Vol. 933 No. 3
1. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if approval will be forthcoming for proposed chief superintendent appointments in An Garda Síochána; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40593/16]
Why will the Government not fill the existing vacancies at the rank of chief superintendent in An Garda Síochána?
On 22 November, at the request of the Garda Commissioner, the Government made 11 appointments to the senior ranks of an Garda Síochána as follows: one to the rank of assistant commissioner, three to the rank of chief superintendent and seven to the rank of superintendent. These appointment were to fill vacancies we had been notified about in the senior ranks, mainly as a result of voluntary retirements, and were within the agreed strength of the employment control framework, ECF. That brings to 43 the number of appointments made by the Government this year and it demonstrates the determination of the Government to ensure that An Garda Síochána has a leadership team that can address the serious challenges it faces every day in maintaining law and order. As matters stand the senior ranks of An Garda Síochána have their full complement and I am informed by the Garda Commissioner that no further vacancies are anticipated within the ECF this year.
As the Deputy is aware, the Garda Síochána (Policing Authority and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 contemplates the Policing Authority assuming the function of selecting and appointing persons to the senior ranks. I am committed to the Authority assuming this function and intend to bring the necessary regulations to the Government for approval next week with a view to the authority taking on the function on 1 January 2017. Once this is done, it will be a matter for the authority to undertake competitions for appointments to these ranks. The establishment of the authority represents one of the most significant and progressive reforms to the justice sector over recent years and the transfer of the appointment function is a particularly important signal of this reform.
Regarding existing promotion panels arising from competitions held by the Garda Commissioner earlier this year, all candidates were informed when they applied for the competitions that the panels formed would lapse on the transfer of the appointment function to the authority or on 31 December this year, whichever was the earlier. It was therefore clearly envisaged that the panels could expire, as they often do across the Civil Service and in other organisations, without all persons on the panels having been appointed. As it turned out, all those available on the superintendent panel were appointed, whereas although a large number of appointments were made from the other two panels, insufficient vacancies have arisen within the ECF to fully exhaust those panels.
I raised promotions to positions within An Garda Síochána five weeks ago. The reason I did so is that, on 25 May last, 18 people were notified by letter of their successful selection for appointment to the rank of chief superintendent. The names were published in May and July and, in fact, the 18 individuals attended a chief superintendent management meeting on 15 June last. On 13 July last, ten of the 18 were appointed from the panel. I raised the matter with the Tánaiste on 14 November and raised it again in the Dáil on 15 November. The response I received was that it was a matter for the Policing Authority. However, in the aftermath of that, three further members from the panel were appointed. I understand there are at least five vacancies in the chief superintendent ranks in An Garda Síochána. The current position is that a number of chief superintendents are fulfilling two roles in An Garda Síochána. For example, one chief superintendent who is responsible for Garda professional standards also has responsibility for the Garda technical bureau, a chief superintendent who is responsible for the Dublin metropolitan region east also has responsibility for the entire Dublin metropolitan region, a chief superintendent who is responsible for crime policy and administration also has responsibility for the internal affairs branch and a chief superintendent who is responsible for the road policing and major event division also has responsibility for the Garda national traffic bureau. I am also informed that there are existing advertised vacancies for chief superintendents in the following roles: the central firearms licensing and statutory liaison, the Garda central vetting unit, the operational support unit and the Garda Reserve. In light of that, those vacancies should be filled.
I wish to make two points clear. The first is that all vacancies under the employment control framework, which operates across all Departments and bodies, are filled at present. Of course, as the economy improves and the ECF is examined, clearly the question of what is the appropriate ongoing ECF will be raised, be it in the Department of Health, the Garda Síochána or in other bodies. That will be discussed with the Garda Commissioner. She recently wrote to me about a number of issues regarding appointments in a number of areas, and they can be considered within the context of the ECF and in association with the Policing Authority. That will be done early in the new year.
