in the committee and in the Dáil, as needs be. The system will be put right - a system that is fair, accountable, above board and is not subject either to celebrity intervention or political intervention.

I am reminded that an old tactic is to descend the exchange into ruaille buaille and the Taoiseach will get away without answering the questions. I will ask him the same questions as did Deputy Martin. Does the Taoiseach agree that the Garda Inspectorate report to be published today has serious implications for the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter? It would seem, from the leaks we have noted this morning, that the report vindicates the actions of the whistleblowers, Garda Sergeant Maurice McCabe and former Garda John Wilson. This begs the question of why the Minister attempted to discredit Sergeant McCabe - it was on the floor of this House that he did it - accusing him of failing to co-operate with an internal Garda investigation into alleged misconduct.

Has the Taoiseach spoken to the Minister about the Garda Inspectorate report? Will the Minister come into the House and correct the record? Has the Taoiseach asked him to do so and, if not, why has he not asked him? Will the Minister apologise to Garda Sergeant Maurice McCabe? Will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to apologise to Garda Sergeant McCabe and former Garda John Wilson? They have both been subjected to a very serious, personally targeted smear campaign - of that there can be no question. It is incumbent on the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, to make an apology on the floor of the Dáil to both of these gentlemen.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Will the Taoiseach also indicate what steps he is prepared to take to make sure this type of smear campaign will not occur again?

In regard to Garda Sergeant McCabe, it is not only a matter of an apology. There is also the matter of his ongoing status. Garda Sergeant McCabe is unable to perform his duties as sergeant, in line with his role and responsibilities. Will all of the restrictions that are currently applying to his carrying out his role and function be removed and will he be restored to full sergeant status within An Garda Síochána without any question as to his integrity?

Deputy Ó Caoláin is very well aware that if the situation was that anybody on this side of the House could stand up and say, "I am making the following arrangements for Garda X or Garda Y", he would have a very different story to tell. As he well knows, the running of An Garda Síochána is a matter for the Garda Commissioner in so far as day-to-day operations are concerned. It is not for me to say that he must put this sergeant here or that sergeant there or these are the facilities he must make available for them. That is completely off limits to Government, as the Deputy is well aware.

I have not seen the report myself. The answer to the Deputy's question is that I did speak to the Minister for Justice and Equality this morning. I asked him if he intended to bring the Garda Inspectorate report to Government today and he answered "Yes". I asked him if it was his intention to recommend to Government that the recommendations in the report be accepted by Government. The answer to that is "Yes". I asked whether the report would be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and the answer to that is "Yes". I asked whether it will be debated in this House and in committee and the answer is "Yes". The fact of the matter is that what happened in the past was that recommendations about this were not acted upon. Whistleblowers did bring this into the public domain. It is now a situation where this is the first Government actually dealing with it. When it is all debated and implemented, we will have a system that is fit for purpose.

The Minister for Justice and Equality also pointed out on the floor of the House where he differed with the whistleblower in respect of the allegations about deaths of people arising from the non-enforcement of penalty points. He made the point to me this morning that he was very happy to note that Garda McCabe was in full co-operation with the Garda Inspectorate inquiry. I also expect that when the GSOC report comes before the committee and the Dáil, the whistleblowers will have co-operated, worked, engaged and discussed with the GSOC personnel on a comprehensive basis.

We need to get this right now. I hope that following the implementation of all the recommendations - from the Mahony report, the Garda Inspectorate report and the GSOC report to follow - there will be a system that is fair, accountable, transparent and not subject either to celebrity or political interference.

The Taoiseach says we have to get this right now, which acknowledges that his Government has not got it right up to this. That is just a fact of life. The Minister has performed abysmally in regard to this matter. There is the further matter that at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts recently, the Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan, described the gardaí concerned as so-called whistleblowers and said their actions were "disgusting". Where does the Garda Inspectorate report, which vindicates, we believe, the claims of both Garda Sergeant McCabe and former Garda John Wilson, leave the Garda Commissioner? This report apparently vindicates the whistleblowers, yet the Commissioner believes their actions were "disgusting". That is a very serious matter.

Does the Taoiseach believe that the Garda Commissioner's position is tenable while he holds to the view that the actions of the gardaí concerned were disgusting, despite the fact that the Garda Inspectorate report, we believe, vindicates the claims made by both gardaí? Does the Taoiseach not agree that it is time now no longer to park matters for the GSOC report or any other report, review or opinion that will present? There is sufficient information and evidence to prompt an immediate response from the Minister. Will he come into the Dáil today and make a clear and unequivocal apology to the gardaí concerned? Will he likewise make an apology to Deputy Mick Wallace, whom he also slighted in this House?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I do not speak for the Garda Commissioner. I understand there will be a statement from the Commissioner's office later today arising from the Garda Inspectorate report.

