Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Justice and Equality debate -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 2019

Interim Report on Review of Youth Referrals: An Garda Síochána

We are joined by the Garda Commissioner, Mr. Drew Harris, deputy commissioner, Mr. John Twomey, and chief superintendent, Mr. Paul Cleary. They are all very welcome. I will shortly invite the Commissioner to make his opening statement but, first, I must draw our guests' attention to the matter of privilege. They should note that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded that under the salient rulings of the Chair, they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Commissioner Harris to make his opening statement.

Mr. Drew Harris

Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee. Last month I provided a detailed briefing to the Policing Authority in public on the various problems we discovered with the youth referral system. I do not wish to repeat myself or to take up the committee’s time unnecessarily, but it is important that I place on the record of the Houses of the Oireachtas and with this committee the key points from that briefing.

At the outset, on behalf of An Garda Síochána, I repeat that I apologise to the more than 3,000 individual and corporate victims we have let down. They expected us to pursue the crimes committed against them to the fullest extent possible and in their cases we did not do this. Each and every one of these crimes should have been investigated. The public expects that if something is reported to An Garda Síochána, it will be investigated. I expect the same.

We also let society down by not fully pursuing these crimes, some of them serious, committed by young people. I also apologise to those young people whom we also we let down. A great majority of these in the main were vulnerable children who had committed crimes in the past and would commit further crimes. We should have done better by them at the time.

Before I get into the detail of the problem, it is important to say that while our examination has found serious issues with how some crimes committed by young people were processed and dealt with by An Garda Síochána, this should not take away from the significant and important work that has been done and is still being done by the Garda youth diversion programme. It both prevents crime and protects communities, and has steered thousands of young people and children away from crime and anti-social behaviour. Almost two thirds of the children receiving an informal or formal caution as their first caution under the diversion scheme do not reoffend. This has been a major benefit to the individuals, their families and society at large.

Rather than going through the remainder of the opening statement, I would like to refer to the slides and provide an explanation of them. In An Garda Síochána we had an examination team in place. It was headed by Mr. Paul Cleary, who is with us. It examined the period from July 2010 to July 2017. In that time-----

I apologise for interrupting the Commissioner but he has referenced slides. Is there something we can view-----

Mr. Drew Harris

These were-----

I beg your pardon.

It would be good if they could be put up on screen as well.

Unfortunately, some of us do not have the slides. Could the Chairman facilitate us by making them available?

Yes, of course.

We all got them but it would be better if they were put up on screen.

Mr. Drew Harris

We have an additional copy which we can provide.

That is a copy for the Senator. I know the Commissioner is waiting to get a new computer system installed. We have just had one installed. It is a new toy and it worked very well last week. The information is now up on screen. Can the members see it?

We are in business.

We did not get Accenture to put it in.

The wonders of new technology.

Mr. Drew Harris

I am working off the first slide, which deals with what the Garda examination team found. As we work down the slide, it can be seen that just more than 100,000 of the referrals were deemed suitable for the diversion programme but also that just more than 55,000 referrals were deemed not suitable for it. It is within this group we have identified the issues. Of these 55,000, some 33,000 progress to a child being either charged or summoned. Of the remainder, some 22,000, there is no evidence of an associated charge or summons on PULSE. When we examine that, there is an explanation for the majority of those, but in 7,894 cases we are saying that these were not appropriately progressed. That is 5% of the overall referrals. We can go right to the top figure but we do not wish to diminish this because these 7,894 referrals relate to 3,489 separate children. This is a matter of some consequence. Although we were dealing with big figures, whenever we get it wrong, any percentage in this respect means there is a large number of individuals engaged in this matter.

I will move on to the next slide dealing with the impact on victims. There were 2,492 individual personal victims and 988 either organisational or business-type victims. As it states, some of these victims may have received a letter stating that a person had been identified in respect of an offence that had been reported. We also categorise the majority of the 73% of these crimes, which fall into four common crime categories of public order, theft, traffic or criminal damage, but there were serious crimes also alleged, one incident of rape, one incident of a sexual offence which was a sexual assault, one incident of child neglect and also others, including threats to kill, cultivation of cannabis and violent disorder. We would assess that the impact on the victims is profound. Even what we might regard as commonplace crimes can have a very heavy impact on individual victims. In our approach to this we have been very concerned in the way we approach and deal with this matter with victims.

Each victim, as appropriate, is receiving a letter specific to his or her case. I have moved on to the slide dealing with support for victims. The letter includes an apology. We have also provided contact details for the local Garda victim service office and the independent crime victim helpline. The victims are also given an option, if they receive a letter, of a personal visit by the local Garda team. We had a helpline which was open for two weeks and it received 35 calls and 16 emails. The victims of what people are judging to have been serious crimes are receiving a personal visit and this process is ongoing. So far, we have conducted 47 personal visits. Also, 4,567 letters have been sent out to victims, but we have also decided in a further 1,600 cases not to send a letter at the district level. That has been decided on the basis of the case. That has been in respect of the difficulty in identifying a victim with whom to engage.

We are also anxious not to revictimise people. In some cases we have ongoing engagement with these victims in various fora. We are very careful that we do not retraumatise or revictimise any individual. This is very much dealt with on a case-by-case, almost bespoke response, as appropriate.

I will move on to the impact on young people. As I have said, 3,489 children were associated with referrals not appropriately progressed. The vast majority of these children had a history of reoffending, which meant they had a lot of contact with An Garda Síochána before and after the incident that was not appropriately progressed.

Each of the children, if he or she is now an adult, or his or her guardian or parent, as appropriate, will receive a letter setting out the impact of the issue on them. That is ongoing. District officers have been speaking to parents and guardians in respect of the children as well.

The next slide concerns significant reduction and relates to 2017. As members will see from the bar chart and the line that runs through it, 96% of cases where there was a failure to act or where the cases were not appropriately actioned happened between 2010 and 2015. PULSE update 6.8 in November 2015, by and large, addressed the feedback loop in respect of those referrals. That is backed up by a subsequent update of PULSE, 7.3, and that makes a very significant difference. Even before we start our examination of this, system changes which we brought in on the back of an examination by the inspectorate to our overall investigatory processes had addressed this problem in terms of the feedback loop and significantly reduced the issue, but we have continued to focus on it, as one would expect.

The next slide sets out what those actions have been in terms of further action taken. There were further PULSE additions, in particular 7.3 in February 2018 and the extra supervision that brings. A new monitoring system for all youth referrals was introduced in November 2018. For the first time a national bureau for child diversion was established in December 2018 and a chief superintendent has been assigned to the bureau on a full-time basis. Staffing in the bureau was increased throughout 2018 and the staffing complement will be further increased in 2019.

Overall, in the organisation in 2018, there was a good increase in the number of sergeants and inspectors who were available for front-line supervision. Last month, in January 2019, new standard operating procedures for youth referrals were introduced, together with e-learning on the youth referral process. As of yesterday, 1,850 members had completed that process and we intend to make sure that the process is fully rolled out next week. This week an assistant commissioner was appointed on a full-time basis to the community engagement unit, which includes the youth diversion programme. The youth diversion programme will be subject to internal audit in the coming years. Overall, the youth diversion programme has worked well for many young people. It has brought major benefits to individuals and society. We hope we have enhanced and strengthened the system to make sure that this cannot happen again.

In terms of individual accountability, over the course of seven years, 3,414 Garda members were associated with not appropriately progressing referrals. Of those, 184 are no longer serving in the organisation. All referrals not progressed properly have been sent to the relevant divisional officer for them to consider in respect of discipline regulations. The process is ongoing. We will pay close attention to it and gather data. We will keep the committee and the Policing Authority updated. General guidance on disciplinary processes and penalties has been provided to all divisional officers, but that is a process for which they are responsible. Discipline in this matter is delegated to them and it comes under their responsibility to determine on the individual considerations in respect of discipline.

This is an interim report and in some ways we have only got to the halfway mark in that we have been able to describe what the problem is and what we can do to fix it. That is now in place. We now know the scale of the task in terms of engaging with the victims, and that process is ongoing. We understand the scale of the task in terms of addressing our organisational and individual accountability, which is ongoing and not finished yet.

I thank the Commissioner. The slides were very helpful in the presentation. I have a list of members who have indicated. So that members knows where they are, I have noted them in line with the order in which I have seen them indicate. The first is Deputy O'Callaghan, followed by Deputy Ó Laoghaire, Deputy Clare Daly, Deputy Wallace, Senator Conway, Deputy Jack Chambers, Deputy Brophy, and Deputy Martin Kenny.

I thank the Commissioner, assistant commissioner and chief superintendent for coming in. Am I correct in assuming that the problem, when one looks at the statistics in the slides, has been virtually solved at this stage? When one looks at 2016, 1.4% of referrals were not progressed appropriately and in 2017, it is down to 0.7%. Has the problem been solved and does Mr. Harris have indicative figures for 2018?

Mr. Drew Harris

Within the limits of human frailty, this problem has been solved. In 2018, a total of 17 cases out of some 1,600 were not appropriately progressed, and those will be dealt with. Within this, we have a systems failure that was repaired by PULSE, but we also have an issue of individual accountability. There is always an element of individual accountability in terms of the actions of members and how they perform their duty.

In terms of 2018 it sounds like the number of cases arising that appear not to have been progressed appropriately would be statistically irrelevant.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes, that is correct in terms of the statistics, but I would say that we are very conscious that every time we deal with someone, we are dealing with an individual and an individual case. We do not want to let any individual down. Even in those cases we are examining what went wrong and updating our system accordingly to make sure that those areas are repaired and that this cannot happen again.

Of the 7,894 cases that were not progressed appropriately, most of which took place between 2010 and 2015, what was the reason for them not being progressed? Was it simply Garda failure on an individual basis or was there a systems failure?

Mr. Drew Harris

I think there is an element of both. When a new system is introduced, I think there is an element of misunderstanding on the part of members of what they are expected to do when a matter is returned to them. In addition, there was insufficient briefing or training following the new system being introduced. That said, I apologise for the organisational failings but in 95% to 96% of cases we do get this correct. That would suggest many of the members knew that when they received this, they had to prepare a file and submit it for prosecution. There is an element of individual accountability, while at the same time I would not wish to shirk from what I see an organisational systems failure as well.

Obviously the objective is to try to deter children from continuing along a path of crime. From the Commissioner's assessment of the youth diversion programme, does he think it is succeeding in that objective?

Mr. Drew Harris

I refer to the success we have had in terms of those who came into the scheme, had one interaction and never appear again. The use of caution, be it informal or formal, has been successful and has directed many children away from destructive behaviour in terms of committing a crime or being involved in antisocial behaviour not only for them but for society. In effect, we know a lot of people come and look at our scheme and are envious of it and seek to emulate some of the successes that we have had through the years. There was a bad patch and we have apologised for it. We are not proud of it. We have rectified the problems. The scheme in itself is a good scheme and works well.

How do the victims of crime respond to the scheme? If they are told the person who perpetrated the crime was a child and that we are going to divert the child into the youth diversion programme, is there a mixed response from the victims of crime? Are some of them dissatisfied, in particular if it is a serious crime?

Mr. Drew Harris

Each case is a bespoke one and we explain to the victims why we are proceeding in this way.

We are trying to deal with this in a fashion that prevents further offending as opposed to as a punishment. Children can act unwisely and should be given a chance to rectify their behaviour. Many people understand this and understand that individuals should be given a second chance. The scheme also deals with those who have benefited from it but who carried on to reoffend.

How can the people who make a complaint to An Garda Síochána keep apprised of how the complaint is being progressed by the Garda? Is it all dependent on contacting the garda to whom it was reported? Is there an objective way to contact the Garda system to see how the complaint is being progressed?

Mr. Drew Harris

I am not clear about that. I will ask Mr. Twomey-----

People making a complaint about a bike being stolen, or about a serious crime such as assault, make a statement at a Garda station. How can they keep aware of whether somebody will be prosecuted? Is it dependent upon them contacting the particular gardaí with whom they dealt to see what is happening?

