An chéad phíosa gnó eile ná ráitis maidir leis an nGarda Síochána, statements on An Garda Síochána. We have two hours for this debate. I call on the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, to make her opening statement under Standing Order 45.
An Garda Síochána: Statements
I welcome this opportunity to address these important and very disturbing issues. First of all I want to stress again, as I have already and as the Taoiseach did during Leaders’ Questions, the utmost seriousness with which the Government and I as Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality regard these issues. It is essential that the Government, the Oireachtas and all our citizens can trust members of An Garda Síochána to carry out their duties fairly, impartially and in accordance with the law. The public has to be able to believe statistics and all information provided by An Garda Síochána. It is essential that we get the answers we need and I am totally committed to doing so. The issues that have been raised go to the heart of policing in the State. They go to the heart of public confidence in our police force and the area of policing involved, that of roads and traffic, is one that affects every one of our citizens. So many of us have been affected by tragedy on the roads, be it the death of a friend, colleague or family member. We need to know as citizens that those charged with enforcing the laws designed to ensure our safety do so to the highest standards.
I met the Garda Commissioner yesterday and I conveyed the Government’s very deep concern at the revelations of recent days. The facts we now know about how breath tests were being conducted and the operation of the fixed charge system are completely unacceptable and raise very troubling questions. The scale and detail of these issues became apparent last week at the Garda press conference and I am determined that all the facts will emerge.
An anonymous complaint was made to the Road Safety Authority in April 2014, outlining a number of issues which included the operation of mandatory alcohol testing, MAT, checkpoints. This complaint was referred to An Garda Síochána by the then Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. An Garda Síochána indicated in a detailed letter to my Department in May 2014 that it had looked into the claims regarding MAT checkpoints and was satisfied that correct procedures were in place to account for MAT checkpoints that ultimately did go ahead. Every MAT checkpoint, as we know, must be authorised by an inspector. In June of last year my Department was made aware that some discrepancies had been identified in respect of MAT and that An Garda Síochána was commencing a national audit. An Garda Síochána indicated in June 2016 that no issues stemmed from this audit with regard to the performance of MAT checkpoints or prosecutions arising from same. It also set out the new procedures it had already introduced to facilitate the accurate recording of breath tests and outlined that an IT solution had been developed and would be implemented towards the end of 2016.
Following this preliminary notification to my Department last year, updates were sought from An Garda Síochána by officials in my Department on a regular basis as to the progress of the audit that was then taking place. An Garda Síochána indicated in February 2017 that it was anticipated that the national audit would be finalised in the second quarter of 2017. Although that audit has not yet been finalised, An Garda Síochána announced figures at its press conference relating to the discrepancy between the number of test conducted at MAT checkpoints as per its own records compared with the records held by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. No indication was given as to the scale of this issue at the time of the June 2016 letter and indeed, it is clear from what the Commissioner told me yesterday and from her public statements, that it was not known at that time to Garda management either. It was in order to assess the scale of the problem that the national audit of MAT was launched. I did not become aware of the huge discrepancy in the breath test figures until it was revealed at last week’s Garda press conference.
Regarding the issue of fixed charge notices, my Department was informed in June 2016 of an error relating to summonses having been incorrectly issued to persons who should have received a fixed charge notice for the offence of not having a valid national car test, NCT, certificate, which became a fixed charge offence in December 2014. An Garda Síochána indicated that following on from those initial findings, further inquiries were being carried out relating to all summonses issued for other fixed charge offences. Colleagues should note that a press statement was issued that day by An Garda Síochána about this issue. In that statement, An Garda Síochána confirmed that it had commenced a review of prosecutions relating to all fixed charge offences. The letter set out the remedial actions already taken by An Garda Síochána at that stage, which included withdrawing prosecutions in any affected cases and putting in place a short-term IT solution within four weeks while a longer-term IT solution was being developed. Following the preliminary notifications of these problems to my Department last year, updates were sought on a regular basis as to the progress of the review taking place into the fixed charge processing system issues covering the period referred to in the letter from An Garda Síochána, from 1 January 2014 to 27 May 2016. The results of this review were communicated to my Department in a letter received on 14 March 2017.
The letter indicated that a total of 1,781 cases had been identified where persons had been convicted in situations where they had been incorrectly summonsed to court, either without first having been issued a fixed charge notice or having been issued and paid a fixed charge notice. The letter also set out – this is important – that consultation remained ongoing with the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, with whose office there had been ongoing consultation and the Courts Service in regard to commencing the process of setting aside the convictions in the courts. That engagement with the DPP is ongoing.
An Garda Síochána also advised in that letter, received recently on 14 March, that the DPP had indicated that the review should be extended to include cases before 2014 and that this process was now under way. That, of course, is why the audit was meant to be ongoing until June of this year. That was to be when I was to expect the final report. That is when I had been advised I would get the final report. I became aware of the figure of some 14,700 cases where a conviction took place after an incorrect procedure when An Garda Síochána made that information public last week. It is a matter of great regret to me, as I know it is to everyone in this House, that anyone should be summoned to court inadvertently, with all of the consequences that follow for individuals. It is absolutely critical now that these mistakes be resolved and that the necessary remedial actions be taken.
As for the fixed charge penalty notice, FCPN, at my meeting with the Commissioner yesterday she assured me that arrangements are being put in place in regard to the persons affected. All of these cases will be appealed by An Garda Síochána to ensure the courts set aside these convictions, as they have to. All fines will, of course, be reimbursed and penalties will be removed, and all of those affected will be contacted directly by An Garda Síochána. Individual letters will be sent to all the people concerned and they will begin to be issued on 3 April.