Will it be a resignation statement?

The Minister will present the report to the Cabinet this afternoon and it will be published. The Deputy deserves to take the time to read it. I have not yet seen it myself.

All very convenient.

I understand it contains 37 recommendations. Everybody needs to read it.

The Taoiseach can read it on the plane.

The Minister for Justice and Equality will speak after the publication of the report. It is only right and proper that everybody should read it. We can make arrangements to have it debated here and the Minister will respond again and take questions on it. The Oireachtas committee will also debate it, if it feels that is appropriate.

We are not waiting for the GSOC report. That will come in its own time. Elements of the O'Mahony report are being implemented. It is intended that the Minister will recommend to the Cabinet that the recommendations in the Garda inspectorate report be accepted. As I have said, the Cabinet will make a decision on that this afternoon. A debate can be arranged and questions can be asked arising from this. The GSOC report, which will come in due course, might recommend in its overall analysis of the situation that changes be made or something different be done. It will take account of the Garda and other elements of this matter, such as issues relating to the Road Safety Authority and the courts. All of that is part of the mandate given to it. I hope clarity and accountability will come out of all of this.

I am going to try to move us on to some better news. This morning's Irish Independent reported that a Dublin family has had a debt of approximately €150,000 written down by AIB and a further amount parked at 0% interest. AIB should ultimately get the same amount of money back from the family. As a consequence of this deal, the members of this family will stay in their home rather than being evicted. They will own their home. They will be able to raise their children, get on with their lives, recover financially and contribute to the State. I think AIB and the various organisations that help families in these situations should be congratulated on what they are doing. It is clear that there are serious obstacles to be addressed, despite this good news.

It is a needle in the haystack.

I spent the morning talking to stakeholders who are involved in various parts of the mortgage crisis. They said a variety of things. They talked about the lack of transparency. Many of the debt write-downs that have already happened have non-disclosure clauses attached to them. They talked about the inconsistency of approach between the banks. Bank of Ireland was mentioned by everyone to whom I spoke, as it always is. It would be something of an understatement to say that the language they used to describe the behaviour of Bank of Ireland was unparliamentary. They spoke about the lack of co-operation between the banks. One senior lender to whom I spoke told me that many of the deals he tries to work on are torpedoed by Bank of Ireland. Even when it is a minority creditor, it refuses to co-operate with other banks when they are trying to find solutions.

The people to whom I spoke this morning talked about the red tape in the insolvency process. I understand that 46 protective certificates, five debt settlement arrangements and three personal insolvency arrangements have been issued to date. Based on the costs that have been accrued by the Insolvency Service of Ireland since it started to take applications, it can be calculated that the cost to the State of each of these measures has been approximately €65,000. It is clear that there is a great deal of work to be done. The people to whom I spoke talked about bureaucracy in other places as well. One lender in a bank told me that the compliance requirements associated with the second code of conduct on mortgage arrears are so severe and time-consuming that his team is no longer able to spend the necessary time with borrowers.

The current review of the Insolvency Service of Ireland is welcome, but it is not enough. We need a system-wide review that looks at all the parts of the system and talks to all the stakeholders, including the banks, the borrowers, the Insolvency Service of Ireland and the credit unions. This could be done in a matter of weeks. It would be very cheap. It would provide invaluable information to the Cabinet, the Oireachtas and the public. In light of the good news we have heard today, and bearing in mind the significant opportunities to address the bottlenecks that exist, will the Taoiseach consider establishing a system-wide review? Does he believe such a review would be a good idea? Will he commission a review that could report back to the Cabinet and the Oireachtas within a few weeks?

It is good news for the people involved here. I understand that the value of the house in question has been seriously reduced from the market value that was originally estimated. It would probably be very difficult to sell it. In any event, this form of analysis is done on a case-by-case basis. The outcome of this morning's case might not be replicated in the particular circumstances of many other cases. The Deputy has asked for a review of the system. Some 85,000 mortgages have been restructured. In 50% of those cases, the mortgages were restructured before people got into difficulties. This was facilitated by banks or lending institutions that were in a position to cut deals with the people involved. Everyone understands that house repossession is very traumatic and should be seen as a last resort. The targets set for the banks are being monitored by the Department of Finance and the Central Bank. That information comes to the Cabinet sub-committee on credit access and credit review. The arrangements made by the Insolvency Service of Ireland, the banks and the Irish Mortgage Holders Association are being monitored constantly.