Mr. John Twomey

There are a couple of ways we deal with it. For more serious crimes a specific liaison officer is appointed. The liaison officer has direct contact on a regular basis with the victim of crime or the family, whatever is appropriate. In other cases we have victims services offices in every Garda division in the country. People can contact them and they will provide feedback on specific cases. In all other cases, the investigating garda has a role and responsibility to keep the victim updated on the progress of the crime. If a court case is pending, there will be ongoing liaison because the victim will be attending court with us. Given the volume of cases, the level of interaction varies depending on the seriousness of the crime.

The youth diversion programme is a very good scheme and it should be promoted and encouraged. What is disturbing is the question mark over parts of it. I am sure it is the wish of the committee that the scheme continues because if we can get a child off the path of criminality at an early stage we will save society, that child and victims of crime in the long term. If we do not we will have a problem until the boy - generally - is in his 40s.

I can be critical of gardaí but I always like to take the opportunity to commend the good work they do and commendation is due to them for the significant seizures in recent days and I acknowledge this. On numerous occasions I have gone on the Dáil record as a big advocate of the youth diversion programme. It does excellent work and I would like to see it expanded with more projects throughout the country. Clearly there is an issue, and it is important to be very clear that it relates not to the young people who are referred to the Garda diversion programme, although, I am sure, there are issues in this regard and I am sure other Deputies might raise them later. The issue to which I am referring relates to those deemed not suitable for the Garda youth diversion programme. Is this correct?

Mr. Drew Harris

That is correct. The figure is 55,000.

Mr. Bob Collins made a major statement at the Policing Authority meeting when he said that in the three years of the Policing Authority this was the most serious issue that had arisen. That is a significant statement and it is very likely appropriate and correct. It is unacceptable that almost 8,000 reported crimes committed by 3,500 children and young people were not properly dealt with. I recognise that 75% of these cases fell into the categories of public order, theft, traffic and criminal damage. Not that these are insignificant crimes but I want to focus on the very serious crimes. Approximately 55 have been categorised as very serious crimes and three have been identified as rape, sexual assault and child neglect. These are extremely serious offences. I imagine Mr. Harris will tell us whether they include murder or manslaughter. I assume the remainder are particularly violent assaults. Perhaps Mr. Harris will clarify this. My understanding of the process is this is not with regard to cases that were not even referred to the Garda youth diversion programme. If an offence happened and it was not referred to the Garda youth diversion programme, it would not have ended up in this category. It is only those referred and then deemed not suitable.

I have put on the record my understanding that to be referred to the Garda youth diversion programme, people must agree to be cautioned and take responsibility for the offending behaviour. This understanding has not been contradicted so this is an opportunity for Mr. Harris to contradict it if it is not the case.

Mr. Drew Harris

No, the referral is for any child who is a suspect in an offence. This has created the 158,000 youth referrals. The 103,000 referred to are the individuals who accept there is a prima facie case and they accept their part in it and have made a full admission as to their part. The 55,000 cases are those where people have denied their part in it or were previously dealt with through the youth referral scheme. The Deputy is correct in that the 158,000 youth referrals include 57,000 individual children identified as being suspects and connected to an offence.

With regard to the serious offences, is Mr. Harris aware of whether the young person involved took responsibility for the offending behaviour? I know it is not a legal definition of accepting guilt but did the young people involved accept responsibility for their offending behaviour?

Mr. Drew Harris

I do not know that detail. I may have to get back to the Deputy because it is a very specific question about 55 individuals and how they responded in interview. I do not know. The Deputy also asked me about the more serious offences and very serious sexual assaults. There were also three threats to kill and seven incidents of affray or violent disorder. There are other serious incidents in this. I will ask Mr. Cleary to speak about whether people admit or do not admit.

Mr. Paul Cleary

I do not have definite details to hand but the 55 may have been refused access to the diversion programme not just because they did not admit. It could have been because of previous offences or a number of other factors that dictated whether they were accepted. I do not have to hand the individual details of the 55 children.

It is important this is known because if it was the case, and it may not be the case, that they accepted responsibility for that individual behaviour, it raises the possibility that victims in these 55 cases came forward to the Garda complaining of a sexual assault, rape or violent assault and the young person in question accepted he or she had responsibility for it but nothing was done. If this is the case, and Mr. Harris may not be able to tell me now if it is, but if it is it is an absolutely appalling vista and would be incredibly upsetting for the victim. In these cases where we have, rightly, seen a fair bit of discussion on disciplinary procedures and the effort to get things right, is anything now being done to pursue those very serious offences, regarding people who are guilty of sexual offences in two instances at least and other serious offences? Is anything being done to ensure they face responsibility for their actions? Is there anything that can be done?

Mr. Drew Harris

We remain in discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of a number of these matters. That has not closed down. I am limited in what I can say in respect of the individual cases that we have brought before the director. Obviously, if we can resurrect a prosecution, we will seek to do so, but under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Within this, there are very serious matters. That is why we have embarked on an examination of the conduct of each member in respect of these cases and also whether that leads into supervision of the member as well. I have to be careful what I say. In law and in the regulations, I have given the divisional officers responsibility for discipline and I cannot be in a position to direct them or even by inference to do so. I acknowledge that some of this is very serious and looks bleak. We have to deal with that appropriately and if that means that these matters have to be dealt with through the discipline code, so be it.

It is right, and I am glad to hear the Commissioner indicate, that he will work with the DPP to resurrect and continue to pursue cases. That is important, particularly with regard to those 55 very serious offences. While I understand the programme and principles behind it, there must be accountability and justice in those cases.

There has been speculation in the media that cases involving adult offenders may not have been pursued or prosecuted correctly. That is not based on official statements but I expect that some of the sources used are well placed. Can the Commissioner shed any light on that matter? Does he anticipate that he, the Policing Authority or any other body will make statements in the time ahead about cases relating to adults that were not progressed through the criminal justice system correctly?

Mr. Drew Harris

That issue was raised in the public session of a meeting with the Policing Authority. I would point to the PULSE 6.8 and 7.3 systems. The PULSE changes were made in response to an inspectorate report into investigation in 2014. The changes and updates recommended by the inspectorate also had the impact of improving our performance around juvenile referrals. As of this moment, through PULSE but now also in this year and next the introduction of an investigation management system, we have a far more thorough and complete understanding of the investigations that are coming into the organisation, both proactive and reactive, and how they are to be advanced, whether adult or juvenile. We have asked our professional standards unit to look at this matter. We will report to the Policing Authority, which is obviously at liberty to ask the inspectorate to revisit this area. As of this moment, we are putting faith in the PULSE system and the PULSE updates in respect of how offenders, both juvenile and adult, are being dealt with by An Garda Síochána.

I understand from his response that the Commissioner does not anticipate any significant statement, either from the Garda or others, in relation to a category of adult offences not being progressed correctly. Is that understanding correct?

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes. We have nothing to indicate that this scale of problem exists in respect of adults.

The Chairman indicated he would be willing to allow brief questions to the Commissioner on alternative topics.

It depends on whatever the Commissioner feels he is in a position to respond to. If the Deputy wants to raise an issue that he is not in a position to respond to, maybe a response could issue subsequently.

Mr. Drew Harris

No, I am fine.

We indicated in the initial notification that other issues may arise. That was done to accommodate members.

I will ask the questions briefly in a group and perhaps the Commissioner can give a brief answer to them.

I ask the Deputy to truncate his contribution.

That is fine. I will ask them together and the Commissioner can answer them together. At the previous meeting, the Commissioner indicated he would be willing to meet the Justice for the Forgotten group and Mr. Stephen Travers. Has that meeting taken place? The Commissioner sought a report on the policing of protests in North Frederick Street. Has he received that report and, if so, what actions does he intend to take on foot of it? I was very surprised by the Commissioner's decision to reduce by 200 the number of gardaí who will be trained this year at Templemore College given that chief superintendents and sergeants are crying out for resources. That, at least, is my understanding of the position. I am sure the Commissioner hears about this daily and weekly. Grassroots policing is still struggling to recover from previous cuts. I was surprised by the decision and I do not agree with it.

Mr. Drew Harris

I met representatives of Justice for the Forgotten. We had a good meeting and they told me I was the first Commissioner they had met in some considerable time. There were actions flowing from that and we will deliver on those over the next months. I also met other and had exchanges with other victims. That has been part of my almost monthly duties in terms of meeting various families, not only from the period of the Troubles but also from other tragic circumstances, and assuring them of our ongoing interest and care for them.

I received a report in respect of North Frederick Street. We are building in the lessons learned in respect of how we deal with situations in which private individuals seek to repossess property after civil proceedings. There has been a change in how we manage those operations. In short, we are far more assertive in terms of how they are done and at what time they are done and to make sure they are done to minimise the risk of breach of the peace.

Will the report be made public?

Mr. Drew Harris

This is being built into our standard operating procedures. They are under examination by the Garda Inspectorate and the inspectorate is to report shortly to the Policing Authority. It will become public through that vehicle.

In 2018, we recruited 800 gardaí and our recruitment figure for this year is 600. I also have a very ambitious programme for recruiting an additional 600 Garda staff. Part of their role is to displace sworn members from roles out to the front line. There will be considerable growth in the organisation this month. Through the recruitment of Garda staff and gardaí, we will bring in an additional 1,100 individuals. There are always cessations and the net increase, as an organisation, will be of the order of 800. All of that is directed towards enhancing the front line. We are not employing Garda staff to have more clerical assistance. What we want to do is recruit Garda staff to displace sworn members to other front-line duties, whether beat and patrol-type duties or towards the investigation of serious crime.

I thank the Commissioner and Deputy Ó Laoghaire.

I thank the Commissioner for coming in. I apologise that I will have to pop out of the meeting at a certain stage but I will be back. If I do not get to ask all my questions now, I will ask another round of questions when I come back, if we have time.

That is fine.

There is something horribly familiar about the committee examining another Garda report with apologies for incorrect figures, etc. It is important to note that this was happening on the watch of the Commissioner's predecessors, Ms Nóirín O'Sullivan and Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin, at a time when scrutiny, information and accountability were centre stage. That is a little scary. In that context, I suppose what screams out at me is the tiny print at the bottom and the last remark that this is an interim report, and all figures are provisional. I am reminded of the 1 million breath tests that became 2 million. I am reminded of Mr. John Twomey coming in and telling us there were some minor issues about the classification of homicides, which turned out not to be in the least bit minor. This is an interim report, yet the Garda first identified the issue in 2014 and did a scoping exercise in 2017.

Is that not enough time to produce a final report? What assurance can Mr. Harris provide the committee that there will not be a 50% or 100% increase from the figures in the interim report, as was the case previously?

Mr. Drew Harris

I can provide an assurance based on the rigour with which this is being advanced and addressed. Each of the cases was individually examined. Those were subsequently validated by the Garda criminal records office, which will carry out further validations. It is an interim report because an important part of the process is getting feedback from the approximately 3,400 members who we will ask what exactly happened in these cases. The numbers compiled by the Garda examination team are fairly solid. They may change by 1% or 2% but I assure the committee that there will not be a 5% or 10% variation and there is no possibility of there being a 50% or 100% variation. That has been the subject of very close examination. Since and prior to my arrival, the Garda has been very particular regarding the means in which Mr. Cleary, his team and Assistant Commissioner Leahy ensured the validity and certainty of these figures. I have confidence in the figures. If I did not, I would not have issued the interim report. It is an interim, rather than final, report because there must be a consideration of discipline issues and the explanations that will be provided. That will further inform us on what happened and the reasons for it.

If Mr. Harris was not confident in the figures, he would not have released the interim report.

Mr. Drew Harris

I would not.

Were his predecessors wrong to issue certain interim reports?