The Commissioner also outlined to me the IT and operational solutions that have been put in place to ensure that these practices would cease. In fact, at the ministerial meeting yesterday, which was scheduled ahead of all of this emerging, both the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, and I were assured by both Professor Cusack and all the other people present that the new procedures were in place, that we could be confident about the new procedures and that there are changes being made to the machines, using GPS and further information, so the kind of mistake associated with the technical attributes of the devices can never happen again.
In the case of mandatory alcohol tests, An Garda Síochána initially put in place new paper-based recording and verification processes and, in November 2016, a new specific data-recording IT upgrade was installed on the Garda PULSE system. The net effect of the new IT upgrade was that personnel now have to record the serial number of the device used for each breath test plus the meter reading before and after the checkpoint was concluded. This, apparently, was not being done before. It is clearly only one of the explanations for this situation. Data from the device are now used to verify the total number of breath tests conducted at each checkpoint.
The focus now, however, has to be on what is being done to get to the full truth of what transpired and the accountability that must be brought to bear. Clearly, there is a need for an investigation to hold responsible those people, at all levels of the Garda organisation, who allowed such large discrepancies in the breath-testing figures to arise. The Commissioner announced an internal investigation yesterday, as colleagues will be aware. Following consideration and discussion at Cabinet today, the Government has decided that there should be an independent investigation, and consultations will now take place with the Policing Authority on how to achieve that. I met the chairman of the authority, Ms Josephine Feehily, yesterday and informed her that I was formally referring both of these matters to that body under the Garda Síochána Act. The chairman informed me at that point that the authority will have an independent professional audit undertaken of the steps taken to resolve these issues. That is an essential part of providing the necessary public reassurance. The clear view of the Government following my briefing of its members at today's Cabinet meeting was that these revelations have given rise to the most serious concerns, not just among public representatives but also among members of the public. The Government accepts fully that we need explanations. That is why we are making use of the full legal mechanisms in place to ensure that we will establish the full facts and that there can be accountability in this area.
It is absolutely essential that the process of reform be rigorously implemented in An Garda Síochána, and that it be seen to be implemented, including through close oversight by the Policing Authority. As the Taoiseach stated earlier, the Government believes the level of public concern regarding some issues affecting the Garda Síochána is now so profound that it is time to conduct a thorough, comprehensive and independent root-and-branch review of An Garda Síochána. Quite a number of colleagues have already called for this. This is clearly a proposal that will require further detailed consideration by the Government. As the Taoiseach said, any such proposal should command widespread support in the Oireachtas and accordingly be the subject of consultation with the Opposition and, ultimately, approval by the Oireachtas.
We in government accept that change is required. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I have introduced the most significant reforms in policing since the foundation of the State. Just last week we had the first assistant commissioner fully appointed by an independent body. We have the Policing Authority, which represents a radical change in the oversight of policing in this country. At the end of this year, its second year, it is subject to review. The body, under the legislation, is to inform me how it is working and whether there are any changes it would like to see. I will await its report later on this year. Additional powers have been given to GSOC and greater civilianisation has been implemented. We need to do more, however. I hope that Opposition Deputies will accept the offer to work with the Government on this and contribute to achieving the policing service we all wish to see.
In accordance with the agreement made earlier, there are ten minutes for each spokesperson. That can include a statement and a series of questions.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality mentioned in her statement that she became aware of discrepancies in the fixed charge notice system in June 2016, when the matter was brought to her attention by An Garda Síochána. We know that An Garda Síochána conducted a review and that this review established there were 14,700 wrongful convictions. Last Thursday, An Garda Síochána issued a press statement in which it referred to this review it carried out and the 14,700 wrongful convictions recorded. It claimed in its statement that, based on the findings and inquiries of that review, a number of solutions were identified by Garda IT to avoid, as far as possible, a recurrence of the issues highlighted. It stated that, as of 15 July 2016, an IT solution had been designed and rolled out. I take it from that statement of An Garda Síochána that the force was aware, by 15 July 2016 at the latest, that there were 14,700 wrongful convictions. The Tánaiste said in her statement that she became aware of the scale of the number of convictions only recently. When did she first become aware of there being any issue in respect of wrongful convictions on this issue?
Have we changed the procedure? Are there not statements now?
The procedure was to have statements and questions, whatever the Members decided. We can take all the questions and come back to the Minister.
Whatever the Ceann Comhairle likes.
We cannot.
We can, actually. Does the Minister want to take five minutes of questions from Deputy O'Callaghan and then we-----
I would prefer to ask a question and get an answer.
That is fine.
I apologise; I understood the procedure was different so the Deputy might repeat his question.
The Minister said in her statement that she became aware of the scale of the number of convictions only this month, when she was notified of it. When did she become aware in general that there were issues in respect of wrongful convictions arising from this matter?
The answer to that is the letter the Department received in June 2016 from John Twomey outlining that the Garda was concerned about some issues. No figure was mentioned, so I was not aware of the 14,700 cases. Neither do I believe was the Garda aware of it at that point because that was an earlier stage. The audit was not completed. Some procedures had been put in place by the Garda to ensure there would not be further problems. However, a national audit had not been done at that point, so it was unsure of the figures. It was only until the Garda had a press conference last week that a national audit was done which involved well over 100,000. That got to a point where the figure of 14,700 was arrived at. The full national audit had not been done at that point. That is my understanding.
