Other Questions
111. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the progress that has been made to date as regards filling the post vacated by the former chairperson of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission in January 2015; the process she is following for this appointment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19526/15]
View answerMy question concerns the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission which is clearly struggling to represent Garda whistleblowers. We are concerned because it would appear that since the departure of Mr. Simon O'Brien things have become even more difficult and disappointing. Can the Minister explain why it is taking so long to replace Mr. O'Brien? I understand that under section 65 of the relevant legislation, a political appointment of the GSOC commissioners is permitted. Has the Minister considered changing that operation to make it an independent one?
The Deputy will be aware that on 15 May, my Department placed an advertisement seeking expressions of interest from suitably qualified individuals for appointment as chairperson of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. The advertisement can be viewed on the Department's website and the website of the Public Appointments Service. The closing date for the receipt of expressions of interest is 29 May. Selection for consideration will be based on an examination of expressions of interest received. I will establish an independent panel to advise me on which applicants are best qualified, following which I will present suitable names for consideration by Government.
Under the Garda Síochána Act 2005, the Government must be satisfied that a person nominated for this position has the appropriate experience, qualifications, training or expertise for appointment, having regard to the functions of GSOC. As the Deputy is be aware, under the Act the nomination is also subject to the passage of resolutions by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann recommending the appointment. The appointment is then made by the President.
I should point out that the Act provides for a situation where a member of GSOC has resigned his or her position and permits GSOC to act notwithstanding the vacancy, as the Deputy knows. The person who will be appointed as chairperson of GSOC will, under the Act, serve out Mr. O'Brien's term of office, which will expire on 12 December 2016. More generally, it is vital that the public has confidence in the Garda Síochána and the system of oversight, as I have often said. We are implementing a comprehensive programme of reform in the areas of policing and justice. As part of the programme of change, the Garda Síochána (Amendment) Act 2015, which is fully in force, strengthens and clarifies the remit and capacity of GSOC, and I will keep under review the case for further change.
The Minister would agree that if a garda makes a complaint in September and he still has not been interviewed by May the following year, there is a problem. If a Garda makes a complaint in November and has not even got a reply by May the following year, there is a problem. GSOC is still not fit for purpose and it is not doing the job it is supposed to; it is not able to do it. It is going to require more funding. I know there were some improvements in the Minister's Bill but that probably represented approximately 10% of what international experts had advised us to put in our police Bill last year. Sadly, GSOC is still not in a place really to hold An Garda Síochána to account. There are Garda whistleblowers waiting six and eight months for cases to be dealt with while the same junior gardaí are at the mercy of senior gardaí who did not like the fact that nasty evidence was being brought to the table. Those junior gardaí are being badly treated. Will the Minister have another look at GSOC's powers and its resources?
As I recently told the Deputy, GSOC received an extra €1 million in funding and it has also been exempted from the moratorium that applies to recruitment. It has now taken on extra staff and a small number of vacancies are currently being filled. The annual report was published fairly recently and it is clearly dealing with a large volume of work. I am in regular contact with GSOC personnel and I have meetings with the commissioners. They are getting on with the work. If the Deputy has details of particular cases that he would like to forward to me, although I do not get involved in individual details, I can examine the reason for delays.
Will the Minister consider bringing in GSOC personnel to have a chat with them? She could ask them if they are adequately resourced and if there is enough power to deal with the challenges faced by GSOC. One of the whistleblowers I mentioned since making his complaint over a year ago has had five internal investigations against him. The person he complained about has not even been suspended. One could not make this up. There is something seriously amiss in this regard.
As I have previously said, I honestly believe the Minister is not being kept properly informed. She would deal positively with such issues if kept informed. She should bring in GSOC personnel and ask them if there are enough financial resources to deal with all these problems. She should ask if they would like more power to carry out this very challenging task.
I will repeat the fact that extra resources and staffing have been made available. Clearly, hardly a body in the country would not say "Yes" when asked if it needed more resources. I have to be satisfied that GSOC, with the resources and staff that it has, can do the work being referred to it.