With regard to the applicants, they were placed on a panel. They were not told they were promoted. They all signed a declaration which states that applicants in the competition should clearly understand that it is intended that successful candidates will be placed on a panel to fill vacancies until such time as the new section relating to the Policing Authority is commenced as it relates to the appointment of persons to the rank of chief superintendent or 31 December 2016, whichever is the earlier, and that any panel established on foot of the competition will cease with immediate effect on the commencement of section 12.
They are the two relevant points. I can understand the disappointment that people may feel but they are open to apply for the posts that will be advertised as they arise and the Policing Authority no doubt will move to fill any vacancies that arise from January as soon as possible.
We are not getting off to a great start. I ask the Minister to observe the clock.
The reason this is different from other situations where panels are put together each year is that we are now in a transitional period. We know that the Policing Authority will take over responsibility for promotions to the senior ranks in An Garda Síochána. We welcome that event when it happens. However, it has not happened as of yet. Consequently, responsibility for it still rests with the Minister. The reason there is an unfairness with respect to these individuals is that 18 of them were on the panel and as of today 13 of them have been promoted. The remaining five will be left hanging there. They will be told, if they are appointed prior to 31 December, that they can apply again under the process when the Policing Authority rules come in. We still have not had the commencement of section 12 and we do not know when that will occur. If these individuals apply again to the Policing Authority for promotion, as I hope they do, and if they do not get it, that would be unfortunate, but it must be said that there would be a question mark left hanging over them in that they were to have been promoted under the old system but the new system says they are not sufficiently good. That is unfair to them.
Another relevant consideration will be the plan, which the Commissioner has in preparation in conjunction with the Policing Authority regarding the identification of administrative and technical posts occupied by sworn officers that could be filled by suitably qualified civilians. That plan is due to be submitted to my Department before the end of the year. The Deputy will recall that the Garda Inspectorate made a number of relevant points about that. However, the key point is that the vacancies that existed under the employment control framework, ECF, have all been filled, and the last 11 were filled by this Government. People will understand that the vacancies have been filled and there are no further vacancies, but as vacancies arise in the course of 2017, which the Policing Authority will advertise, it is completely open to anyone who is still on the panel to apply for promotion to those vacancies.
2. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the date on which Ireland will ratify the Istanbul Convention. [40595/16]
I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, who I presume will take this question, the date on which the Istanbul Convention will be ratified.
I will take this question and I thank the Deputy for raising it. Obviously, we are totally committed to tackling domestic violence. I will be bringing legislation to the Cabinet this Tuesday in regard to the domestic violence Bill and to the full implementation of the Istanbul Convention. Many of the actions required by provisions in the Istanbul Convention are being implemented on a daily basis under current legislation and administrative practice. There are 18 outstanding actions necessary to ratify it. They were published in the multi-annual action plan when we signed the convention on 5 November 2015 and they are also contained in the new strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. It is intended that all of these will be delivered by the first quarter of 2018.
The domestic violence Bill enactment is a key part of going towards ratifying the convention. This would extend access to interim barring orders and give judges power to refer perpetrators to programmes both of which are required under the Istanbul Convention. We will also bring the victims of crime Bill to Cabinet on Tuesday next week. Once both of those Bills go through the House, that will be a very significant advancement, which will take us much closer to ratifying the Istanbul Convention.
The overall position in respect of the 18 actions which we need to fulfil is that eight actions are on target, two actions are completed, the other four cover the Bills I mentioned and four actions have yet to commence. Two of these actions do not arise until the convention is ratified. I can send the Deputy a detailed note on this, if he wishes. I have a quite a bit of information on it.
I would welcome that information if the Minister could forward it to me. On the items of legislation, the pre-legislative scrutiny of the domestic violence Bill took place in September of last year. I know events probably overtook its publication in recent months given the issue around Garda pay and other issues which have arisen. It is the Minister's intention to publish both Bills and have them passed by the summer of next year or are we looking at the first quarter of 2018 as she said? Will she give some indication of when she hopes to publish them?