I take it from the Tánaiste's answer that she is stating that she was aware from June 2016 that there was an issue in respect of wrongful convictions that had been obtained against persons in the District Courts?
At that point in the letter, as the Garda had also put some solutions in place regarding what had happened to different individuals, it was clear the Garda was concerned that there would be a number but it had no idea that there were 14,700 at that point. The Garda was concerned that some people were summoned to court who should not have been. Some solutions had been put in place and the Garda was linking with the Director of Public Prosecutions and all the relevant bodies. However, a full audit needed to be done. The figure of 14,700 emerged at the press conference just last week.
The Tánaiste was aware in June 2016 that individuals had been wrongly convicted before our courts. She was Minister for Justice and Equality at that time. What did she do about it then?
At that point, the full scale of this issue was being examined to see precisely what the implications of this were. I was aware that action had been taken, so that no further such mistakes could be made. I was awaiting the result of the full audit. My Department was in contact with An Garda Síochána on a regular basis to ensure we would get the full audit.
What is the State's plan to rectify this miscarriage of justice done to so many people?
Clearly, as I said in my opening statement, these issues have to be addressed comprehensively. The plan, as the Garda Commissioner outlined and what we want to see implemented as soon as possible, is that letters will issue on 3 April to all those who have been affected by this. In the first instance, every one of these 14,700 cases will have to go into the District Court and then be referred to the Circuit Court. Each individual case will have to be dealt with individually and separately. In many of the cases, 96% of them, people were brought to court for a range of other issues. It was not simply the issue of one offence. There were about 5,800 cases regarding the NCT, where people were brought in for one offence. In the majority, people were brought in for a series of more serious offences such as speeding or having no insurance. All of the people who were in court were there for a variety of reasons and should have been there. There was a smaller cohort, however, where a summons should not have been issued and those people should not have been brought to court.
Each individual case will have to be assessed. I am informed that what happened in some cases, as the Deputy will be aware, is that some of those offences would have been taken into account by the judge but there would not have been a specific penalty for them. In other cases, there might have been extra penalty points. Of course, there could have been the serious situation when the penalty points reached the level where someone lost their licence. In terms of the numbers, we are not clear on the detail until all of the information emerges after the court cases. It is hoped they will be dealt with speedily.
There already has been work done with the courts to facilitate these issues being dealt with quickly. There will have been consequences for some people of varying sorts, which we have heard about in the media.
I am happy with the answer given. Before I ask another question, I want to preface it by stating that the Tánaiste in her justice portfolio has been aware for nine months that there were wrongful convictions that took place before the District Court. In my submission, she did nothing about it.
On breath test figures, we know the Medical Bureau of Road Safety raised this discrepancy with the Garda Síochána in July 2014. We know the Garda conducted a review in the southern region in 2015 and extended it to the whole country in 2016. We know that in November 2016, it introduced a new IT system to overcome the problem.
When did the Tánaiste become aware of these problems with the breath test figures? Is she satisfied with the fact that An Garda Síochána, to this date, has not been able to explain to the people why 937,000 breath tests were falsely recorded on the PULSE system?
I have put it on the public record that I received a letter in June 2016, outlining that some issues had arisen that the Garda was examining what it needed to do and it was doing a full audit that would be completed in the second quarter of this year. That was the information I had. My Department continued to be in contact with the Garda on when the final audit would be available.
Of course, I am not satisfied that the Garda and the Commissioner have not been in a position to outline why this happened. We have to get to the bottom of this and find out why it happened. What has been happening since last year is that the full audit has been done. Regarding the comparison with the Medical Bureau of Road Safety’s figures, as I understand from Professor Cusack yesterday and from the head of traffic, the comparison between the two sets of figures was only possible when the Garda had its full audit. When the full audit of Garda figures and the bureau’s figures were compared, the discrepancy became completely obvious. It was not obvious to An Garda Síochána, as it has said, until that point. I certainly was not aware of it. I heard the figure of 1 million for the first time like other people at the press conference.
The Tánaiste said in her opening statement that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in April 2014 received a complaint from the Road Safety Authority. If my recollection is correct, the then Minister was Deputy Varadkar. He then referred that to An Garda Síochána. Did he at all discuss with or inform the Tánaiste that he had received a complaint and passed it on to An Garda Síochána?
At that time I was Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. He wrote a letter to the then Minister, Alan Shatter, who referred it to the Garda Commissioner. I was looking in detail at the file today. It was an anonymous complaint with a series of allegations which had been forwarded. It was referred to the Garda Commissioner. In the timeline published the other day, the Garda Commissioner responded just after I had become Minister for Justice and Equality with a detailed letter. This anonymous complaint was about a whole lot of different issues in the western region. They were very varied. The checkpoints were just one of them.
She gave a very detailed report on the actions that had been taken and the investigation that had been done. The person had identified them as a reserve. A meeting took place with all the reserves. Every opportunity was given to people to raise issues and then I went back and asked if further action needed to be taken, and that was up to March 2015.
The Tánaiste just said that the complaint was referred to An Garda Síochána by the Minister for Justice and Equality, yet in her statement she said it was referred to An Garda Síochána by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. Which is it?
It came from-----
No. I am asking who referred it to the Garda?
Both referred it. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport referred it and when we got a copy of the letter, we sent it on as well. Both Departments sent it.
The Tánaiste might clarify that and correct the record.
Both did so.