As I have said, I have met with GSOC a number of times since I became Minister and have been discussing the work with its representatives on an ongoing basis, as I have with the Garda Commissioner. I have been looking at the relationship between the two bodies and the need to put robust mechanisms in place. One of the issues I would like to see resolved and which would make quite a difference to the volume of work would be to agree a mechanism for the resolution of more informal complaints. If I call them "lesser complaints", it is not to say that not every complaint should be dealt with seriously. It would be helpful if everybody involved could agree to a mechanism for some of the complaints which could be dealt with more informally. That does not exist which means everyone is involved in a great deal of investigation which takes up a great deal of time. It is not to say that proper complaints should not be investigated fully to note that there is scope in this area. I have had discussions with the Garda Commissioner, GSOC and the representative bodies on this and we are looking at a number of initiatives which could deal with the matter and be helpful in terms of the resource issues mentioned.
112. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will update Dáil Éireann regarding the independent review mechanism into cases of Garda malpractice, in terms of the number of persons who have been communicated with by the panel; the number of cases that they have recommended for further investigation; and the way she proposes to address the cases for which no further action is recommended. [19513/15]
View answerThis question is obviously linked to the first priority question on the independent review mechanism. Approximately eight weeks ago, the Minister told the House the review was at a very advanced stage in the vast majority of cases and that the process of notifying people of outcomes would begin after Easter. We had a similar response today to the first question, but there are subtle differences. I wonder what the story is. Why has no one been contacted in the intervening eight weeks and where are we at? The consistent thing has been the lack of engagement and dialogue with those who went to the panel.
The Government agreed to establish the independent review mechanism to deal with a variety of cases of complaints, not all of which, it turns out, relate to the An Garda Síochána, though a substantial number do. A number are about other bodies and experiences in court. Some of the complaints relate to property issues. There is a range of issues within the complaints which have been made. This is an independent process and I have been very keen and committed to ensure that from beginning to end it is seen as independent and robust. The Department has received a significant number of the recommendations at this point so the process should be completing over the next couple of months. Obviously, the legal advice has been made available to the Department in certain of the cases. The question now is to communicate that. As it is legal advice to the Department and as quite a number of parts of the advice refer to third parties, I must now find the best way to communicate as robustly and fully as possible the outcome of the process and the recommendations. In order to ensure that it fulfils those criteria and that we can communicate in the most effective way possible with the complainants, I have decided, having received the first cases just a couple of weeks ago and considered the recommendations, that the best way to proceed in keeping with it being a fully independent process from beginning to end is to ask a judicial figure to oversee the process of communication to complainants in each and every instance.
I see. A problem is that nobody who has participated in the process so far sees it as independent and robust. When it was initiated, they were told it would take eight weeks. Let us be clear that it is a paper review and eight weeks was more than ample time for the Minister to decide that some issues related to the Judiciary or land law and could be parked. Those issues are not contributing to any delay in this scenario whatsoever. Two months ago, the Minister told us here that she had these outcomes and would communicate with people. Now, we are told that people may hear back over the next couple of months. There are going to be a great many very distressed people when they hear this.
I have made the point previously that we know that, of some of the cases that have been referred to the panel, not even preliminary inquiries were made by it into some of the information contained in the reports. Therefore, it could not in any way have constituted a robust inquiry; it was a paper review. In some ways, this will create a bigger problem than in solving one, if they are to receive an answer perhaps some time before Christmas. The Minister has not explained where the shift has occurred.
In quite a number of cases more information has come into the Department through the review mechanism which has had to go to counsel for further analysis. In any circumstance where under the review mechanism extra written information is needed, for example, from GSOC or An Garda Siochána, it has been possible to get that information. It is an analysis of all of the data available. I do not agree with the Deputy's description of the ease with which it could be decided that certain cases were part of the process, while others were not. In fact, it has been quite time consuming. It is clear that the original six to eight week timeframe was a miscalculation in terms of the number of cases involved. The process is very detailed and robust. This is the first time any Government has taken these complaints - more than 300 - and set up an independent process with senior and junior counsel who are completely independent in reviewing the material and have come back to the Department and in various cases recommended further action. When I said "a couple of months", I obviously meant by the summer. I do not expect it to go on any further. I am at the point where I have made the decision that we will bring in the judicial figure and the notifications will start once that person is in place. I expect things to move ahead quickly from that point onwards. I started to receive the recommendations in the past few weeks. That is when I started to examine the individual cases and I decided that in order to continue the independence in the process, this was the way forward.
It is very important to say this process, in fact, is not detailed and that either the Minister is being misinformed or she is not being kept updated on the issue. I do not mean this in a derogatory way, but it is absolutely not the case that people were asked for more information. There has been no communication with the people who gave information to the panel. Therefore, how could it have looked for more information? What we do know is that many people who volunteered new information were told by the panel and the Minister that this was not an investigative body, that it did not want to see new material and that its only job was to decide what to do, not to come up with an outcome. It is not an independent panel. The Minister did not advertise for people who would engage. It did not meet people. It is not the case that it was delayed because of the provision of new information.