All going well at Cabinet next Tuesday, when I will bring these two items of legislation forward, and obviously this is up to the Business Committee of the House, I would hope that we could progress them in the first half of next year. If we can then deal with any other outstanding actions, including some of the ones I mentioned, we could bring forward the ratification. However, right now the intention is to be absolutely sure that we can ratify the convention in the first quarter of 2018, but I would hope those two items of legislation could be dealt with before the summer of next year.
3. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the action being taken following the recent paramilitary activity; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40594/16]
There has been a recent upsurge in paramilitary activity from dissident groups. What is the Minister going to do about it?
I thank the Deputy for his question which arises in the context of a recent shooting in Cork city in which a man lost his life. I have no doubt that everybody in this House will join me in condemning such brutal and unjustified violence which can have no place in our society. I am aware there has been speculation that there may have been paramilitary involvement in the killing. The Deputy will appreciate that in circumstances where there is an ongoing Garda investigation, it would not be appropriate or helpful for me to comment in detail.
What I will say, and the Deputy is right to raise this issue, is that there is a real and persistent threat here and in Northern Ireland and Britain from the so-called dissident republican paramilitary groups whose aim is a return to the misery and bloodshed of past decades. They have no support in the wider community. They are inextricably linked in their activities to organised criminal gangs. Indeed, they are deeply involved in serious crime in order to fund their activities and their lifestyles. Their actions are simply an affront to the peaceful wishes of the vast majority of law-abiding people on this island.
I have strengthened Garda resources and secured Government approval for the additional money needed to tackle gangland, subversive and associated crime. This funding provides for continued measures to counter this terrorism, including investment in ICT so that we have the best possible databases from which we can share information, North, South, east and west and across Europe, and concentrated policing targeting organised and gang-related crime. We have very particular operations with Operation Thor and Operation Hybrid.
We have announced and given support for the armed support unit in Dublin which is about protecting the citizens of Dublin. That was launched this week. The Government has funded the development of that unit. The Garda Commissioner said at the launch that she has further plans to co-ordinate the work of the response units, including the regional support units around the country and the armed support unit in Dublin.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In June of this year, the House approved my proposal to renew the provisions of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. As the Deputy will appreciate, this is key legislation providing the Garda with essential powers to tackle terrorism. I received approval from the Government for my proposal to update the law with regard to the lawful interception of communications and covert electronic surveillance to enhance the powers available to the authorities to combat serious crime and threats to the State's security. Work on these proposals is ongoing in my Department.
I also put in place the necessary measures earlier this year to bring the second Special Criminal Court into operation - it commenced hearing cases in May. The need for a second Special Criminal Court arose given the numbers awaiting trial for subversive offences resulting in long delays, over two years, for the hearing of trials. That has now reduced to less than 18 months and will continue to reduce further.
I assure the Deputy that countering terrorism has always been a priority for the Government and An Garda Síochána and nothing has changed in that regard. It is in this context that I brought the second Special Criminal Court into operation earlier this year in order to address the backlog of cases awaiting trial and to ensure that those facing trail for serious crimes affecting the security of the State are brought to justice quickly. I also secured additional funding of €55 million for the Garda for this year that included dedicated additional funds for countering terrorism and combating organised crime.
The Garda authorities continue to work actively to disrupt and counter these paramilitary groups and to tackle the crime gangs with which they are linked and that work will continue. The Garda also co-operate very closely with its police and security counterparts in Northern Ireland in bearing down on these groups. That close, operational relationship is central to maintaining security on this island.
I am strongly committed to ensuring the Garda continues to have the resources it needs to bear down on these groups not just in terms of personnel and equipment, but also in terms of the legislative provisions available. The House can rest assured that the Garda will take all appropriate measures, within the rule of law, to defeat these groups.
We have unfortunately seen in recent times an upsurge in paramilitary activity from dissident groups. It is very important that the Government, the Minister and our security service keeps a very close eye on this issue. We do not want to a situation to develop where paramilitary activity among dissident groups gets out of control in the same way as gangland criminality has got out of control in Dublin in recent times. We also need to recognise the important role previous Governments played in respect of the Good Friday Agreement.