Mr. Drew Harris

I will speak for myself. The buck stops with me on this issue and I wanted to be sure on the figures. I also wanted to be sure of the figures in the context of the professional outlook of the team working on this. The organisation has been through the regrettable position of having to change figures, which damaged confidence. Everybody was determined to avoid that situation and I am entirely confident in these figures. The buck stops with me on them.

When will the final report be published?

Mr. Drew Harris

That depends on a couple of elements, including the discipline process that is under way. Some of the discipline processes may stretch on for many months but many can be dealt with quite quickly. I hope that we will get sufficient feedback within the next three to six months to be able to inform the committee and the Policing Authority of the progress made and the lessons learned based on the feedback from district and divisional officers regarding what they were told. In a substantial number of cases, prosecutions against juveniles were not progressed, but their adult co-accused were prosecuted. Proceedings in respect of those crimes took place in the adult courts; the cases against juveniles were not progressed. Other facts are yet to emerge in the examination of this matter.

Did the Policing Authority have a copy of the report in advance of the meeting with Garda management?

Mr. Drew Harris

It had a copy of the letter of 16 January which I also sent to the committee at that time.

Mr. Harris did so very promptly. It was a nice change for the committee to receive it in a timely manner while it was with the Policing Authority. However, I will have a problem if those couple of pages of a letter are what is being referred to as the interim report. Is that what the Policing Authority was given to scrutinise in advance of its meeting with Garda management? Why did it not receive the full report? It is supposed to be responsible for overseeing the Garda.

Mr. Drew Harris

A further report is being completed which will further break down these figures. It is being prepared for the Policing Authority. Obviously, the committee will also receive a copy once it is completed.

How long is the interim report?

Mr. Drew Harris

We received an initial draft but I am not content with it. It contains information which would interfere with disciplinary considerations. The information could upset or corrupt a consideration of discipline. It goes into great detail such that cases are looked at almost on an individual level. That is true in respect of the gardaí involved, but in some cases the victims may be able to identify themselves from the information contained in the report. It needs to be lifted up a level. It contains detail which it would be incorrect to put into the public domain.

I have a real problem with that answer. Mr. Harris referred to a draft interim report but we thought we were considering an interim report. The Policing Authority may have been under the impression it was scrutinising an interim report. However, Mr. Harris has confirmed it received a four-page letter, as did the committee, which contains certain figures. I asked Mr. Harris the length of the interim report. He stated it is a draft report and he is not happy with it. Is it not contradictory for Mr. Harris to bring a letter to the Policing Authority as a basis for it to ask a few questions, but keep the full interim report from it? As Mr. Harris stated he is very confident of the figures but is holding back on their publication until he is absolutely sure of them, should he not have waited for the interim report and given that to the Policing Authority? We now know it did not receive the interim report.

Mr. Drew Harris

The letter and the briefing provide a comprehensive breakdown of the figures. They can be broken down further in terms of individual tables and that has been done in the draft interim report that was delivered to me. However, that report also contains detail which I cannot put in the public domain due to the possibility of identification of victims and the impact it would have on any potential consideration of discipline. It may be the case that the disciplinary aspect was not considered in previous Garda reports, which meant that more detail could be released into the public domain. That is not the position in this case. I must have due regard to a process-heavy discipline system and avoid creating a process weakness by putting certain information into the public domain.

That sounds logical, but-----

Mr. Drew Harris

That is the rationale for the decision. We will share as much as we can with the Policing Authority and the committee. More detail can be given as we progress through the discipline process. We are at the halfway mark in that we will examine the actions of 3,400 members with consideration given to discipline. That is an extraordinary step and I cannot think of a parallel to it. We need the space to do that in order that we are compliant with our process.

That is a rational explanation. However, it does not get away from the fact that the public body charged with oversight of An Garda Síochána was not in possession of an interim report prior to the meeting. Rather, it received a four-page letter to scrutinise. The analysis of and background to the matter is currently in draft form although the issue was flagged in 2014 and the the process commenced in 2017. Mr. Harris stated he would give the Policing Authority what he can. That is a problem.

Mr. Drew Harris

I must not put personal information about individuals or information which could derail the disciplinary process into the public domain. I must be responsible regarding the information I hold and how I use it. As the process goes on, we can provide more information. We are now in a position to release further information and we will do so to the Policing Authority and the committee. However, the figures contained in the letters of 16 January were firmed up no earlier than seven days before that date.

When we got to a position where we were sure about our figures, we immediately shared them with the Policing Authority. I could have waited some weeks until I had received this report but when we knew, we took the step of almost immediately sharing it, but certainly sharing it forthwith with our accountability bodies, including the committee.

At the same time, in another context, a drip feed is not helpful. If so much time was spent on getting the figures right, I would have believed the written report to back it up would also have been signed off. The Commissioner told us he needs to complete the disciplinary process to give the final report but he does not have the interim report because it is in draft form now. A lot of this seems to hinge on the disciplinary process. How much of the disciplinary action has been initiated so far? What ranks are we talking about? The Commissioner referred to divisional officers. Could he explain the rank of the divisional officers? Is the implication that nobody of a higher rank than divisional officer will be called to account? What is the process for dealing with the divisional officers who might have had a role in this?

Mr. Drew Harris

A divisional officer is a chief superintendent. Under the present regulations, those officers examine, on a case-by-case basis, the actions of individual members and assess them to ascertain whether there is a disciplinary case to answer. If so, they assess the severity. The examination may indicate other individuals, of whatever rank, who may have a case to answer. We are certainly not excluding this possibility. It certainly must happen in terms of making sure this is a fair and open process.

Some members have retired so the figure we are looking at is a little lower than 3,400. We are, however, looking at a large number. The process is under way but it will take some time. I imagine the more minor issues can be dealt with quickly but the more substantial ones can take months to resolve in our present process.

How many people have been sanctioned? What is their rank?

Mr. Drew Harris

I do not have those data to hand but I can provide them and, indeed, do so in a periodic fashion.

The next public meeting with the Policing Authority will be on 24 February. We want to have an update then. I can provide the same update to the committee.

That would be great. Is the breakdown by rank? Are we assuming this is all at Garda level?

Mr. Drew Harris

The initial investigations are against an individual Garda member. In the interim, some members were promoted. Some cases may involve issues in respect of the duties of a supervisor but we have to see how that opens up in these cases. It is too early to say what the numbers are.

Where there is a higher number of senior officers in a particular region, perhaps related to miseducation of individuals under a divisional officer, who is overseeing the entire process? If there is a role at divisional officer level, who is taking responsibility for it?

Mr. Drew Harris

Is the Deputy talking about where a superintendent or chief superintendent has a case to answer?

Mr. Drew Harris

When we get a response in terms of what has happened in a division, it will have to be assessed to determine whether there was a breakdown in supervision as opposed to process, and whether a consideration of discipline is required. That would happen in the centre, with the IC responsible for disciplinary matters.

Would Mr. Harris expect all of that to be done within the next six months?

Mr. Drew Harris

Those matters will be more protracted. Much of this relates to just one instance. I expect that divisional officers will consider the appropriate responses. A lot of it can be dealt with quite quickly. I do not want to pre-empt the officers' decision-making. Once we get into more complex matters, it will take months to resolve. We will have a better picture of this, however, in the next three months, but certainly six.

And we will get some of that as it comes up.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes. I have an ongoing obligation to keep the authority up to date on this, in addition to the committee.

On the question Deputy Ó Laoghaire asked, the authority has identified that some of the problems with the youth diversion programme could have been replicated in the adult system. It is unique in some ways but I was not clear on what Mr. Harris said. He seemed to say this has been raised but that PULSE has sorted it. Alternatively, did he say the Garda Professional Standards Unit, GPSU, is examining this area? I was just not clear on the position.

Mr. Drew Harris

The evidence from this, and from the introduction of editions 6.8 and 7.3, is that the systems improvements will have improved our performance. We want to be sure, however. The question has been raised time and again in public and I am certain it will be followed through. We want to be sure. Nothing much indicates to us at this moment that we have an ongoing problem. The investigation management system is being introduced and it will provide further supervision of investigations that are ongoing right across the whole organisation. It will account for how they are being supervised and progressed.

Is the GPSU looking at this?

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes, it is. This matter has been raised in public and we want to be able to give a public account of the position on it. If we find something, we will obviously have to report it.

Could I ask a few other questions on unrelated issues or will I wait until I contribute again?

If the Deputy wishes to wait, she may do so, unless she wishes to take the same option as Deputy Ó Laoghaire, that is, truncating the questioning, because I do not want to lose-----

The Chairman will not hold it against me when I come back in.

I will not hold it against the Deputy at all, here or outside.

I was going to raise some points on ICT and such matters because some of the changes to PULSE have been given as assurance as to why we should have confidence now. The last time the Commissioner was here, he stated in response to Deputy O'Callaghan that IT was the biggest problem that the organisation faces. Particularly in the context of the amount being spent on the maintenance of PULSE, what is the current position on a replacement system? Has the organisation examined this?

Mr. Drew Harris

We are now on edition 7.3 of PULSE. In effect, it is almost like talking about a car that has moved from mark 1 to mark 4. It has been rewritten and recorded. We have a very dedicated team within An Garda Síochána, which is always bringing the system up to date. The latest work has been to make it fit for the Schengen processes. This has involved a major rewriting of the system. We are also adding additional ICT systems, which will assist the members. We talked about the investigation management system and our system to manage rostering, in addition to the roster and duty management system, RDMS. There are other records systems.

We have a major ICT investment programme. It is part of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. Training issues come with that. Our mobility project allows members on the ground to gain access to records remotely through a handheld device. That is a very significant uplift.

There are other areas that we want to address. We will do so over time. We are rolling out computer-aided dispatch across the country, and we want to seek to update that in the near future because it gives a far better handle on demand and how time is being spent. The present system would not allow us to do that. Even beyond that, there is a custody management system. We keep progressing but there is more to do.

I would put it slightly differently. Even in some of the examples the Commissioner has given, there is a massive black hole that will never be filled. It is almost like a self-creating, lucrative maintenance project for certain private outfitters.

He mentioned the rostering duty management system but he told the Policing Authority that was an off the shelf system. Accenture was not building it; it was just copying something that was there, yet we know it was given €100,000 in 2017 and €200,000 for what is an off-the-shelf package on which it did not do any work. How much will it be paid in total by the time it is finished? In the same vein, we can examine the amounts paid to Vantage Resources, which was paid €200,000 to €300,000 a month for PULSE maintenance. It is like they create this big unwieldy system and the fellows who create the mess then get paid hundreds of thousands of euro per month to maintain it, yet everybody knows it is a nightmare that has contributed to many of these problems with data management.

Mr. Drew Harris

Whenever we buy any system which is, in effect, off-the-shelf, we always have to adapt it to the peculiarities of the operating environment. For example, the allowances and the enhanced payments for Saturday and Sunday-type working have to be built into our rostering system. Peculiarities of this jurisdiction also have to be built into any system. Inevitably, we buy systems from America and Canada, predominantly, and we have to adapt them to our operating environment. That is the same for any law enforcement agency in any jurisdiction. The Deputy asked specific questions about costs and projected costs. I ask that I be allowed to come back to the committee to give an explanation of those because I do not have that detail.

That would be great. In particular, I have difficulty with the idea of paying Vantage Resources between €200,000 and €300,000 a month for PULSE maintenance - my God.

On civilianisation, I know the Commissioner is going to tell me that, at last, the Garda has fulfilled what the Garda Inspectorate has asked for in moving the Garda National Technical Bureau to Forensic Science Ireland. This was long flagged but has it not outlived its flagging? Have we not got to the point where other systems that moved to this type of arrangement are looking at bringing this back into Garda control or police control? One of the problems, I am led to believe - again, this comes back to respecting dignity and a code of ethics - is that the staff involved, some of whom have 20 and 30 years' service, are being given their new terms and conditions this week, being told to sign up by 22 February and that they are moving from An Garda Síochána into the civilian side of the organisation. That certainly does not sound like respect and dignity. In addition, it raises questions about the chain of evidence and about highly skilled staff being lost, with their level of training not being replicated under the new system, and with all of this being sold and justified under the guise of civilianisation. While we would like to have civilianisation, we might end up with something more expensive and with a loss of significant expertise, never mind treating staff poorly in the interim.