I do not think there is a need for a system review to be set up. The system has to operate on a case-by-case basis. Every case is different in some way or other, depending on the circumstances and the people involved. I ask the Deputy to believe me when I say we want this to be sorted out. The Minister for Finance has made it clear on more than one occasion that the significant numbers of people who still have mortgage distress hanging around their necks need to have that pressure relieved so that they can contribute to the economy, to society and to the well-being of their families. I do not think there is a need to set up a body to review the entire system. It is being monitored by the Central Bank and the Department of Finance on a regular basis. The important thing is for the banks to be required to meet the targets that have been set for them. It is intended that by the end of this year, every person in mortgage distress will have been offered a sustainable solution.

It is not believable.

That does not just mean allowing them to make interest-only repayments. When deals are cut in this context, it must be possible for borrowers to adhere to them and have a future that will stand up. If the Deputy raises this question again a couple of months from now - before the House breaks for the summer - perhaps we will be in a position to give him a full report or arrange a discussion at the relevant Oireachtas committee on the state of play when it comes to our capacity to monitor the targets that have been set for banks to do deals with mortgage holders.

It is just not believable.

Sorry, would you stay quiet?

We have been hearing this for years.

Deputy Mathews was the Taoiseach's banking expert at one time.

This is Deputy Donnelly's question.

I know. I am saying the Taoiseach's answer is just not believable.

He is well able to speak for himself.

I ask Deputy Mathews to stop interrupting the House.

Sorry, a Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. We should not be fooled by the targets that are coming in.

We heard at the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform that the majority of targets that have come in so far are legal letters initiating repossession proceedings. The problem is that approximately 180,000 mortgages - one in five of that total - are in arrears. Ireland has several times more mortgages in arrears than the next closest country on earth. What has happened in Ireland is not happening anywhere else. There are targets in place, the Insolvency Service of Ireland has been established and a review has been initiated to try to get rid of some of the red tape, but nobody is joining the dots. We have a complicated system with lots of different stakeholders.

Complication suits.

Some bankers will say that the Central Bank is part of the problem, based on some of the things it is doing. The Central Bank will say the opposite. There are many different stakeholders, the system is complicated and nobody is joining the dots. The Central Bank is monitoring whether the banks are hitting the targets, but that is just one aspect of the matter. I have outlined five separate issues that have been raised by a multitude of stakeholders. They have said that there is no transparency in what is going on. They have said that there is complete inconsistency between the banks-----

-----with Bank of Ireland being a notable outlier. They have said that there is no co-operation between the banks. They have said that there is too much red tape in the insolvency process. They have said that there is too much red tape in other parts of the system, such as the second code of conduct on mortgage arrears. That is why a system-wide review is needed. We are not talking about a big and expensive review. We are talking about a review that would take a few weeks and could be run by two or three people. It would bring the stakeholders together, identify various issues and join up the dots in a way that is not happening at present. The people who are involved in this sector on the ground every day are saying that such a review, which would systematically identify the problems in the system, would be hugely beneficial. On the basis that such a review would cost very little and would provide incredibly valuable information to the Oireachtas and the Cabinet, and given that the social problems associated with this issue are so big, would it not be reasonable for the Government to conduct a short, sharp review to get this information?

As I said, in the case that has been made public today, which is good news for the borrowers in that case, there is a capacity to meet repayments on a smaller amount. Obviously the settlement that was reached with AIB has made that perfectly clear. It is not just a case of the Central Bank or the Department of Finance setting targets for banks. It is not just a case of monitoring what is happening. It is a case of auditing the deals that have been done to see whether they are sustainable and can stand up.

From one point of view the Deputy's request is reasonable. It is not about having a cost in doing it. My point is that it is already being done both by the Central Bank and by the Department of Finance. This is March. The Deputy should come back at the end of May or early in June and we can have a discussion about it here in the House on the basis of the monitored and audited reports, both of the Central Bank to that point and the Department of Finance, and let us see what is happening. If conclusions or recommendations come from that as to how the thing might need to be tweaked a little bit to make it more effective, we are all for that. Our interest genuinely is to see that people have these pressures released from them to allow them to get back to contributing to our economy and country. That requires the banks to meet their targets. Not only should they be monitored, but they should be audited to see that they stand up. I would be happy to share that up-to-date information at that point with the House.

What is going on is unbelievable.

Top
Share