We sometimes forget or underestimate the significance that the Agreement had on this island. It has effectively achieved peace on the island for nearly 20 years. It represented a sea change in the attitude of violent republicanism, as well as a sea change in the attitude of the British state.
We need to keep emphasising the importance of the Good Friday Agreement, not simply in terms of what happens in the North but also regarding what happens in the South. It is instructive to note that recently under the Fresh Start agreement, four commissioners were appointed to review paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. It is important that we do the same down here.
I support what Deputy O'Callaghan has said on the importance of maintaining the peace, as well as the importance of the Good Friday Agreement and the Fresh Start agreement. I bring the House's attention to the report published recently by the joint agency task force established under the Fresh Start agreement on its North-South work. The report is available on the web. The PSNI and An Garda Síochána focused on several areas such as rural crime, child sexual exploitation, financial crime, illicit trade, excise fraud and human trafficking. Concentrated work has been done, North and South, in tackling the gangs involved in this. The relationships between paramilitary and criminal activity are intertwined. There have been some successful operations. It is important to note there is a joint agency task force strategic oversight group, which is continuing to identify how best it can target and deal with the issues the Deputy has raised.
The reason I raised this question is because of the unfortunate man who was murdered in Cork last week. It appears that there is some form of a split in the dissident republican movement in the Republic. It is important the Garda and the security services keep an eye on whether there is an overlap between the gangland activity and paramilitary activity. We also need Garda presence stepped up, particularly in Cork where this problem seems to have culminated in recent times. We have to be careful we do not allow a situation to develop where tit-for-tat killings take place in respect of the dissident community.
I can only agree with the Deputy. Clearly, the intention of An Garda Síochána and the Government was shown in June when the House approved my proposal to review the provisions of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act. This is key legislation giving the Garda powers to deal with terrorism. I also have got approval from the Government for my proposal to update the law with regard to the lawful interception of communications and covert electronic surveillance to enhance the powers available to the authorities to combat serious crime and threats to the State's security. We also have the Special Criminal Court. It is by a combination of legislation, police activity and the support of this House that we will deal with those who would threaten the important peace on this island.
Question No. 4 is in the name of Deputy Gino Kenny. However, he has been delayed. With the House's permission, we will take Question No. 5 in the name of Deputy Wallace.
5. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if she still has full confidence in the Garda Commissioner, with particular reference to the manner in which Garda personnel making protected disclosures are dealt with in view of the fact that the Garda Commissioner is now in position for over two years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40597/16]
The Tánaiste is responsible for overseeing An Garda Síochána and setting its priorities. She has an obligation to ensure that the force is managed in an appropriate fashion. Given that she is the only one who has authority over the Garda Commissioner, is she still 100% confident in how the Commissioner has been functioning, especially in light of how the latter has handled protected disclosures among other matters?
I want to make it absolutely clear that no finding of wrongdoing of any kind has been made against the Garda Commissioner. In those circumstances, she is entitled to our full confidence and support.
It is right to recognise that the Garda has done some excellent policing operations and continues to work keeping our communities safe. We have just talked about the threats from paramilitary organisations. It is critical the policing necessary to interrupt those activities continues.
I hope the Deputy will appreciate that, like any other public servant and in line with any concept of fairness, the Garda Commissioner is entitled to her good name - as, indeed, are people making allegations entitled to theirs - unless facts properly established prove otherwise. One of the lessons of the past couple of years is the danger of treating allegations as fact and rushing to judgment before the actual facts are determined.
The House will be aware that I asked Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill to review two protected disclosures which I received from members of An Garda Síochána last October. I received his report last week and am grateful for his work in this regard. I am still in consultation with the Attorney General about this matter and I hope the House will understand that I am not in a position to say any more about it at this stage. However, I will take all steps necessary to ensure the disclosures in question are properly and fairly addressed.