Mr. Drew Harris

There is quite a bit I can say about that but I think I should address it in a written response. There has been a lot of negotiation and this is also around arrangements with Forensic Science Ireland and how it provides scientific support to investigations. I would say, on the contrary, that the movement across Europe is that scene investigation, forensic examination of what is retrieved from scenes and the giving of evidence should be the preserve of scientists and those who can give forensic evidence that is independent of the investigation. That is the general direction. This is probably a stepping stone along the way. It is not that it is going to be coming back to us; the general direction in other regimes across Europe is the opposite.

Is the Commissioner confirming that scene investigation is going to be handed over as well?

Mr. Drew Harris

No, I am not. I am saying that, contrary to what the Deputy is suggesting, it is not drifting back into law enforcement. The opposite is happening and, therefore, we will have to look carefully at the services we are providing.

I have to correct the Commissioner on that. What is being said is that forensic examination will be done by the scientists but scene investigation will continue to be done by gardaí. The problem is gardaí do not have the expertise in serious crimes. It could be that the local garda who goes out to deal with a burglary will have to do the scene investigation, and that is then handed over. Currently, the Garda has highly expert staff who have been trained for many years and who are part of that unbroken chain. I am seriously concerned about this. The example the Commissioner gave about Europe is not being replicated here so I do not know why he mentioned it.

Mr. Drew Harris

I will submit a written report on this. It is a live issue.

The Commissioner will take on board the points made and respond to the committee.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes.

I thank him.

I thank Commissioner Harris for coming in. With regard to the report, I want to touch on an angle that has not been touched on. We are aware of the fact juvenile liaison officers are doing some good work around the country steering young people away from crime. However, this controversy has probably thrown light on the young people who are falling through the cracks, in particular those who are deemed unsuitable for the programme and, thus, left out of it. There seems to be a large number of such people, with 55,500 deemed unsuitable for the diversion programme, and the figure of 7,894 came out of that.

There is wide acceptance that these people need our help most, although I am not saying it is easy to make it happen. In the past few days I was talking to a guy involved in the intervention and prevention programme in Ballyogan, which I believe is doing great work with young people, some of whom are very troubled. The expression he used was that the adults are prepared to get "down and dirty" and work with the kids, listen to them and bring them under their wing, see what the kids are interested in, and steer them away from a life of crime, with many of them having come from troubled backgrounds. Is there potential for An Garda Síochána to work with a large cohort of these 55,000 young people who are not deemed suitable at the moment?

Mr. Drew Harris

This is over a seven-year period. That is a large number but it can be broken down into the various years. In effect, the 103,000 referrals are the ones we have worked with and tried to divert. The 55,000 juveniles have either been in the programme or, in a smaller number of cases, the offence was so serious that they were deemed not suitable for the referral programme and, therefore, it was our job to report the matter for prosecution. We engage with many youth programmes through community policing and through the various services we provide. However, a lot of the heavy interaction in terms of the time and resources required probably sits better with agencies other than An Garda Síochána. We can certainly have an input and we can direct individuals towards that, in particular those who are engaged in behaviour which is self-destructive in terms of recidivism. We do a lot of that through the juvenile diversion programme. However, that intervention cannot just be about An Garda Síochána.

We must fulfil a role with other State agencies and players in supporting young people. The intervention the Deputy mentioned is resource intensive and not delivered entirely by An Garda Síochána. While we seek to support it, it could not be ours alone.

Does Mr. Harris believe the Garda does not have the resources to become even more involved? It was put to me that it worked well when the Garda became involved with young kids at grassroots level, with progress being made and many being saved from falling through the cracks.

Mr. Drew Harris

We have a focus on crime prevention and working with young people who are troubled. Undoubtedly, that is one of our achievements. While I am glad to hear that when the Garda engages, it seems to work well, it is not our primary function and not one in which we should be leading. I am not sure it is an issue of resources. In providing overall youth services other agencies are better placed to lead. It is not just about providing alternatives to being on the street but also about progression in the careers or qualifications young people might pursue. That is not solely a job for the Garda. There is a Government initiative to examine alternatives within the area of youth justice. With others, we are playing our part in that regard and perhaps developments might come from it. We do a great deal in this field, but it is not our primary responsibility.

Deputy Clare Daly raised the matter of the Policing Authority not receiving the full interim report. Mr. Harris stated that, owing to issues related to victims and the ongoing disciplinary process, he was not in a position to put the matter in the public domain. There is a strong tendency in the Oireachtas for reports to be written but not published. Is there a facility whereby the report in question could be given to the likes of the Policing Authority, with the proviso that it not be put into the public domain, or is that a non-runner because of how the authority operates?

Mr. Drew Harris

First, any document I provide for the Policing Authority is a finished document, not a draft. As such, the Policing Authority is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I have a difficulty in providing information for the authority that could directly impact on a victim.

Second, the disciplinary process is different. I cannot talk about potential disciplinary processes. Whenever we get through them, I can talk about them in retrospect because decisions will have been made and actions taken.

In terms of the document I have, we are in the very early days. A great deal of work has been given to divisional officers in dealing not only with members but also, more importantly, victims. The initial concentration has been on victims. Some divisional officers potentially are dealing with many hundreds of victims, on whom they are concentrating.

I can discuss disciplinary processes in retrospect but not at this stage. I am always careful about giving information that inadvertently identifies either victims or potential perpetrators.

I will touch on a couple of other points.

Can the Deputy put them together?

Kind of. Last week I asked the Minister for Justice and Equality about protected disclosures, but I did not get much of an answer from him. Is Mr. Harris confident that the process in its current form is fit for purpose?

Mr. Drew Harris

The protected disclosures that have come across my desk and with which I have been dealing have been subject to process. I am content with the process we have put in place.

Mr. Harris believes the protected disclosures apparatus is working well.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes, in that it provides a route to have issues raised, in particular whistleblowing-type issues. It is policy and, in some ways, I am straying into policy in making comments on it. We deal with these matters within the processes we have in place. I suggest we deal with them fairly.

I am not saying the Garda is not dealing with them fairly, but it must work with what it is given by the Department of Justice and Equality and the Minister. The Minister told us that he would ask counsel to review a number of cases. In that light, it appears to us that there is not full confidence in GSOC's ability to sort out these problems. Mr. Harris is not responsible for the process, but he is the one who has to work with it. Is he happy with the nature of it?

Mr. Drew Harris

In terms of my responsibilities, I am content with the manner in which we have dealt with the protected disclosures.

Mr. Harris is not answering my question.

A last question, perhaps.

Last week I asked the Minister about something else. There have been a number of suspensions of late of senior players in the organisation. While I was not critical, I asked the Minister and ask Mr. Harris now whether there will be a change of policy. When complaints are made about people, is the way forward to suspend them, pending the result of an investigation? We did not see that approach adopted before now. To be honest, we called for the suspension of some individuals where cases had been ongoing for a few years. No one was suspended and some were even promoted while they were supposed to be under investigation. Is Mr. Harris introducing a change of policy that will see people being suspended, pending the result of an investigation?

Mr. Drew Harris

Each of these cases is dealt with as an individual matter. As various courts and tribunals are seized of them, it is difficult for me to discuss them. In respect of a change of policy, the answer is "No". This was the application of policy in specific cases as they arose.

I will not name the individual concerned, but there was a suspension on 3 January. Is Mr. Harris happy that all of the documents were sent to GSOC? I do not just mean the ones the Garda deemed to be relevant. Is GSOC being allowed to assume what is relevant and receiving all of the documents, or is the Garda sending it what it deems to be relevant?

Mr. Drew Harris

We are providing every assistance for GSOC in that investigation. We are being exhaustive in our support and the provision of documents for GSOC. The Deputy can be assured in that regard.

Mr. Harris is happy that all documents have been sent to GSOC.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes.

My last question-----

-----is about IT. As Mr. Harris was not around, it is no fault of his, but the committee has had many discussions on the role of Accenture. We were given some contradictory answers by one of the individuals involved that did not stack up. We have highlighted huge discrepancies and crazy costs, many of which were poorly monitored, in how the contract has operated. Will Mr. Harris examine the types of contract it has been agreeing with the likes of Accenture, or is he happy to progress as normal?

Mr. Drew Harris

In some ways, I should give a written response to that but I will say that my role as Commissioner is to ensure we spend taxpayers' money as efficiently as possible. When seeking the provision of services, particularly those which are long-lasting but also integral to the delivery of the policing function, I must look to the most efficient and effective manner of doing that. I will give a longer, written response in respect of the specific issues the Deputy raised.

I call Senator Conway, to be followed by Deputy Jack Chambers.

I welcome the Commissioner and his team. To start on a positive note, I believe that the public has significant confidence in Mr. Harris's leadership style. He is out and about meeting people and engaging. That is extremely important. I will offer a little context to Deputy Clare Daly's questioning about the draft report and the Policing Authority. I have been a member of this committee for eight years. A number of Mr. Harris's predecessors have appeared before the committee. Getting information from them was, to a large extent, like drawing teeth. In other words, it was extremely difficult. That is the context. I would be concerned about a draft report. I understand the logic in terms of discipline and similar issues, and they are important. I will not go down the same route as Deputy Clare Daly, however, because she has exhausted that line of question to a large extent. Is the Policing Authority happy with the delay in providing the draft report and the reasoning for that delay? Has Mr. Harris obtained an opinion from the authority? Is it satisfied with the delays in making the draft report available to it and, by extension, putting it in the public domain?

Mr. Drew Harris

This was raised in, I think, the private and the public sessions on 17 January. We undertook to provide a report before the next public session, which is on 24 February, and we are on track to do so.

Mr. Harris is confident then that on 24 February the report will be escalated and that whatever discipline issues he is concerned about will be either dealt with or redacted.

Mr. Drew Harris

The issues around the potential for discipline will be redacted.

That is reasonable.

Deputy Wallace asked a number of the questions I was going to ask about protected disclosures. How many protected disclosures are before the Commissioner?

Mr. Drew Harris

I do not want to mislead the committee. I am not entirely sure of that figure. I would need to confirm it.

I just want to get an understanding of the number of protected disclosures being brought to the Commissioner's attention.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes.

Mr. Harris has spoken about IT, the development of structures and the significant costs involved. In An Garda Síochána in recent years there have been serious difficulties with IT malfunctions, if I may call them that, or challenges with or human error associated with IT. Is Mr. Harris confident that all information processed and collected at checkpoints is properly escalated through the system and accounted for in terms of the Garda's statistics? Is he confident that the proper and appropriate actions are being taken by officers? Does Mr. Harris think any errors are within the realm of not mattering from a statistical perspective or does he think there are still issues there?

Mr. Drew Harris

I will pass to Mr. Twomey to talk about the specifics of that intervention.

Mr. John Twomey

With specific reference to the checkpoint information and the data, many changes were made which ensure that the correct information is captured at the time that is necessary. Many improvements have been made. We mentioned here on previous occasions that PULSE was designed as an incident-recording process and we were transitioning that and asking it to do something for which it was not originally designed, namely, an investigation management system. Many of the changes that have been made over the years have brought in the improvements we require, but we continue to oversee this daily. Where human beings are involved, the normal, natural, human frailties we all possess will arise. We look at this every day, and I think that is what the Commissioner alluded to when he spoke earlier about the work of the professional standards unit. Oversight, governance and constant checking must continue daily and into the future to ensure that we minimise any issues or that we identify them at the earliest opportunity and continue to improve the system. I am happy that the changes that have brought in address the issues the Senator raised in his question, but we will continue to monitor this.

Essentially, the human element is what is inserted into the handheld device, but as for the handheld device being put onto a docking station-type system to upload the information, the witnesses are satisfied that that is essentially fool-proof at this stage.