We are over time.
I did not set a short timeframe; the Minister was the one who set the timeframe. We were all shocked at the idea that such a timeframe would be advanced, but the only reason it was advanced was this was only to be a paper review and it has remained as such. The panel has refused to take onboard extra information and has not even queried information available.
As we are a little over time, I ask the Minister to limit her response.
To clarify, I said that where the independent panel decided that it needed further information based on its review of cases, it asked for it. I also said quite a lot of information had come in on an ongoing basis from members of the public - the complainants in the cases - and that information, even where a recommendation had already been made, had been sent back to the panel to be analysed and taken into account by it when making decisions. The Deputy is extremely dismissive of a process that has been put in place for the first time to analyse these cases. In respect of individual responses, there are recommendations that further action be taken in a number of the cases. As I said, I cannot envisage circumstances in which I would not accept the recommendations of counsel. The Deputy is very dismissive of a process that is objective, independent and involves a legal examination of information-----
After years of experience.
-----which, in many cases, as I said, has been around since 1969. The initial timeframe was incorrect and I have said that from the outset.
Thank you, Minister. We are over time.
Once I realised the volume of cases I knew that it would take time. It is an independent process and to continue that independence I have now asked a judicial figure to be involved in the robust communication of the outcome of the investigation to the people concerned. Certainly I stand over that process as independent and robust.
Minister, please. Thank you.
It is a review. If we were to interview people individually we would be talking about a different initiative completely to the one announced.
113. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality to set down the number of deals concluded under the new personal insolvency regime to date; the number sought; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19373/15]
View answerI want to know the number of deals that have been concluded by the Insolvency Service of Ireland in comparison to the number of cases it has taken on. We know that the Insolvency Service of Ireland has not delivered or has not had the desired effect that was intended when it was set up. There is a sense of déjà vu in that here we are in the House today saying, "We told you so" again in respect of the bank veto. Will the Minister give us some detail on the statistics and the follow-through on the recent Government announcement to the effect that it intends to deal with the bank veto?
As published in the Insolvency Service of Ireland's quarter 1 statistics, the ISI has received 2,013 applications since its launch on 1 March 2013. A total of 996 protective certificates have been granted and 821 arrangements have been put in place. In terms of the ISI's indirect impact it is worth remembering that prior to its establishment insolvent debtors were not obtaining informal debt agreements with creditors but the situation is rather different now. I believe the establishment of the ISI has been a significant catalyst for this change and, generally, I believe people familiar with this issue would agree with that. As the Deputy will be aware, under a major reform of the insolvency framework announced recently the courts will be given the power to approve insolvency deals rejected by banks where the proposal relates to mortgages or mortgage arrears on the borrower's home and certain criteria are satisfied.
The quarter 1 statistics of the ISI show that creditors are already voting in favour of personal insolvency arrangements in three out of four cases. I believe that by giving the courts the power to review cases in which creditors initially reject personal insolvency arrangements, including power to overturn that rejection, and where certain criteria are met, acceptance rates will increase and more debtors will avail of the debt solutions offered by the ISI. I expect that this development, along with the rest of the measures announced by Government - the Deputy will be familiar with the other initiatives - will strengthen the framework to support mortgage holders in arrears and will encourage more debtors to seek the assistance they need to get back on track financially.
There is a major public information aspect to this as well in terms of encouraging people to use the services available, including the ISI, MABS and other organisations which can give support.
I intend to raise many of the points I am making in the House today with representatives of the ISI tomorrow when it attends the justice committee. The last point that the Minister made in terms of public awareness cannot be emphasised enough. My colleague, Deputy O'Dea, and I attended the sitting of the Circuit Court in Limerick recently, where there were 219 cases heard by the County Registrar on the day. Every person involved was asked by the registrar whether they had engaged with the ISI. Inasmuch as I could ascertain having sat through most of it I do not believe there was one person there that day who said that he had interacted with it. That is an indictment of the ISI and the fact that it is not marketing its service. It also shows a disconnect between the banks, which are pursuing these people relentlessly into court, and the insolvency service in that there is no loop between the two in terms of banks pointing and pushing people towards the insolvency service and showing them that this is a channel through which they should engage.