On cases of whistleblowing generally, the reality is that neither the Deputy nor I, as Minister, are in a position to determine facts in individual cases without having processes in place to deal properly with allegations of wrongdoing by members of An Garda Síochána. The veracity or otherwise of allegations cannot be established across the floor of this House. That is why we have put proper processes in place to examine these cases. They will involve an impartial examination of the case made by people making allegations and those against whom such allegations are made.
It is unfair of the Tánaiste to say that we are rushing to judgment. This has been going on for over two years. If O'Neill recommends an inquiry, and if one is established, will the Tánaiste include other protected disclosures in it rather than the two in question? She will be familiar with Keith Harrison's case. His legal team said that, in a repeat of Sergeant McCabe's experience, it could confirm that An Garda Síochána contacted politicians and members of the media to undermine Garda Harrison's credibility and destroy his reputation by spreading false and malicious rumours in a bid to undermine his disclosures and dissuade him from pursuing this matter.
If there is an inquiry into all of this, can the Tánaiste leave the Garda Commissioner in situ in view of the fact that she will be the subject of inquiry? It was bad enough she was in situ during the O'Higgins investigation and report. I am sure the Tánaiste has seen the transcript herself. It was pretty damning about what went on. We are not rushing to judgment. Is the Tánaiste going to include other protected disclosures in the case of an inquiry which may be recommended by O'Neill? Will she leave the Commissioner in situ if that is the case?
It would be wrong for me, as Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, to step across the procedures put in place to deal with the range of issues he has raised. That is the reality. We have processes in place. People spent years in the House talking about having objective processes in place so that, for example, whistleblowing could be dealt with properly in various organisations where it arose. That is why we brought in protected disclosure legislation and set up GSOC for An Garda Síochána. We have those mechanisms in place.
On the particular points the Deputy raised, I am sure the House will recognise I have particular difficulties talking about the O'Neill review. It was established to look at two particular disclosures. While there has been widespread public speculation about those who made the disclosures and what they contained, I cannot comment on them. The Deputy can speculate on them but I cannot comment at present. I understand that might be frustrating for the House at this point. However, I have to be scrupulous in honouring my own legal obligations in this regard. I have the report but I cannot comment on its contents at this point. I cannot comment in any meaningful way at this point on what might or might not be included in it or in any other further inquiries. I have to be scrupulous about protecting the names of whistleblowers.
Some of those whistleblowers have already waived confidentiality.
Not to me.
At this stage, we know of ten protected disclosures, and if a quarter of what they allege is true, then we have a serious problem. When will we find out what is happening with the O'Neill report? Will an inquiry be set up or not? The Minister has the power to remove the Commissioner while the inquiry is ongoing. There will be information required and the Commissioner has control over much of it. The Minister spoke about doing things properly and fairly. In the interest of fairness, I do not see how the Minister could possibly leave the Commissioner in place if she is the subject of an inquiry in any form. Will the Minister explain that to me?
The Deputy is making points about protected disclosures which I cannot possibly comment on. I am not in a position to comment on what, if any, further inquiries might prove necessary. I have no reason to think that everyone involved will not co-operate fully. It would be a bizarre proposition to suggest that where no wrongdoing of any kind has been established against someone, they should be suspended from office. Clearly that is not natural justice.
Why is-----
The Minister, without interruption.
That proposition could not be sustained.
Everyone else was suspended.
It is very important that we deal properly with allegations of wrongdoing. We have to deal with them properly. We cannot anticipate and do what the Deputy has outlined. There is no concept of fairness or natural justice in what the Deputy is describing.
She suspended-----
There are no further supplementaries. We will move back to Question No. 4.
4. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if her attention has been drawn to the case of a person (details supplied) who was killed in 2011 in a hit-and-run incident; if her attention has been further drawn to the family's concern that if the guilty party had been properly dealt with before the fatal incident, the person would not have been killed, and that the family allege there is evidence of failure, cover up and corruption at the level of the Garda, the courts, her Department and the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP; if she will call for a public inquiry into the circumstances of the person's death and its aftermath; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40592/16]
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for facilitating me. I will abbreviate my question to the Minister. Has her attention been drawn to the case of a person who was killed in 2011 in a hit-and-run incident? Has her attention been drawn to the family's concerns that if the guilty party had been properly dealt with before the fatal incident, the person would not have been killed? The family alleges there is evidence of failure of inquiry.