Mr. Drew Harris

That is the technology we will use going forward. A handheld device is as powerful as a PC was four or five years ago. Using this technology, we can then get Garda members out of their stations and out on the ground, and they are able to input directly. That is what we will seek to do. The difficulty with technology is that it moves on. We will never get to an end state in respect of technology. The public expects new ways of being able to communicate. We must open that up through social media but also online reporting. Furthermore, our members themselves lead very connected, switched-on lives and expect the same in the workplace and how they work. It is an efficient way of working, but we will not get to an IT system which is devoid of human error and the need for constant analysis to make corrections, adjustments and improvements and also subject to big updates. Technology does not stand still at any time.

Mr. Harris has been in the job for in or around six months. Do any other areas jump out at him that may lead to reputational damage or reputational risk to the force at present? Has anything come to light that he is concerned about and that he would like to share with us this morning?

Mr. Drew Harris

No. As stated, I have made it very clear to the organisation and my senior leadership team the exemplary behaviours I expect of individuals. I expect them to be compliant with the code of ethics in their behaviours in the workplace. As we move forward, and as required by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland, we will concentrate more and more on providing human rights policing. This sets out very firmly the behaviours expected in the organisation, and that will become real. I will be entirely unstinting in expecting those behaviours and demanding them of everyone who works for An Garda Síochána.

I have two final issues. Regarding structure and organisational change, and referring to my own area of the mid-west, our very good chief superintendent, John Kerins, retired at Christmas, and we wish him well. He was a super member of An Garda Síochána. There is a concern in County Clare about how long it will take to fill the position of chief super.

Second, the issue of Clare being joined up with the Galway division to form one district has come up. People in County Clare would not like to see this happen. We believe that the Clare division should stay as it is. Can Mr. Harris give the people of County Clare any assurance that the Clare Garda division will remain as is? When does he expect to make the appointment of chief super?

Mr. Drew Harris

The appointment of the chief super is probably the easier question to answer. We will seek to make that appointment as soon as possible. We actually expect to get the clearance for it next week.

In respect of the divisional structure going forward, no, I really cannot give assurances at all.

We are working through a process, as required by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland, towards a new operating model which is, in effect, a new divisional model. Our intention is that the divisional model, headed by a chief superintendent, will become the principal unit of providing policing in Ireland whereby a divisional commander should have sufficient resources that, by and large, he or she would be able to deal with the majority of what happens in his or her division. It is also the intention to ensure that there are sufficient numbers, including supervision sergeants and inspectors, to make sure that the local service is properly delivered, supervised and supported. We have not come to the end of our considerations on that. We are to produce a new plan in 2019 on implementation towards the end of this year and into 2020, but at present I cannot give assurances in respect of what the divisional structure will look like as we move forward.

That is fine. In recent weeks, there have been significant reports in the media about protests at the homes of key politicians. We saw it happen last Sunday in a despicable way at the home of the Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris. Is the Garda Commissioner considering reviewing security at the homes of key Ministers in the Government, members of the Judiciary and other key officeholders in society and politics?

Mr. Drew Harris

Forgive me if I do not address the specific security issues the Senator raised in that question. In general, we are here to protect democracy and part of that is protecting the institutions and the individuals who are integral to those institutions. We will not fail to do that. In respect of protests that are mounted close to or at people's homes, that is a scaling up of what one would call general protest activity. Those who engage in it need to understand that they must ensure they do not engage in behaviour, in any shape or form, which could be regarded as a breach of the peace or intimidatory. We will have no tolerance for that. Demonstrating outside a Government building is an entirely different kettle of fish from demonstrating at somebody's home.

Finally, is the Garda Commissioner proposing to reopen Stepaside Garda station? Are there plans to open other Garda stations in the Dublin area in the coming months?

The Senator was obviously asked to ask that question.

Not by a Minister, I am sure.

No. There are some Garda stations in County Clare that I would like to see reopened as well.

Mr. Drew Harris

Stepaside Garda station was one question I did not anticipate.

I was being facetious, Senator.

Mr. Drew Harris

Perhaps I could be allowed to report back on that.

The Senator will have to accept that. Deputy Jack Chambers is next, followed by Senator Ó Donnghaile.

I thank the Garda Commissioner and his team for appearing before the committee. I note from the report that there has been a significant reduction in the rate of referral to the youth diversion service from 2010 to 2017. It appears to be a significant downward trend. What does Mr. Harris think is the reason for that?

Mr. Drew Harris

I will ask Mr. Paul Cleary to respond to that.

Mr. Paul Cleary

When the JLO diversion referral system started in 2010 it went from a paper-based system to a PULSE-based, electronic system. In the early days there probably was a lack of awareness because there was little training provided, but over time one sees that awareness growing of the requirements that are needed to make that referral. Once the level is reached, people become aware over time as to what is required of them. That is one of the reasons the level has dropped.

There were 28,000 in 2011 and it was down to 18,000 in 2016 and approximately 11,000 in 2017. It is quite a change. On the issue of the rate of inaction, that has fallen from 7.3% to a matter that has been properly addressed. In 2014, there was an awareness from the Garda Inspectorate report that there was a serious issue with this and actions were taken internally to address it. Was there engagement or communication with the Director of Public Prosecutions at that stage to address the resurrection of some investigations that may have fallen through the gap? Obviously, we are aware now of this serious matter, it is in the public domain and there is engagement about potential resurrection of investigations, but at that stage was there communication between the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions so the Garda could mitigate the rate of inaction that was discovered?

Mr. Paul Cleary

In November 2014, when the Garda Inspectorate raised this in the report, we did not have that level of detail available to us. It was only after the GPSU conducted its inquiry and came up with the figure of 22,174 that my team was assigned to carry out an in-depth examination of it. At that stage, we liaised with the DPP. We have met officials from the DPP's office on a number of occasions.

When did the team first meet with the DPP?

Mr. Paul Cleary

Last year - 2018.

That is an important learning point. We have probably missed the boat for the resurrection of many prosecutions, which is regrettable. The Garda knew in 2014 and allowed a two-year window to develop without addressing it. I understand that there must be an internal process to address the issues but it will be a disappointment for victims that it took almost a four-year window to have proper engagement with the DPP on the resurrection of prosecutions. On that point, 7,894 were not appropriately progressed. That equates to 5% of all referrals. Is there an indicative figure for what percentage of that will be resurrected? Has the DPP established a specific team to examine what it can resurrect or what it can do to try to rectify the scale of this? What has been the feedback from the DPP in that regard?

Mr. Drew Harris

Many matters in the 7,894 are summary so they are statute barred. They will not be retrieved. The vast majority are lost through statute bar. We have a small proportion of those 7,894 cases which are still the subject of discussion, but time has passed-----

What is small? Is it 1,000 or fewer than that?

Mr. Drew Harris

It is down into just double figures.

It is under 100.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes. There are difficulties as well, but these are matters we are discussing with the DPP because there has been a considerable time delay, as the Deputy pointed out.

I acknowledge that. The learning point is that when there was an awareness internally about a serious issue there should have been an engagement with the DPP at that stage. Obviously we are looking back at a matter having been addressed, but if some other issue arises we should not allow time to remove the criminal process. That is regrettable. However, under 100 are being addressed.

Mr. Drew Harris

What the Deputy outlines is the kernel of the seriousness of this. Indictable prosecutions and other prosecutions have been lost. We are trying to retrieve what we can-----

I appreciate that.

Mr. Drew Harris

-----but we have to see whether we will be successful.

The Garda Commissioner mentioned supervision issues that were identified across many of the appearances of members of An Garda Síochána before this committee.

I am aware it relates to recruitment and to positions in middle management not being filled over time. Mr. Harris said that the national bureau for child diversion is being established and that the chief superintendent is now in situ, which is positive. Can Mr. Harris outline to the committee what was the responsibility and leadership structure within the Garda when this was going wrong systemically, and which allowed the 7% rate to occur?

Mr. Drew Harris

Mr. Twomey will give an explanation on what was happening during that time.

Mr. John Twomey

The prosecution of offenders rests at the local, district and divisional levels. Earlier we referred to previous reports and PULSE being an instant recording process. The line of sight of people at various different levels was not what it should have been. A superintendent, for example, did not have a view of all of the prosecutions. We are talking big numbers in this context: hundreds of thousands. That was one of the key weaknesses of the system at that particular time. This fed into the issue we are dealing with here. PULSE 6.8 was such a change because it began to provide supervisors at all levels with the information they required to fulfil their roles and obligations with regard to governance. While we have policy makers at the centre, the people with responsibility were at district and divisional level. These cases - and we see some 158,000 cases now - were only since the IT system was brought to bear. It was only at the end of 2015 that we provided the facility for people at district and divisional levels to have oversight and proper governance of it. There has been considerable change and improvement. We have also enhanced the role of the national bureau to provide a specific resource for governance on a national level. They are the critical changes that have been brought into it now.

It is good that we have a global view of it now, but it goes back to some of the criticisms I have heard. If a serious crime is reported, there is a formal engagement but when a basic matter is reported - which may not be a serious crime - people feel that the crime they have reported is just lost. They do not know if the investigation is closed, if there is no end to it or what the outcome is. There could be an accountability process from the public's side where An Garda Síochána should develop a public awareness initiative to encourage people to check where their reported crime is on the system so they know. This would provide an internal change for an ongoing and active awareness that there is movement on a case or that a case may need to be closed because the intelligence or information cannot be had. This could be the general feedback that people receive. It could be a burglary, for example, and there may be nothing for gardaí to act on. Alternatively there may be information that it is fed into an intelligence-led operation against a particular cohort, but the gardaí cannot act upon it immediately. It is better for the victim to know this. This lack of feedback could be some of the negative drift that is sometimes laid at the feet of An Garda Síochána, which may not be fair, but feedback would allow some external level of accountability where the public can have input so it can know an outcome, even if is not a final one. Have the commissioners looked at doing anything on that basis?

Mr. John Twomey

We have and we have a number of processes in place where we try to deal with that. The first step is that a letter is written to an individual victim of the crime. This will give the person the PULSE incident number and the investigating member. Various letters will issue periodically along the process as it evolves, including if a person is brought to court and other issues. Earlier I referred to the victim service office, which is available at every division. An individual liaison officer is also appointed specifically for the more serious crimes. We try to have an escalation process to deal with the crime. The more serious the crime the more specific the response to it.

We watch this issue closely. We take a specific interest in the quarterly public attitude survey. We constantly look to improve the service. The issue of victims was discussed at the most recent senior leadership team meeting and looked at a specific action on the information provided to victims of crime, and the timing of that information. This is on our agenda all the time and is something we look to continually improve. We have seen some considerable improvements over the last years.

With regard to breath testing, will the commissioners provide an update on the fixed charge notices? Has that matter been squared off and addressed through the legal process An Garda Síochána had to undertake with the difficulties with fixed charge notices? People were incorrectly issued with those notices. Has that all been dealt with, or how many are left? Perhaps the commissioners will update the committee.

The last time the commissioners were at the committee, reference was made to the pilot for submitting real-time information and how it would improve the IT system. Data could be submitted, for example, when gardaí were out and about rather than having to input information on their return to the station, which can cause difficulties with the quality of information submitted. At what stage is this pilot and could it be rolled out on a broader basis across all stations?

I shall now turn to the issue of Garda stations. There has been a lot of political controversy around the Stepaside Garda station, and rightly so. The force was led on a certain path that created only one end point, but that is not at the commissioners' door as far as I am concerned. Population is growing across the Dublin suburbs. I do not want to get parochial about it because there are other areas with similar growth, but I have concerns about the allocation of numbers.