I call on the Minister again to outline when she intends to remove the bank veto. Can the Minister give us a timescale in this regard? As we know, certain people are watching this day by day. Can the Minister also offer a comment on the Government's proposals around the bankruptcy term? At present it is three years at a minimum. Deputy Willie Penrose from the Labour Party has produced a Bill on the matter. Where is the Government in terms of reducing the three-year term? Can we have the Minister's view on the matter?
Deputy Collins asked a question on bankruptcy. Those responsible for dealing with these issues in some modern economies believe that a three-year bankruptcy term is the appropriate one and that is what they have.
Others have shorter terms. I have asked both the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, on which the Deputy serves, and the Joint Committee on Finance to examine the proposals and revert to me, by July I hope, with their views on the advantages and disadvantages of reducing the terms. Obviously, arguments are made both ways. The debate will benefit from the committees' examination of the bankruptcy terms and the possible implications of changes to them.
The legislation, based on the examinership model, is being worked on and will be brought before the House before the end of this term. Yesterday I met a number of people who were working together, including staff from the Insolvency Service of Ireland, to ensure there was very clear communication with the public on the range of initiatives taken by the Government, including particularly the use of MABS. To take up the Deputy's point, we are also in discussions with the Courts Service to determine whether initiatives can be streamlined to ensure more cases will be referred to the Insolvency Service of Ireland.
114. Deputy Seán Kyne asked the Minister for Justice and Equality in view of the ongoing crisis in the Mediterranean concerning persons seeking to enter Europe, her plans to assist in this in terms of resettling persons and tackling the persons engaged in the exploitation and trafficking of vulnerable persons; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20217/15]
View answerThis question relates to the ongoing crisis in the Mediterranean concerning persons who are seeking to enter the European Union and the Minister's plans to assist in resettling immigrants and tackling those engaged in the exploitation and trafficking of vulnerable persons. I appreciate that there is a large crossover with the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which deals with EU affairs. The crisis is ongoing.
This obviously is a very big issue for Europe and every country therein. We are all very conscious of the huge humanitarian crisis owing to people attempting to cross over from Libya and Syria. I had discussions on this issue yesterday with the Secretary General of the United Nations who praised Irish initiatives on resettlement. I announced recently that Ireland would take 300 additional refugees this year as a response to the European package of measures announced. Strictly on the basis of the quota, the number would have been fewer than 300, but, in fact, we had already agreed to take 150. That brings the total number of refugees who will be resettled by the end of the year and into next year to 450. Obviously, we are very conscious of the tragic loss of life in the Mediterranean, including, in April the loss of an estimated 800 lives in one incident. By taking the measures about which I have just informed the House, we are responding to what has been requested of us. We have dispatched the Irish naval vessel to assist in the humanitarian search and rescue tasks in the Mediterranean.
I have attended the various meetings of EU Justice and Home affairs Ministers. A broad range of conclusions has been arrived at and broad priorities have been laid out. They focus on a number of initiatives, including strengthening the European Union's presence at sea and interrupting and fighting traffickers in accordance with international law. Fighting traffickers is an essential part of our response. Another focus is preventing illegal migration flows. From the discussions yesterday with the Secretary General, it was very clear that, at European level, we needed to initiate more legal ways for people in need to gain access to all of our countries, whether it was through the use of more legal routes to enter countries, the granting of visas in particular circumstances or educational opportunities.
I acknowledge that this is a very complex issue that concerns a number of Departments, including the Department of Justice and Equality, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which is responsible for European affairs and the Department responsible for the marine considering the response involving the LÉ Eithne.
On the point about the Council of Ministers, will there be ongoing discussions between the Minister's Department and her colleagues across Europe on tackling the criminals who are profiting from trafficking? Will this be a key focus of her partners?
While I acknowledge that development aid is not within the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality, will there be a focus on those areas where development aid is needed, particularly those countries in which economic conditions result in people seeking to risk their lives to have a better life in Europe?
Clearly, there must be a very intense focus on dealing with traffickers. This relates to the current humanitarian crisis but, of course, it is also an ongoing issue in Ireland and elsewhere in respect of the trafficking of women and children.
May I ask for silence in the House while the Minister is speaking?
Dealing with it is a priority for the Garda Commissioner and An Garda Síochána. There are ongoing discussions at European level about the legal mechanisms and the legal authority under which this work will be done but it is certainly a priority. It is very important because there is no question that people are being abused by unscrupulous traffickers and this has led to the deaths about which we have spoken. Clearly, the larger issue is what is happening in conflict areas and the need for those countries to be helped in conflict resolution. This is a significant international challenge. not just a European challenge.