The Tánaiste also said in June of last year that her Department became aware that some discrepancies had been identified in the mandatory alcohol testing and that the Garda was commencing a national audit, yet we know that national audit started in November 2016 but the review into the discrepancies had begun in 2015. The Tánaiste also said that in that letter An Garda Síochána said there were no issues arising out of the matter in regard to the mandatory alcohol testing but the letter also states that her officials sought regular updates. The Tánaiste said that the first she heard in regard to this as the line manager to the Commissioner was when a statement was made publicly. Is she saying that the Commissioner never discussed this issue with her and never informed her of the scale of it before she informed the media?
This was primarily dealt with by the traffic division. The head of it at the time was, I think, Assistant Commissioner Twomey, now it is Assistant Commissioner Finn and previously it was Assistant Commissioner O'Mahony, and they were doing a number of different jobs in An Garda Síochána. The main people I had an opportunity to discuss this with were at the ministerial meetings we held on transport where these issues obviously were on the agenda regularly in terms of road safety. The Road Safety Authority attended there. That was the primary place where I had the opportunity to be part of a discussion on these issues. In terms of the Garda Commissioner, I had had the detailed report from her back in May 2015. That was the contact I had. The more recent contact was from the assistant commissioner responsible for traffic to my Secretary General. The first time I heard this was at the press conference and the first time my Department heard this was last week.
Given that the Tánaiste was made aware in June 2016 by An Garda Síochána that no issues stemmed from the audit, given that we have now discovered that nearly 1 million breath tests were falsified, given that the Tánaiste was not informed of that as the person responsible for oversight of our policing services, and given that the Commissioner who is accountable to the Tánaiste informed the media before she informed the Tánaiste as her line manager, how can the Tánaiste still have confidence in that individual who went to the media before she went to the Tánaiste?
I want to be clear about a number of the points the Deputy has raised. When I said that no issues stemmed from this audit with regard to the performance of mandatory alcohol testing, MAT, checkpoints or prosecutions emanating from same, and this was contained in the letter of June 2016, I am talking about the breath tests because obviously a different issue emerged in regard to that. Where breath tests were taken and somebody was found to be over the limit, those prosecutions are safe and have gone ahead and nothing arises in regard to that. That is what I am referring to there. In the same letter that I got in June 2016, it was indicated that there had been an audit in the southern region and because of some of the discrepancies that emerged there, the Garda had commenced a national audit. I was clearly aware at that point, because of the information the Garda had about one area, that they were concerned enough to do a national audit and to change procedures at that point. It is subsequent to all of that, as Assistant Commissioner Finn outlined to me at the ministerial meeting yesterday, that they had to go back to all 108 districts and gather all this material, which has been gathered by paper, so to speak. There was no national system of collecting this material and that is the reason it took the time it did to gather the information, but they did express concern about it and they were working on it.
When they expressed that concern in the letter in 2016 and said there were discrepancies in the southern region, did they tell the Tánaiste how many discrepancies there were?
No, not at that time. They did not.
Did the Tánaiste not ask?
I had the report and I was waiting for the further report.
No. Did the Tánaiste not ask for the number of discrepancies?
As I said, we went back on a number of occasions and asked for further information. We were constantly waiting to get the complete national audit because that had been subsumed into a national audit that was more thorough and that was due in June of this year.
So the Tánaiste did ask them. That is what she is saying now.
My Department was in contact with An Garda Síochána over the period-----
Did the Tánaiste ask for the number of discrepancies identified in the southern region? Was she given that figure by An Garda Síochána, yes or no?
At that point I was not given that figure. I received that figure in March this year.
The Tánaiste was not given the figures full stop. They were given to the media before they were given to the Tánaiste. Is that correct?
The Deputy is asking about two different things.
First, in regard to the figures in the southern region-----
Did the Tánaiste ask for those figures when she was told there were discrepancies? She said she asked for them but she was not given them.
No. I did not say I asked for them. I said that what was happening at that point was that there was a full national audit being done and I was awaiting the results. My Department wanted the results of that national audit.
I will ask the question again. Did the Tánaiste ask for the number of discrepancies which were identified in the southern region?
I was not in discussion with John Twomey at that point. My Department-----
Is that a no?
I did not ask but my Department was in contact with the-----
Did the Tánaiste's Department ask for the number of discrepancies?
No, my Department asked for the full audit over the period and what they said was that-----
Tánaiste, it is very clear. Given the scale of the discrepancies of nearly 1 million, the scale of discrepancies in the southern region would have run into hundreds of thousands. The Tánaiste is asking us to believe that nobody said to anyone in her Department that discrepancies had been identified but they were not going to say what level of discrepancies had been identified, and that they were conduct a national audit and report to the Tánaiste. They did not report to her, however, they reported to the media. I ask again, how can she have confidence in a Commissioner who has overseen this?
The Deputy is running out of time. I ask the Tánaiste to be brief.
The figure for the southern region that was made available to us just in March was that there was a 17% discrepancy at that point, but what has emerged is that the discrepancy in the southern region is far greater than that because the discrepancies across all regions are in excess of that. The lowest is 65%.
There is a discrepancy in the discrepancies.
No. What is very clear, and it is one of the reasons the Government made the decision this morning, is that one cannot rely on the internal audits that were done, for example, the southern region audit. It is quite clear that when the full audit was done and they compared what the medical bureau had with their own figures, the discrepancy was much greater, which Assistant Commissioner Finn then put in the public arena last week when he realised-----
Thank you, Tánaiste.
A final question-----
No, Deputy. Your time is up. We have to move on.
Who carried out the audit?
The audit section of An Garda Síochána. It was internal.
I thank the Tánaiste. Our next contributor is Deputy Sean Sherlock.