My area of west Dublin has had a census change in the population and we have serious crime in certain areas more than in others. We do not have drugs units in some areas while there may be historical retention of drugs units in other areas that do not have the same issues with drugs. What is An Garda Síochána doing to recalibrate numbers of gardaí within divisions to appropriately address the crime levels there? Is the Garda looking at levels of response times across divisions and allocating gardaí on that basis? I speak with gardaí who have said they may not envy the gardaí at a particular station in a division, but there are other stations in sleepy places that do not have the same levels of crime. I would not like to take gardaí away from areas with low levels of crime, but I want to know what is being done because it is an issue for the Garda as a national force. How do we apportion numbers properly so that areas with poorer response times get the units or numbers required? I thank the Chairman for the time.

Mr. Drew Harris

I will address the last question first. This is what we want to work through with the new operating model. We have to look at the expansion of Dublin and other urban centres and be certain that our response over the next five to ten years is what it should be, with the policing issues created by the growth of population and new, expanding populations centres. Over this year we are charged by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland to create plans that will, in effect, be the blueprint for the organisation in the next five to ten years. We are fortunate that we are a growing organisation. Not only are we receiving additional sworn members, there is also an uplift in Garda staff that will allow us to place more gardaí on the front line. Beyond that we have to come back also with a plan for the increase in the Garda Reserve. This year will also see us increase visibility.

I am conscious of the visibility of gardaí and want to make sure they are not becoming embedded in stations because of work that has to be done, but there is an element of ability, that gardaí are doing jobs that require them to have a warrant which they hold. That is the direction the organisation should take to improve its operational footprint in response to changing demands, parts of which are growing demand and the population issues that arise.

Mr. John Twomey

There was a reference to the mobility programme. It has been tested in the Limerick division. The intention is to roll out in the region of 2,000 mobile devices over the course of 2019. That is an important step forward and a welcome development as it will provide real-time information for people at the point they need it out on the street.

The next part relates to the fixed charge processing system, FCPS, and payments. That work has progressed, but we will need to come back to give final figures to the committee for the final make-up of people who wrote to us. The issue was dealt with over a period of a couple of months and some of them ended up in court cases. We will have to write back to the committee.

I apologise to the Chairman and my colleagues. I hope I have not been too disruptive in coughing and spluttering during the meeting. Let me assure members that it is not a deliberate destabilising tactic.

As long as the Senator does not infect any of the rest of us.

I do not intend to do so. There is a safe distance between us.

Deputy Ó Laoghaire asked about the 55 cases involving serious offences and the young people in question accepting responsibility for them. Chief Superintendent Cleary said he could not speak about the specific 55 cases. Will that information be furnished to the committee later?

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes.

Mr. Drew Harris

We can provide the information. It is not at our fingertips now.

I appreciate that.

As we are at the stage of the meeting where a lot of the questions have been asked, I intend to be brief. It has been suggested some of the difficulty that arose in these instances was due to the fact that there was, at one point, a centralised system in which all of the names of the relevant young people and juveniles were kept. I accept that that system was replaced for potentially good reasons by one which required dialogue between the juvenile liaison officer and the arresting officer, who potentially was dealing with any number of cases, involving both juveniles and adults. The requirement for constant feedback meant that a significant number of cases fell through the gaps. I have seen this reported. What is the view of the Commissioner and his colleagues on this being a contributing factor to the overall numbers? I would like to hear the Commissioner's view on how it should be dealt with.

Mr. Drew Harris

There was, undoubtedly, a problem in the feedback loop, a lack of awareness of the system that had been put in place and an absence of knowledge of exactly what had happened with the cases. When they were deemed not to be suitable, they were referred back to the detecting member and that is when the breakdown occurred. They then had responsibility to lift them, but, undoubtedly, some of them were lost, perhaps because of workload. Some were lost because of a lack of knowledge. At the same time, 96% were dealt with properly. Of the 55,000-odd that were returned for investigation, a great proportion of them were dealt with properly. There are two elements, the first of which relates to systems, training, briefing or whatever it might be. Second, the officers were asked to do something that was a basic or elementary skill for any member - to prepare a file and submit it for consideration of a prosecution - but that did not happen. It is a big step to consider that there are disciplinary issues for 3,400 members, but, in the end, it ultimately kept coming back to that. We got this right in so many cases that one could not say it was about the system.

I had a number of questions about the disciplinary processes, but, to be fair, as they have been exhausted by Deputy Clare Daly, I will not go into them. I will take us back to an earlier point raised by the Commissioner and also to his most recent appearance before the committee. It is welcome that he has met the Justice for the Forgotten group. He will remember that I raised the issue of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in his most recent appearance before the committee. One of the ongoing demands of the families of the victims and survivors is that the Garda receive all of the information it has requested from the PSNI. I was told at the time that had I furnished it in the form of a question before the last meeting, the Commissioner could have updated us. Given the passage of time and the Commissioner's meeting with the families, is there any update on the PSNI furnishing An Garda Síochána with all of the relevant information requested on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?

The Commissioner will remember that an issue arose in his most recent appearance before the committee about the outstanding request received from the solicitors acting for the family of Mr. Denis Donaldson for his journal, which the Garda had stated was of no evidential significance. I remind the Commissioner of what he said to me at that meeting:

I recently received correspondence to the same effect and it is being dealt with. I will report to the committee when a conclusion is reached. The specific point the Senator raises has been raised in the correspondence from the family's solicitor. It is a live issue and we will have a response quickly.

My understanding from correspondence received from the families is that neither they nor their solicitors have received an update on the journal. If there is an update, will the Commissioner furnish us with it?

Mr. Drew Harris

Only this week we have received further correspondence from the Police Ombudsman. Our interaction on Mr. Denis Donaldson's journal had been with the Police Ombudsman in the provision of information from the journal for it. The ombudsman has stated it is content that it has received all of the information it requires from the journal. The journal contains information that we do not think it would be appropriate to place in the public domain. We have yet to respond to the solicitor as I want to be certain on the legal position in which I find myself. The matter has been dealt with and considered very carefully for a number of years. In effect, I am coming in almost at the very tail end of the considerations. We have finished our interaction with the Police Ombudsman, but there is an overall view on the contents of the journal and I have to be certain of our position.

Where has the change occurred in the journal being identified as being of no evidential value in the investigation? I am trying to recall on the hoof, but in engaging with the family and their solicitor I understand they have been informed the journal is of no evidential value. Why can the solicitor and the family not be furnished with the journal in a redacted form, or confidentially, in the understanding it would not be released publicly?

Mr. Drew Harris

There is material in the journal that has been provided for the Police Ombudsman. It is information or evidence for the ombudsman's inquiry. The ombudsman has been given the relevant sections of the journal to advance its inquiry. It is not correct to say it is of no evidential value. It is of evidential value in an ongoing and legitimate inquiry. Beyond that, the journal contains information of a personal nature, not just related to Mr. Donaldson and his family. I need to get a legal opinion on the matter as I would be in breach of data protection legislation if I was to release it in its current form.

That is a change from Mr. Harris's previous statement that he would try to do it as speedily as possible. He said that it was a live issue and we would have a response quickly. Now the response is that the families will not be getting the journal at this stage.

Mr. Drew Harris

I want to be absolutely certain on the decision making on that. The first thing I undertook was to ensure our responsibilities to support the ombudsman investigation that had happened. I am content in respect of that.

What about the Dublin and Monaghan investigations and the request by An Garda Síochána for information from the PSNI? Is Mr. Harris content that he has furnished all the relevant information?

Mr. John Twomey

We may have to come back to clarify that.

That is what the witnesses told me the last time, but okay.

Mr. John Twomey

I think what we said the last time was that we are not aware and that as far as we are concerned, all the issues have been addressed. We will come back to the Senator on this.

I will make brief reference to this matter at the end myself as there is another aspect to it. I call Deputy Martin Kenny.

I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to be here this morning as I am not a member of the committee and I thank the Commissioner and his team for coming in on this issue.

I raised the juvenile diversion programme in October 2016 in relation to a particular case that had come to me. I was assured at the time that there were no issues and that everything was being done appropriately and properly. The case I raised, and I raised it in the Chamber again recently, relates to a young girl who was the victim of a serious sexual assault. The perpetrators of that assault had been caught red handed on CCTV and had admitted what they had done. To the horror of the victim and her family, they were informed that the perpetrators had been issued with a caution and referred to the juvenile diversion programme. The family were not consulted or asked about this, merely told this is what had happened. The victim in this case has suffered greatly since then. She has had great difficulties in her life and has seen the culprits, who admitted the offence, continue with their lives largely uninhibited. The family feels very distressed and annoyed that this is the case.

In cases of serious sexual assault the youth diversion programme is not an appropriate mechanism and there should be very careful consideration before it might be thought of as appropriate. According to the Garda website, and elsewhere, before a young person is referred to this programme, he or she must take responsibility for his or her offending behaviour, must agree to be cautioned and, where appropriate, agree to a term of supervision. The Citizens Information website goes into much more detail on the juvenile diversion programme. I know that much of this was last updated in 2014, but it refers to the diversional programme having a conference where there would be a meeting with the family of the culprit including the officer involved and that they would discuss the situation and work out an action plan and so on. However, I hear from many people across the country that in practice, there is a caution and there it ends. It is wholly appropriate where a young person has been involved in a sufficiently minor offence, and sometimes in more serious offences. However, there is a serious problem where people put on this programme go on to offend further and there is no assessment of their risk to others.

I want to work this out with the Commissioner. I understand that when an incident occurs and it is investigated, a file is prepared and a potential culprit identified. Where does that file go? What is the pathway of the process? I would like some detail on this.

Mr. Drew Harris

I have heard the Deputy's interventions on this matter. I will need to speak to the Deputy after the meeting as I was not able to identify the specific case.

I do not want to be specific either.

Mr. Drew Harris

It would be helpful for me to look at the specific case. The Deputy has received feedback from the victim and her family and it would be good to know some of that detail, and then provide further explanation to them of what happened.

Pursuant to the Children's Act 2001 there is an absolute requirement that they must be considered in respect of the diversion programme. That is the starting point. Any detection that is made is referred to the programme. One or two individuals make a decision on this. There is a director who is a superintendent, or a chief superintendent as is now the case, who makes decisions in respect of these matters. He or she takes many factors into consideration. When there is a single person doing this, our decision making is consistent.

I would like the opportunity to look at the individual case and then perhaps provide a more tailored explanation to the Deputy. I want to get back to him on some of the other things he has raised, such as how the victims are being treated and the services that are available to young people subsequently. However, as I said, I do not know the specifics of the case to answer the Deputy.

I understand that. Without going into the specifics of the case, the issue relates to where there has been a sexual assault. Where the perpetrator is an adult, there is an assessment of his or her future potential to offend. As far as I can see, that does not happen in this situation because while the culprit may be referred, there is no compulsion on him or her to attend, and the matter can die there. While I raise this particular case, there is a serious problem which is general across the board.

Mr. Drew Harris

I will seek clarification on this. If the Deputy is correct and we are not considering juveniles in terms of their subsequent risk of sex offending, that would be a serious problem. However, I want to get myself absolutely clear on what the process is. I have looked at the management of sex offender processes that we have in place but, offhand, I cannot recall whether I asked if juveniles were included in that process. However, the Deputy is correct that this is a significant point to raise.

Would Deputy Martin Kenny care to take the opportunity to briefly speak to the Commissioner?

He has offered that opportunity and I think that the Deputy should take it.

I certainly will. A somewhat connected issue relates to where juveniles continue to reoffend, where they have gone through the juvenile process, gone into the programme and offend and do so again and again, up to a dozen times. When this happens in a community, the community can feel that a particular individual is being allowed to get away with everything for a considerable period. I fully agree that if a youngster gets in trouble and does the wrong thing, he or she needs a chance, and may need to get a chance a few times, but it should not continue to the stage where a community feels under threat from a person. I have instances of this happening. We can agree that a carrot is needed but somewhere the stick must come into play and that is not happening in some of these cases.

Mr. Drew Harris

I fully understand the Deputy's point. I will ask Chief Superintendent Cleary to explain how we set out to help, with others, to manage recidivist youth offenders.