There are seven minutes remaining for the final question. I ask Deputy Durkan and the Minister to bear that in mind.
This session did not start until 2.03 p.m.
The Deputy is correct but an amount of time is allowed and there is one question left.
115. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the extent to which she expects to continue to avail of extra Garda numbers arising from the new recruitment programme with a view to ensuring increased strength in Garda stations that have experienced a reduction in Garda numbers in the course of the past number of years and with particular reference to demographic requirements; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19511/15]
View answerMy question seeks to ascertain the extent to which the Minister hopes to be able to avail of extra gardaí accruing from the new recruitment programme with particular reference to deployment to areas that have experienced an increase in crime over the past number of years and at the same time, suffered a reduction in the number of gardaí.
As the Deputy is aware, the Garda Commissioner is responsible for the distribution of personnel among the Garda regions, divisions, and districts. This is kept under continuing review in the context of crime trends and policing priorities to ensure that the best possible use is made of these resources.
The Deputy will be aware that the Garda Commissioner has taken a number of decisions relating to distribution and where the new recruits will be placed on the basis of looking at the needs of particular areas and crime trends. It is a completely objective and operational decision. For the first time since 2009, new recruits are entering the Garda College in Templemore. As part of budget 2015, a further intake of 200 recruits in two batches was announced. On 15 December 2014, the first 100 of these batches commenced their training. The remaining 100 entered the college in early February. This has brought to 300 the number of recruits in the Garda College with a further intake later this year. In addition, I have received sanction from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform for two further intakes of 125 Garda recruits later this year. New gardaí will be assigned by the Garda Commissioner to Garda stations throughout the country.
It is the Government's intention that there will be ongoing seamless recruitment to the force because it is essential. However, it is not just a question of Garda numbers. The Government is also committed to ensuring that An Garda Síochána has appropriate technical and other resources. The Deputy will be aware that for the first time, I have initiated a review of the ICT needs of An Garda Síochána. A committee is close to producing its final report on identifying the ICT needs of An Garda Síochána. This will also lead to a more efficient and effective force. We are committed to meeting the ICT requirements of An Garda Síochána. This is the first comprehensive examination. We expect to have a plan in place that will identify needs in the short, medium and longer term.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. What is the extent to which the particular-----
I apologise for interrupting Deputy Durkan. Could we have some order in the House?
To what extent will the areas that have suffered a sharp increase in crime, sometimes of a violent nature, in recent times receive particular attention in the deployment of extra gardaí? I also wish to ask about the extent to which comparisons relating to best policing practice in other jurisdictions might be made with a view to achieving the best possible means of attacking criminal elements.
Time has now expired for this-----
I must object in the strongest terms. This session did not start until 2.03 p.m. and there are three minutes still remaining in this session under my clock because the quota from the Government side was not here. I have been waiting patiently for this question and I will adhere to the three minutes.
I respect the Deputy's point of view, however, the time is 3.15 p.m. The Deputy may be of the view that-----
Please do not interrupt me.
It is a point of order. There is a question here.
It is not a point of order. The Deputy has made his point. The time has expired. Perhaps he would consider submitting a matter under Topical Issues. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will consider it. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
This session did not start until 2.03 p.m. We are sitting here with questions we cannot put.
If the Deputy wishes to submit his name for the role of Acting Chairman, I suggest he submits it to the Ceann Comhairle. In the interim, I am Acting Chairman of the Dáil and I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
Can the Acting Chairman clarify a point of order?
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. He is out of order and he is wrong.
I will not take my seat because this session was delayed by three minutes. The Acting Chairman is rewarding the Government for not getting its numbers here and denying the Opposition its chance to ask questions. It is outrageous. My point of order continues while the Ceann Comhairle is in the Chair. The Ceann Comhairle is normally very reasonable.
The Ceann Comhairle is normally very reasonable when it comes to the issue of time. If a session is late in starting, he allows the Opposition to have its full period for questions. One question is being denied here because the session was late in starting due to the Government quorum. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to adjudicate on this issue and allow it. I am only asking for two minutes. We have already lost a minute because of this protest.
We have a timescale for matters like Topical Issues and Leaders' Questions. The time of 3.15 p.m.-----
Can I ask the Ceann Comhairle a question?
The Deputy cannot really ask a question-----
If there was a delay of ten or 15 minutes, that means-----
It was not ten or 15 minutes because I started the session. It was about two minutes late.