Has the Tánaiste faith in the Policing Authority? It is a simple question.
Yes. I think the Policing Authority is an excellent body. It is just entering its second year since its establishment.
I have already received its first report on the implementation of the Garda Inspectorate recommendations which I have passed over to the Policing Authority so that it can begin to ensure they are being implemented. It has started a very positive programme of work. It cannot do everything overnight, of course. There are a range of issues to be addressed.
If the Tánaiste has faith in the Policing Authority and if she has known about this since June 2016, why did she leave it until yesterday, according to her statement, to meet Josephine Feehily, the chair of the authority, to state that she was formally referring these issues to her under the Garda Síochána Act?
When the Deputy says I have known about this since June of last year, he should be very clear that I have outlined what the position was at the time. It is easy with hindsight to comment on the scale of the issue, but neither the Garda nor I knew the scale that is now very obvious and which emerged just at the press conference last week and in the reports to my Department around 14 March.
Another point to be made is that on Thursday, I think, the Garda Commissioner met the Policing Authority. As soon as the scale and seriousness of this emerged in its full form last week, I was in touch with the Policing Authority and arranged over the weekend to meet Josephine Feehily. Of course, I am in ongoing contact with her regarding the work she is carrying out. As I said, the Policing Authority is a very important oversight body for An Garda Síochána and is one that needs to be developed. It is also probably the appropriate body to conduct this independent investigation because under the legislation it can employ people to carry out, for example, professional forensic accounting to examine what has happened. I have faith in the Policing Authority.
What I am trying to understand is the internal dynamic that exists between the Tánaiste, the Garda Commissioner, the Garda Inspectorate and the Policing Authority. People watching these proceedings will question why the Policing Authority issued a statement today that states:
The Authority again expressed its disappointment at not being advised in a timely manner that an audit into the breath test issues was underway. Despite questioning over several months, the Authority has not [...] been provided with the full internal reports or indeed a clear sense of how these matters have been handled to date within the Garda Síochána or the status and content of the audits which have been undertaken.
The Authority considered the correspondence received from the Garda Commissioner on Friday 24 March last in which the Commissioner requested that the Authority refer a number of matters to the Garda Inspectorate.
What I am trying to get at is the reason the Policing Authority would issue a statement of this nature. One can only surmise, and I ask the Tánaiste to correct me if I am wrong, that the Government does not have enough faith in the Policing Authority due to its not engaging in a more timely fashion with the Department regarding the modalities of the issue at hand.
The Deputy cannot draw that conclusion at all because-----
I ask the Tánaiste to correct me then.
Why would he draw that conclusion? What the Policing Authority said was that it reacted, and in a forthright statement, as the Deputy said, when it heard about the scale of the issues. It put out the statement from which the Deputy quoted stating that it did raise the most serious issues. It was disappointed and annoyed, I would say, that the alcohol testing information had not been passed on to it.
Whose obligation was that?
It was the obligation of An Garda Síochána. Whether it was the obligation of whoever was in contact with the authority, it should have emerged at the various management meetings it had with An Garda Síochána. Deputy Commissioner Twomey has apologised for not making the authority aware of the audit, but the key point is that the audit was ongoing. The authority is disappointed that it was not informed of the audit because, of course-----
I have limited time.
-----it would be concerned about the various issues.
This speaks to the heart of the culture of management in An Garda Síochána. Again, there is an inherent weakness in this regard. There should have been an obligation on the part of An Garda Síochána, surely, to inform the Policing Authority in a timely fashion. Does the Tánaiste agree with that statement?
It certainly would have been far preferable if the Policing Authority had been aware on an ongoing basis of what was happening in respect of the audit. However, I make the point that a very broad range of work and oversight is being conducted by the Policing Authority over An Garda Síochána and-----
This is very serious.
It is extremely serious. I am not saying it is not serious. However, I wish to make the point that the Policing Authority goes into a whole range of issues in specific areas to discuss, for example, civilianisation, recruitment, the Reserve-----
Yes, but, a Cheann Comhairle-----
-----and the general management.
The Deputy must let the Tánaiste answer-----
I appreciate that. We can no longer keep giving An Garda Síochána mismanagement political cover. Decisions must be taken as to how the force is managed. I understand the predicament in which the Tánaiste finds herself, but we need to hear about concrete actions from her. Given that we have a Garda Inspectorate, a Policing Authority and a Department of Justice and Equality, when can we expect to see a root-and-branch change, and why does an external service need to do this when we have two State entities already? There are quite a number of quite sensible recommendations in the Garda Inspectorate report. We should now see the implementation of these and a political willingness to do so. Those are the messages we need to hear in this House because the people outside these walls, with every new scandal that emerges, are losing faith in policing in this country.
In the short time available to me, I refer again to the Tánaiste's statement that there will be some remedy for those who were incorrectly convicted. I wish to quote directly from her full written speech again. It states, "Letters will begin issuing to these individuals on 3 April." It also states, "All of these cases will be appealed by An Garda Síochána in order to ensure that the courts set aside these convictions, all fines will be reimbursed and penalties removed, and all of those affected will be contacted directly by An Garda Síochána." She states definitively that these convictions will be overturned. What further remedies, if any, are open to these people who, in certain circumstances, may feel as if their good names were tarnished in having to appear before judges in district courts, potentially on unsound convictions? Will there be further remedies besides the issuing of the letters and the revocation of the fines so that those affected might have their good names restored?