Mr. Paul Cleary

We have a fairly successful initiative that was launched in recent years, the Joint Agency Response to Crime, JARC. Recently that has been extended to YJARC, the Youth Joint Agency Response to Crime, which concentrates on recidivist juvenile offenders. Along with our external stakeholders in the Probation Service and the Irish Prison Service, we ensure that recidivist offenders are case managed. There is a carrot and stick element to it. They are encouraged to divert their behaviour away from criminal and anti-social behaviour. It is still in its early stages but it is showing progress.

Does the Commissioner concur with the view of victims that they been have let down to the extent that they feel victimised again and should An Garda Síochána recognise and acknowledge that?

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes. We have been very clear that victims have been let down. Matters were reported in good faith to An Garda Síochána that should have been dealt with efficiently and effectively but that did not happen. We have let them down and we are now going through a process of informing them. In the more serious cases, we are making personal visits to ensure that we do not compound our earlier mistake in terms of its treatment of them. This process is under way. I concur with the Deputy that victims have been let down in what they expected from us in terms of the service we provide and it did not happen.

Does the Commissioner concur that in the small number of cases deemed suitable for the youth diversion programme, the victims were also let down by that programme?

Mr. Drew Harris

We have a lot of pride in our youth diversion programme where it works. If the feedback is such that some people are dissatisfied with it, then we need to address it. If there are specific instances of which the Deputy is aware, he might refer them to me. We have more to do in respect of these cases and it is hoped that from them we can learn more from the overall programme and how it works.

I welcome the Garda Commissioner and his team. On 19 July 1991, Tom Oliver, a 43 year old man from Riverstown, County Louth, a husband and father of seven children and a sheep farmer with no connection to paramilitary or security forces, was abducted, tortured and brutally murdered by members of the Provisional IRA. His body was found across the Border in Belleek, County Armagh. He had been shot in the head. The local priest who attended the post mortem remarked that it appeared as though a concrete block had been dropped on every part of his body. His family want justice and they want to know who killed him.

In October 2012, the Commissioner gave evidence to the Smithwick tribunal in closed session. Following consultation, Judge Peter Smithwick published that evidence. The Commissioner had told the tribunal that regarding the intelligence files compiled by the PSNI, the RUC and M15 - the British security services - on the murder of Tom Oliver, one file was nothing short of sensational. File No. 9 stated that intelligence indicated that a senior Provisional IRA council member was directly involved in ordering the murder of Tom Oliver; that that senior Provisional IRA council member had been approached by several Provisional IRA members and others requesting that Tom Oliver not be killed; and that, despite these requests, the senior Provisional IRA council member directed that Tom Oliver be executed. When Mr. Harris was asked if he knew the identity of the Provisional IRA council member and, if so, whether he would he pass on that information to An Garda Síochána, he responded, "Yes".

I do not think this is appropriate.

When Mr. Harris was asked if he would like to give-----

I ask Deputy Fitzpatrick to indicate the nature of his question.

-----the name of the council member who sent Tom Oliver to his death, he opted to write it down and give it to Judge Peter Smithwick. This family has suffered since that murder. A review of this case is under way. Will the Commissioner meet the family and update them on that review? Where do they go from here?

I ask the Commissioner to respond only if he is in a position to offer a reply today.

Mr. Drew Harris

I have met the family and I am due to meet them again in the next couple of months. They want an update on the review that An Garda Síochána committed to and has completed in respect of the abduction and murder of Tom Oliver. I will have a further meeting with the family to brief them on the review. The body of Tom Oliver was recovered in Belleek, south Armagh, and so the Chief Constable of the PSNI has jurisdiction of the investigation of that murder. An Garda Síochána will assist the PSNI in any review that it will do as well in respect of that murder.

In regard to the identity of the person who directed that Tom Oliver be murdered, where do the family go from here?

Mr. Drew Harris

That information is no longer mine. It is now information held by the Chief Constable in the PSNI and it is for him to determine what actions he will take next.

My concern is for the family. I am delighted that the Commissioner has met them and will meet them again. This family lost their father and neighbours lost a friend. As I said, Tom Oliver had no connection with paramilitary organisations. He was an innocent man. I would like the family to get closure. I thank the Commissioner for his response.

I also thank the Commissioner for his response. In regard to the Garda youth diversion programme, the Commissioner's opening statement references 2,492 personal victims and 988 individual organisational victims, which amounts to 3,480 victims. This equates with the number of child offenders. It strikes me as strange that the number of personal and organisational victims equates with the number of offenders when the number of crimes involved is 7,894, unless recidivism is the case. As pointed out earlier by one of my colleagues, at the end of the page on which these data are provided, there is reference to an interim report and all figures being provisional but the next line states that all figures are correct as of 11 February 2019. It would appear that these are not accurate figures in respect of the impact on victims individual and organisational. Would the Commissioner like to comment on that observation?

Mr. Drew Harris

The data relate to victims, individual children and referrals. Some of the victims are also repeat victims. For example, some of our retailers have been subject to many shoplifting-type crimes. The referrals could also be for more than one incident in terms of a child involved. It is more a coincidence in terms of our figures.

They just happen to coincide.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes. I will look to Mr. Cleary to provide a little more assurance in that regard.

Mr. Paul Cleary

The total of 7,894 is the number of referrals where we found no follow-up. Within the figure for referrals, there could be more than one offender. We know that in more than 2,025 of the 7,894 referrals another person was made amenable for that particular crime.

Is Mr. Cleary confirming the figures? Is it a coincidence or are they are accurate?

Mr. Drew Harris

Those figures are correct. The figures are pretty complicated because we are talking about incidents, crimes, children, referrals and the number of Garda members involved. There are four strands. If the figures are cut in different ways we can very quickly get into thickets of numbers.

I accept Mr. Harris's confirmation and assurance. I thank him for that. I would like to ask the Garda Commissioner what the Garda youth diversion programme was preceded by. Perhaps he is not conscious of that himself. What was it previously called? What was its antecedent?

Mr. Paul Cleary

This was introduced in 1963 as an holistic way to divert children away from criminal behaviour. There was no legal framework around it until the Children Act 2001. It became the Garda youth diversion scheme at that point.

It was known as the Garda youth diversion scheme. Everything I have read suggests that referrals are young people who have been or are suspected to have been involved in crime or misdemeanour of whatever seriousness. Are other children, who have not come to Garda attention within the specific community setting, incorporated? Have they been brought into this in some way?

Mr. Drew Harris

Anecdote would suggest that in the 1980s and 1990s there was not the same adherence to the requirement for a prima facie case. Where individual Garda members could see that a young person was going astray, he or she might be introduced to the scheme as an intervention. Some of the decrease in the numbers is due to the fact that we have been more strictly applying the requirements for a prima facie case plus the young person's acceptance of his or her role in it. I am not entirely sure whether that is a good thing or not. It is not a bad thing to have an intervention before behaviour tips into an actual offence. That early intervention may entirely prevent any further reoffending. That is not to say that what happened in the past was incorrect. It seemed to work for a lot of people. That is not the process we have now, which is more codified.

There are different degrees of seriousness. A young person could find himself or herself associated with something unintentionally.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes.

Bringing someone in under the Garda youth diversion programme at least subliminally suggests diverting people away from a pathway on which they would otherwise find themselves. I wonder just is it properly titled or described? Is it fair? There are levels of seriousness. In some cases that association almost amounts to labelling a young person who might never find himself or herself in conflict with the Garda or with society for the rest of his or her life.

Mr. Drew Harris

We are very conscious of that in vetting individuals. We take a very careful view of individuals. If someone has an interaction with a youth diversion scheme and we never see him or her again, we give that person the benefit of the doubt. He or she received a caution, went through the scheme and responded appropriately. We also have restorative justice schemes, which we did not have 20 years ago. There are more than 100 other diversion schemes nationwide. There are other processes in place to divert young people. It is beneficial work because it prevents crime and saves people from a cycle of offending.

Do children - I will call them for what they are - who find themselves brought into the programme find that mark remains in future life? Does it arise in any inquiry as to their past? Is it reflected in any way in that young person's life path and prospects?

Mr. Drew Harris

No, it does not.

It does not present itself? Is it held strictly?

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes, it is held strictly. It does not impact after that.

The report the witnesses gave us at the outset indicated that the Garda has written to almost all of the 3,400 victims.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes.

The correspondence offered an apology and support. What would the support entail? We can understand the apology. Are there specific supports? The opening address indicated that the helpline received 35 relevant calls and there have been 16 emails.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes.

I presume that is out of the greater number of victims, however many thousands of people that comprises. There is almost the same number of perpetrators. What is the Garda offering people in those cases? We are talking about 51 out of some thousands of people. Can the Garda Commissioner give us a sense of what they were seeking when they responded? Were they looking for anything in particular? Were they encouraging follow-through? Colleagues referred to not letting the most serious matters lie in abeyance. Were respondents asking for the incidents to be picked up and pursued?

Mr. Drew Harris

The helpline was put in place because we realised when the news broke that some people would think, correctly or incorrectly, that it might impact on them. It was intended to provide immediate clarification for individuals who reported crimes in this period and were worried that their cases were not properly dealt with. We were able to specify a number of victims. That also told us exactly who those victims are, by name and location. We were able to confirm to people whether they were included or not. If they were included we could alert their district officer, that they had made contact. Rather than just sending a letter, we found as we went along that when the district officers and their teams examined the particular individuals involved, their local knowledge could tell them about particular sensitivities. In some tragic cases there was quite a bit of repeated victimisation and therefore it would not be appropriate to send a letter. Those are cases for personal contact. We think there will be more personal visits than we initially anticipated. We will deal with people appropriately.

In other cases we decided not to send a letter because our information is out of date. The victim may be deceased or have been a tourist or a temporary resident and can no longer be found. That is also a part of the victimology. In dealing with this we ask the district officers to think about the victims first and to ensure the outward-facing bit is done well. In tandem with that concentration on the victims, we ask them to consider the individuals involved and whether discipline is appropriate.

In respect of the serious crimes, of which 55 are indicated, I presume they have been examined carefully.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes.

What percentage of recidivism is presented among those specific offenders? For instance, in the rape case, have any further incidents of sexual offending presented, to the Commissioner's knowledge? What about some of the other serious cases? Can the Commissioner indicate to us that these most serious cases have been reopened by An Garda Síochána for examination, investigation and processing towards justice?

Mr. Drew Harris

I know all the cases and have read the back summary of the cases and the individuals. We can give the Chairman a response on recidivism after this but for some of these cases, the detail can identify the individual. I can give a private explanation of that. One or two of them are very sensitive cases and if I give a fuller account in public it would identify victim and perpetrator, given the peculiarities of the case. In general, we can state the offending history leading through this. A characteristic of this group is that by and large they have had repeated, ongoing contact with An Garda Síochána through incidents and offending.

Into adult life?

Mr. Drew Harris

Indeed, on into adult life. There is a small group, less than 10%, of whom we never hear again. However, the other 90% have a large amount of further contact as children and ultimately as adults.

I appreciate the greater number and whatever pathways some of them may have embarked on. I am very particularly concerned about the rape case and other serious physical assault cases. I take it from the Commissioner's reply that there has been a degree of reoffending from within that cohort going on into adult life. I take it that is what the Commissioner is indicating to us.

Mr. Drew Harris

I do not want to indicate anything. I would rather that we had a conversation out of the public domain. There are peculiarities in respect of this and each of these cases is individual. When we get down to the small numbers, we are dealing with a set of very individual facts. I do not want to extrapolate principles or characteristics from them.

As Chair of the committee, I want to take the opportunity to commend the Commissioner on taking the steps that he did in highlighting this. He was not historically responsible in terms of overseeing what happened. The action he took was absolutely correct. The reason I am asking the questions is to underscore just how serious the situation was whereby young offenders were left unchecked, unchallenged and unprosecuted. The consequence of that going on into later life was that they were going to offend again. I have no doubt that there has been a not insignificant level of recidivism, which is really the most serious aspect of An Garda Síochána's failure in this regard.