The Taoiseach and I recently met the family of the person referred to in the Deputy's question. We had a very long meeting with the family who have obviously been through a very traumatic time. The Taoiseach assured the family that when the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, investigation is completed, the question of what further action can be taken will be considered. As a result of that meeting and following certain issues being raised by the family, the Attorney General requested the Law Reform Commission to examine how more information might be provided to the families of victims concerning prosecutorial decisions.
The tragic case was considered under the independent review mechanism, IRM. The recommendation made by the IRM in this particular case was that I should take no further action. The IRM was not established to act as a commission of inquiry or investigation nor was it designed to make findings. There is a GSOC inquiry under way. As soon as that inquiry is completed, I will consider what further action to take.
I met Shane's mother, Lucia, four or five months ago. I spoke to her at length, as the Minister and the Taoiseach have. To say I was shocked about what happened to her son is an understatement. There is a lot of evidence and paperwork to show there was a litany of mistakes and failures by everybody - the police, the Judiciary and the Department of Justice and Equality. Shane would still be here if not for those failures. We cannot bring Shane back. Lucia knows that. There has been a serious miscarriage of justice. Shane would still be alive had it not been for the failures of the people I have mentioned. The family deserve at least an independent inquiry. Everybody's reputation is on the line here. Lucia knows Shane will not come back but the family deserves justice for Shane and a public inquiry.
I am aware, as is the Taoiseach, of the very tragic details of the death of Shane and the sequence of events that led to it. Clearly, as far as the family is concerned, they involved a very wide variety of bodies. There are allegations in the case relating to the courts and the DPP. I have said frequently on this case and more generally that the courts are independent under the Constitution. Clearly it would be wrong to interfere in any way and unconstitutional to seek to interfere with the courts or their decisions. Likewise, the DPP is an independent office. We have to recognise it was established as the independent prosecution authority in the State. Nobody is above the law. If anybody has evidence of wrongdoing, they should always bring it to attention. There is a GSOC investigation under way. The case was referred by my predecessor to GSOC and the investigation has not concluded. We would like to see that investigation concluded as soon as possible. We will certainly review the situation again. There is a civil action as well that is being initiated against the State in respect of issues raised in the complaint. I hope the Deputy understands the situation at present.
With respect to the Minister, I do not understand. I will be straight with the Minister. The GSOC investigation has been going on for the past five years. What is worst about the case is that this man never went to jail for killing somebody. He was deported. What has happened is absolutely outrageous. Shane deserves a public inquiry. I will put the Minister's reputation on the line. If there is not an inquiry, the Minister should review her position as Minister for Justice and Equality. It adds insult to injury for the family because they cannot get justice. They will get justice. They deserve justice in a court of law. Any investigation so far has been a whitewash. I call on the Minister to say now that there will be a public inquiry into Shane's death.
I do not accept the Deputy's characterisation of the IRM. It was an independent body with independent lawyers assessing whether there were further actions that could be taken. They came back to me at that point and said there were not. Second, the case is being dealt with by GSOC. One of the reasons the case has gone on-----
Why has it taken five years?
I will tell the Deputy why.
Why has it taken five years?
I will tell the Deputy why. New information has been given to GSOC over the course of the period. GSOC has to examine any new information that is brought before it. It is perfectly reasonable to wait for the conclusions of the report from GSOC and see what recommendations arise from it. As I said, I am open to considering further action at that point. I would prefer to get the report from GSOC first.
When the Minister gets the report-----
I take it very seriously and I am very concerned for the family because there is no lack of compassion from anybody in this House for the appalling-----
There is a lack of justice.
-----circumstances that led to the death of Shane. I want to take every action I can to make sure justice is delivered for the family.