Compensation issues may well arise - that is certainly a possibility - and this will depend on the details of each case. We will have to wait to see precisely what emerges from these court hearings. It is impossible to predict at this point. As I said, all the cases that came to court needed to come to court except for the 5,600 in respect of which there was only one charge. In the other 96% of cases, other offences were involved.
The authority is overseeing the reforms that have been outlined by everyone, in particular by the Garda Inspectorate, which have now been incorporated into the reforms set out in An Garda Síochána's five-year plan. I have the first report, it is available for Deputies to read and the Policing Authority is overseeing the changes being implemented. Clearly, there is more work to be done, but if we had not established a Policing Authority and if we did not have a Garda Inspectorate, what we have been hearing about in recent days might not have emerged. Issues such as these are appalling - we are all appalled - and the figures involved are staggering, but it is important that they are out there in the full public light and that action can now be taken on them. The Policing Authority will have a key role in dealing with them.
Yesterday, while arguing that she should stay in the top job while the investigation goes on, the Garda Commissioner said we have to keep the lights on while we are rewiring the house. It is an interesting analogy. The people who should be the keyholders of the house, the people of Ireland, have lost all faith in the chief electrician and believe she should be given the sack. This may well come to a vote in the House. The Garda Commissioner also said yesterday that if the House votes in favour of her removal, she will refuse to resign. I do not think I am the only person who was struck by the arrogance of that position and who felt that the top brass has a brass neck. If that situation arises, and this House votes for the removal of the Garda Commissioner, will the Tánaiste, as Minister for Justice and Equality, respect the will of the majority in this House and remove the Garda Commissioner from her post?
It is laid out very clearly in legislation whose responsibility it is to take that step should it arise. It would be very wrong, indeed inaccurate, to say that the Dáil removes people in such circumstances. It does not. It is a decision of Government. The independent Policing Authority can also make its views known to the Government. I put that into the legislation. If that situation arises it can recommend that to Government.
If this House votes that she be removed as Garda Commissioner, will the Tánaiste respect the will of the House or will she refuse to act, defy the will of the House and keep her in her job until the next scandal arises?
I will not comment on a potential situation. The Government has said it has confidence in the Garda Commissioner to get on with the job it has asked her to do. She got her position as a result of an independent international competition. She has been asked to undertake important reforms of An Garda Síochána, which are under way, which need to be addressed and she has outlined a five-year plan for their implementation. I am making sure that is overseen by the Policing Authority. She needs to get on with that job. The Government said today that because of the range of issues that have emerged concerning An Garda Síochána, we should establish an independent commission similar to the Patten commission to analyse precisely the future of An Garda Síochána. I hope Deputies will work with me on this, and several parties have made this suggestion.
There has been one scandal after another: Maurice McCabe, John Wilson, Dave Taylor, Nicky Keogh, Keith Harrison, the bugging of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, the tapping of calls from Garda stations and now the falsification of Garda records on an industrial scale across the country. It underlines the strength of the socialist demand that there be a sharp break with the policing model in this country and that it be replaced by a new model of democratic community control over policing. Twenty-seven days from the biggest political trial seen in this State since 1970, the credibility of An Garda Síochána - a key part of the prosecution in the Jobstown trials - is at an all-time low.
When it was reported to the Tánaiste that the southern area audit had been completed and that it was sufficiently worrying to prompt a national audit, did she ask what was the scale of the discrepancies in that audit? Did she ask that question?
The Deputy has talked about a new policing model. There has been discussion for a long time as to whether policing and security duties ought to be done by the one body. There is a range of discussions of management of An Garda Síochána. All of those issues would benefit from the kind of root and branch independent commission we suggest, given their scale. Day-to-day policing needs to continue. In the past year we have been dealing with serious murders and the issues Deputies have raised in the House about burglaries. All of that work must continue, as must the reforms that are under way. Any new body needs to take account of the work being done on the changes that are being overseen by the Policing Authority-----
We are running out of time.
-----and the Garda Inspectorate. Their recommendations are being implemented.
Does the Tánaiste think it is necessary for senior Garda management, particularly the Garda Commissioner, to enjoy the confidence of the public in order for that Commissioner and management to function effectively? It seems to me that has to be the case. If it is not the case that person is not suitable. Can the Tánaiste honestly tell us with a straight face that the public has confidence in Nóirín O'Sullivan? Is it not the case that, if there is even a whit of truth in the fact that she was involved in a smear campaign against Maurice McCabe, that she is trying to go after Dave Taylor because he blew the whistle or that she failed to act on a culture that could produce 14,700 wrongful convictions and 937,000 fake breath tests, she has to go and heads have to roll right across the board? If that is a possibility – and it is one without prejudging it – can the Tánaiste seriously suggest the public can have confidence while she remains in position?
As an extension of that question, we have suggested that Nóirín O'Sullivan be suspended without prejudice since the Maurice McCabe affair. We suggested that was normal practice for public and civil servants. The Tánaiste disputed that when I suggested it a few weeks ago. I then asked in a parliamentary question how many people under the Tánaiste's remit had been suspended without prejudice on full pay and discovered that there were 26. That is the highest number of any Department. Subsequently I asked were they in the Garda or where were they, and despite the normal practice of answering a parliamentary question within four days I received an answer to the effect that the Tánaiste could not answer the question. I suspect a lot of those people who have been suspended on full pay, without prejudice pending investigations are in the Garda. That however does not apply to Nóirín O'Sullivan. Is there one law for Nóirín O'Sullivan and another one for people under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality and in the Garda?