Mr. Drew Harris

There are two elements. Victims were let down and society was let down. Beyond that, these children, as they were then, were also let down because an opportunity for intervention was lost.

Yes. A number of the members' questions prompted one or two of my own thoughts on it. It had been indicated recently that not all members of the Garda were willing to sign or had signed the code of ethics. Can the Commissioner indicate what the situation is in that regard? What progress has been made to ensure that all sworn members are signatories to the code of ethics? It is something they should most definitely do.

Mr. Drew Harris

I wholeheartedly support that. The position at the moment is all members have been through the training, which is now complete. It was a very extensive training programme and in the order of 7,000 members have signed the code of ethics. I can give the precise figure to Chairman. It keeps creeping on up. As a consequence, when talking to members in public or private, I do not lose an opportunity to emphasise the importance of the code of ethics. Together with the Policing Authority, we have a constant focus on it. We are issuing a short video about the importance of the code of ethics to the organisation, which will be followed by further intervention from myself in terms of asking each individual to sign the code of ethics. There is also work ongoing with the various representative associations for them to throw their weight behind it as well. It had an uneasy arrival into the organisation. We are starting to stabilise it in terms of some of the things that were said about it. It is not an appendix to our discipline code. It sets out the standards that we expect of each other and, more important, the standards society expects of us. It is an essential piece setting out our behaviours in society. It will be further built upon when we introduce more of a human rights ethos and emphasis on our policing function as well. The Chairman is correct; this is a direction of travel. I can also say that unless a garda has signed the code of ethics, he or she does not get promoted; really, his or her career closes down as he or she will not be invited into the specialisms and so on. It is not just about asking. There are also some teeth in it. The important element, when we stand back from it, is that we in An Garda Síochána are here to protect the rule of law and in doing so we must set the highest standards for ourselves. The code of ethics is a document that sets that out. It is a living document in terms of providing guidance.

The last point I wanted to raise is that when the Commissioner last attended here, he undertook to meet with representatives of Justice for the Forgotten. I understand that meeting took place on 21 November. I want to thank the Commissioner for acting on his undertaking. Is it planned to have a further meeting and how soon might that take place? Can the Commissioner confirm that he has appointed a new Garda liaison officer and that he or she is to meet shortly with Justice for the Forgotten? As I am following the situation in respect of the Dublin-Monaghan bombing closely, I noted yesterday's decision whereby the Crown Solicitor's Office appealed against the order of the master of the High Court in Belfast to release a list of all documents in Crown possession pertaining to the bombings. I understand that the initial decision of the master was made on 19 December but the stay has now been introduced until 1 May. I am just sharing that this happened yesterday in Belfast.

At our last meeting, I asked the Commissioner if, in the period since he first appeared before the committee, he has given consideration to what he himself might or could do to assist the surviving victims of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings and their relatives. I know people from all parts of my community who were relatives of victims or survivors themselves. The truth is what they want first and foremost. Whether justice will follow is a moot question but one would hope it might. They are anxious all these years later to ascertain who was responsible for those atrocities.

In light of his unique position, having straddled police services on the island of Ireland and as the leader of An Garda Síochána, has the Commissioner given any thought to what he might or could do to help bring about that situation? I ask this given that on three occasions the Houses of the Oireachtas have unanimously requested the release of all relevant documentation on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings but to no avail.

Mr. Drew Harris

We met the families and we have re-established the Garda liaison. What we undertook to do was to consider this matter for what is, in effect, a serious case review. This involves doing an initial scoping of the material we have to see if we will embark on a serious case review. We have not finished that determination because a serious case review team is very much a finite resource and there are other matters - other murders - that are also awaiting a serious case review. When we come to the determination on that, we will meet again with the families and communicate to them the decision. Primarily, that would be the main route that we, as an investigative body charged with the responsibility to ensure a full investigation of this matter, could undertake. That would be in keeping with our roles and responsibilities in terms of this matter, which remains under active consideration.

That is in terms of the Garda Síochána organisation. I will not continue to raise this matter with the Commissioner and his unique position of having served in two manifestations of policing North of the Border. However, on the previous occasion, he indicated he would consider the matter and perhaps revert to the committee. While he corresponded with the committee after his last appearance, the correspondence was not on that particular matter. I thank him for the speed of his reply on the matter he did address but I am asking now if he has any further thoughts specifically on what he might be able to do.

Mr. Drew Harris

What I am now able to do is as Commissioner. Although I held the positions of deputy chief constable and assistant chief constable for crime, I had no engagement with this particular atrocity. What specifically I can do now is in my position as Commissioner. This matter rests fairly and squarely on my plate because it remains an atrocity which is unsolved and which then should be subject to ongoing consideration. It is not that we close it but whether we consider then a serious case review.

The Commissioner will meet Justice for the Forgotten again within a reasonable timeframe.

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes.

The Commissioner will discuss the draft report with the Policing Authority. An engagement on that in the near future might not be a bad idea.

The Commissioner indicated that meeting will take place in the coming week. Is that correct?

Mr. Drew Harris

The next Policing Authority meeting is on 24 February.

We will correspond with the Commissioner on that. As Senator Conway indicated, it would be appropriate for the committee to have an opportunity to discuss the primary issue arising in today's meeting in more detail. Deputy Daly wished to speak, after which members may have one further bite each.

Will the Commissioner have the draft policing report ready for the meeting with the Policing Authority?

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes, on 24 February.

Is Mr. Cleary writing that report? Who is the author?

Mr. Drew Harris

Mr. Cleary will get my thoughts back on it. It needs some tweaks in terms of the matters I have already highlighted.

As the Commissioner knows, PULSE is for the Garda what the children's hospital is to others. I believe he can get to grips with the system, and I know he will revert to the committee with further information. The issue of tendering arises here. The Minister and the Commissioner's predecessor gave the committee commitments arising from the problems with the Garda internal audit into the procurement breaches for the Accenture contract. We were told there was a new process under way and that those contracts would be re-tendered. I have checked all the websites and I could not see any re-tendering, other than for the roster system, which is completely separate. I am worried that the Garda paid €7.7 million in 2017 for 49 IT staff from Accenture. It worked out that, on average, the Garda was paying €157,000 per head for Accenture staff. Some of those jobs are just routine maintenance. It would be good to cover that issue.

Deputy Wallace asked if there had been a change in policy regarding a garda who is the subject of a criminal allegation or investigation and whether he or she would be automatically suspended. The answer was not clear. In such circumstances is suspension automatic? What is the threshold in that regard?

Mr. Drew Harris

They are subject to the process which is set out in existing An Garda Síochána policy. No policies have been rewritten.

If a garda was the subject of a Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, criminal investigation, would that be reason for an automatic suspension?

Mr. Drew Harris

No. There is no such thing as an automatic suspension. All cases are assessed on their merits and they are subject to pre-existing An Garda Síochána policy in respect of the consideration of suspension.

There was a worrying report on RTÉ during the week about two officers who were being criminally investigated by GSOC for serious racist comments they made at an official Garda briefing. In that context, is the Commissioner aware that those officers are alleged to have also made very serious homophobic remarks, including against the Taoiseach? Are those remarks being investigated and have these individuals, who are the subject of a criminal investigation, been suspended?

Mr. Drew Harris

I do not like going into individual cases. GSOC informs us of its investigations, whether it is a discipline or crime investigation. We are provided the information and we then follow through a process in all cases to consider what our response should be, and a consideration of their duty status follows on. Each case is taken on an individual basis and subject to individual analysis. There is no such thing as an automatic suspension.

Can I take it that the individuals in question have not been suspended?

Mr. Drew Harris

I have yet to see the papers in that matter. As I would be the suspending authority, I have to wait to see those papers.

I suggest the Commissioner may need to review the Garda's policy in this regard.

I call Deputy Ó Laoghaire who will be followed by Deputy Wallace. We will then wrap up the meeting.

I have two supplementary questions. I asked the Commissioner about meeting Justice for the Forgotten and he answered at length. However, I also asked whether the Commissioner had met Stephen Travers.

Mr. Drew Harris

I am sorry, I misheard the Deputy. I met Ann Travers. I have not met Mr. Stephen Travers.

Does the Commissioner know if there has been a request for a meeting?

Mr. Drew Harris

I do not think so. I have met everybody who has asked to see me from whatever area. There are many individuals who would like to meet me about various matters, be they related to the Troubles, road traffic collisions, etc., and I have acceded to all of those requests.

The Commissioner responded to the question I asked on the report into events in North Frederick Street, which is not in the public domain as yet. He said the Garda would be more assertive in dealing with such cases to prevent public order issues from arising.

Does An Garda Síochána need to be more assertive with those occupying the property or with those who are acting on behalf of the banks or the security personnel who are operating in a grey and uncertain legal area? With whom does the force intend to be more assertive?

Mr. Drew Harris

I was paraphrasing. What I mean is that we are there and our responsibility is to preserve the peace and prevent crime so we will be assertive in making sure that the manner in which a repossession is conducted is one which is conducive to ensuring that the peace is preserved and that crimes do not happen.

I have two questions for the Commissioner. Regarding the leak of the suspension that I referred to on 3 January, firstly, did he inform the Minister for Justice and Equality in advance of the suspension? Second, the Commissioner mentioned defending the rule of law. Was he concerned with the fact that the media had the story about the suspension before the suspension took place? I know the Commissioner does not like discussing individual cases but I assume that not many people would have known what he was going to do. Is this something that he has looked into?

Mr. Drew Harris

Yes, I am concerned and that is the subject of a separate investigation to find out who may have leaked that information. That is entirely unacceptable. That is confidential information and it is not tolerable that such information is leaked from my organisation.

We are conscious that traditionally so-called crime correspondents seemed to have good access to confidential information over the years. We hope that this is something that the Commissioner can sort out and I wish him good luck with that.

I call Deputy Kenny now but only because he is from Sligo-Leitrim.

The interim report and the full report, which is being prepared at the moment, is about people who were not diverted to the juvenile diversion problem. Is there any intention to conduct an assessment of the issues that I have raised in regard to those who were diverted into the programme and had no issues? I implore that that would be a direction that we should move into.

Mr. Drew Harris

There are 103,000 referrals. The scheme is subject to constant monitoring. It is a statutory responsibility that we have and it is subject then to a yearly report. The Policing Authority raised issues about that report and we will respond accordingly. Part of that will be the 103,000 referrals, the feedback from them and their success. There is a forum and we should use that to promote confidence in the scheme. The authority is very clear on that as well.

The Chairman and I sit on a committee in Brussels, the remit of which is the political oversight of Europol. Perhaps at some stage in the future the Commissioner might inform and enlighten us regarding his views on Europol, because he has great experience having served with the PSNI and An Garda Síochána, and what An Garda Síochána would like to see in the advancement of Europol. We would certainty take a read from An Garda Síochána as to what we should push as part of the committee. Perhaps prior to the Chairman and me going to the next session in March, if one of his officers who is directly connected with Europol might like to brief us, we would welcome that.

Mr. Drew Harris

We can absolutely facilitate that and we are very keen on Europol. Overall, as an organisation, we want to be far more on the front foot internationally. I believe there is more we can do in the EU projects, in respect the security of citizens of Europe and how we assist with the various UN missions. I did not realise that the members had this influence with Europol, which is good to know.

We sit on the oversight committee. Who else would be sent?

Perhaps we might give them a one-way ticket the next time.

That is the finest line of the day. On behalf of the committee, I again thank the Commissioner Harris, Deputy Commissioner Twomey, and Chief Superintendent Cleary for their attendance, their co-operation with the committee and their responses to each of our questions.

The joint committee is adjourned now until next Wednesday. I ask those to whom it applies to be in attendance at 9 a.m. for the select committee on the same day.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.25 p.m. until 9.45 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 February 2019.
Top
Share