The Deputy is going back over a debate we had in the House about the setting up of the Charleton inquiry. He is accusing the Garda Commissioner of several actions. The purpose of the Charleton commission is to examine all of those issues.
I am saying they are allegations.
I am making the point that it is inappropriate when we have set up a tribunal to examine those allegations which the Deputy has outlined and is outlining again, which have been denied by the Garda Commissioner. We set up the tribunal to examine those and to make sure there is fairness in respect of everyone's position as far as that is concerned. On the second point about confidence, of course the public's confidence has been greatly damaged by this. I want to ensure that confidence is rebuilt.
As the Taoiseach said earlier, there is some excellent policing being done up and down the country. Everybody acknowledges that and it can be seen when we look at the figures relating to Operation Thor and the dedicated policing shown there. We can see the security provided to this State by An Garda Síochána, on which I do not have to elaborate today. I just make the point-----
Can we believe those figures?
It is not rubbish.
I asked whether we can believe those figures.
We have to rebuild confidence in An Garda Síochána. I accept what is being said. I am very concerned that confidence has been so impaired by what has emerged in recent times. I have outlined a way of addressing that.
The Tánaiste did not explain why 26 people under her remit have been suspended without prejudice.
That is not in the Department of Justice and Equality, it is across the agencies of the Department.
The Tánaiste will not tell us whether it is in An Garda Síochána. Why was it done?
Deputy Broughan is sharing his time with Deputy Clare Daly and Deputy Wallace.
I, like many others, was shocked to read the article by David Labanyi in The Irish Times on 20 February which first revealed the problems with mandatory alcohol testing, MAT. I tabled five parliamentary questions to the Tánaiste inquiring about the number of MAT checkpoints operated in each county between 2009 and 2015 and the number of disposable mouthpieces ordered by An Garda Síochána during that period. In the composite answer she provided on 28 February, the Tánaiste did not answer those questions. However, she did say, "The Garda authorities have also assured me that no issues stem from this audit with regard to the performance of MAT checkpoints or prosecutions emanating therefrom." Did the Tánaiste not mislead me and Dáil Éireann? Should she not be considering her own position? There has been much talk of the Garda Commissioner doing so.
The Garda website says that no single reason accounts for the huge discrepancy of 1 million tests that did not take place. We are told about specific counter readings and that there was no central recording process for the 1,200 devices. What are the reasons for this? What has the Tánaiste discovered?
This is one of a series of cock-ups and maladministration in the implementation of road traffic law. The Tánaiste has failed to bring forward the Courts (No. 2) Bill 2016 regarding fixed notice charges. Between 40% and 85% of road traffic speeding summonses were not served in 2015 and 2016. The wording of section 22 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 on the inspection of driving licences in court has not been fixed. I could go on all night about things that the Tánaiste has not done with regard to traffic law. Is it not time the Tánaiste considered her position?
I remind Deputy Broughan of the series of reforms I have initiated and the range of legislation I have enacted since I became Minister for Justice and Equality. When I took up my position, I said that radical change was needed in the justice area and in policing. That is what I have been doing. I have been intent on ensuring that there is more transparency and more objective mechanisms. Deputies continually talk about taking politics out of policing. That is what I attempted to do by ensuring that the Police Authority is a robust body. It is important that we allow that body to do its work.
I did not mislead the Deputy or the House when answering his parliamentary questions. I gave the information that was available to me at the time. I said that, in the context of the original letter of June 2016, no convictions had been impacted upon by what happened in cases where people were above the alcohol level. Clearly, the situation that arose was one where people were either saying they had done tests that they had not or were incorrectly putting them through. Questions arise about supervision and training. Questions also arise as to whether people, because of the demands on them, did not input the figures immediately after a checkpoint.
The Tánaiste is talking about introducing the most significant reforms in policing since the foundation of the State. This is a joke. The Tánaiste talks about the Police Authority being a robust body. It is toothless. We told the Tánaiste this when she brought the legislation forward. She introduced changes in respect of GSOC that have left it still unfit for purpose and unable to do the job. That is part of the reason we are here today.
The Tánaiste has not depoliticised the situation. That is why she is directly connected to the Garda Commissioner now. The Tánaiste must be afraid of her life that she is going to go down with the Commissioner. The Tánaiste refused to separate her office from that of the Garda Commissioner. The Policing Authority is not the body needed to create a buffer between them.
The Taoiseach spent two and a half minutes today explaining why the Garda Commissioner is not fit for office, after which he gave her the dreaded vote of confidence. In football terms, when a manger loses ten games in a row and the chairman comes out and gives him a vote of confidence, everyone knows the manager is finished. What in God's name is delaying the Taoiseach? Is the Government waiting for a more politically expedient point to get rid of the Garda Commissioner? She is finished and the Government know she is.
There is talk of another report. People are sick to the back teeth of hearing that. Garda Inspectorate reports were published in March 2014, November 2014 and December 2015. They were good, independent reports. However, the people who were expected to initiate the reforms were those who needed reforming. Reform of the Oireachtas and the Department of Justice and Equality is also needed. Does the Tánaiste know how many pages are in the Garda Inspectorate report of 2015, Changing Policing in Ireland? There are 442. How many more pages are needed? We know what needs to be done but there has not been the political will do it. There has not been the will in the Garda hierarchy to do it.
Not only has the Commissioner lost the support of the people, she has lost the support of her own troops. The gardaí on the ground who the Tánaiste says are doing great work up and down the country have had enough of the Garda Commissioner. They cannot wait for her to be gone. In the past couple of months, I have been approached by a huge number of gardaí wondering when in God's name are we going to get rid of her. The Tánaiste has to stop delaying. The Commissioner has not a hope of seeing out the year. There are a couple of investigations which will cut the ground from under her. The Government is just playing with the issue and playing for time.
Deputy Wallace has obviously decided the outcome before the facts are heard. There are systemic issues which need to be addressed. It is very clear that this is not about one person.
I reject what the Deputy said about the direction taken by this Government. We took over a situation where there had been no investment in An Garda Síochána. Templemore had been closed, there was no recruitment, no independent recruitment and no independent body. Recommendations were being made by the Garda Inspectorate and these are now being implemented and monitored by the Policing Authority. I am sure the Deputy has seen the first report, which outlines what has been done in terms of reforms. There is clearly a huge amount of work to be done. I am absolutely committed to doing it.
The Government has shown its good faith in terms of the resources it has allocated to this. There is a huge amount of data relating to road traffic issues. The decision to give €200 million to improve the database is absolutely critical. Many of these issues arose because there was no national database being used by An Garda Síochána. There is clearly a huge amount of work to be done which is being supported by Government and the independent bodies.
The Tánaiste might think she can talk down the clock on this one-----
I am not trying to do that.
-----and that if the Government bides its time and we all sit here talking about it, then it is going to go away. The language used earlier by the Taoiseach was strikingly similar, if not practically identical, to that used by the Tánaiste two and a half years ago when discussing a previous fixed charge notice controversy.
A year after two commissions of inquiry and the Members of this House having been told that the new system was in place, Maurice McCabe had to make another protected disclosure to say the system was not working. The Tánaiste at that time stated it was very important that we get the facts of the situation before conclusions are reached. Public confidence, the integrity of the system and the public interest is very important also. The Tánaiste needed to have an independent external investigation so she sent that to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. That was three years ago; nothing happened. Why should we accept another review when the reviews that have been done made recommendations which have not been implemented? The Tánaiste did not even bother chasing up the ones she set up because where is the outcome? Why should we believe that if she sets up another review she will follow it through? What will it take for the Tánaiste to take action and realise that she cannot reform an organisation if those at the helm come from the old ways of doing things?
We now move to the Rural Independent Group. I call Deputy Michael Healy-Rae who I understand is sharing his time.
If the Tánaiste thinks for one minute that I am going to attack her here tonight, she has another thing coming. I want to say to the Tánaiste that I support her in her role as Minister for Justice and Equality. I believe she has done nothing wrong in this entire matter. There are questions to be answered and there are problems but I support the Tánaiste in the same way I support the chief superintendents, the superintendents and the rank and file gardaí I met yesterday while going about my duties in County Kerry and other areas.
There are questions that need to be answered and they are very serious. There are five basic questions the Commissioner has to answer. Why was the number of roadside breath tests inflated by almost 1 million? That is crazy. How was the falsification of breath tests recorded allowed to go undetected for so long? Who will be held accountable for the misreporting of the number of breath tests? How was a situation allowed to develop whereby 14,700 motorists were wrongfully brought to court? That is outrageous when we consider that people had their good names taken.
I support Sinn Féin Members and, in particular, Deputy O'Callaghan of Fianna Fáil, who raised earlier very serious questions about the Commissioner. If Members allow me, I will be a little more balanced in that people are saying she should go but I am saying she should step aside while, as the Taoiseach has said, an outside investigation is taking place. That is more plausible, fair and reasonable. That would give every person a chance to allow an investigation to take place and to see the results of that. If that means that the Commissioner will have to go, that is fine. If it means she should stay, that is fine. However, I compliment Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin on the stance they have taken and for saying this is totally wrong because when I go about my duties in County Kerry the people on the ground ask me what has gone wrong in this matter.
I was very happy to hear Deputy Micheál Martin say what he said on Leaders' Questions earlier because it is right. The Government might appear to be under attack but I do not want the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality to be under attack. She was not responsible for the falsification of any statistics that have been put in the public domain.
With regard to statistics, through my own work in recent months I have discovered an enormous number of irregularities with regard to statistics being used by the Road Safety Authority, and others, when they are accounting for road fatalities. There are many anomalies in those figures. I have those statistics. I will not go into them now because this is not the time or place to do that but I will be using them in the future because the public are being misled.
I want to say to the ordinary garda out on the street today, whether in Dublin or in Kerry, and to the sergeant, the superintendent or the chief superintendent, that they have my confidence. I believe they should have the confidence of every elected Member of Dáil Éireann but we have to investigate and find out what went wrong and how such falsifications were made public. It is up to us then to deal with the situation that arises. In the time being, it would be better for the Commissioner to reflect intelligently upon the situation. A smart question was asked here earlier. If Dáil Éireann votes in favour of the Commissioner stepping aside for a period, she should listen very closely to that and I mean that in the most respectful way.
Like Deputy Healy-Rae, I fully support the Tánaiste in the job she has but I believe at this stage that the position of the Garda Commissioner, Nóirín O'Sullivan, is untenable and that she must immediately step aside to prevent any further erosion of the reputation and the integrity of An Garda Síochána. I came to that conclusion after the Commissioner acknowledged that almost 14,700 people were wrongly convicted of motoring offences due to Garda error and that the Garda had exaggerated the number of breathalyser tests by 937,000. That beggars belief.
The public have reached scandal saturation point with respect to the breadth and scale of the latest Garda mismanagement fiasco. I support the ordinary rank and file gardaí on the ground 100%, and sergeants, inspectors, superintendents and chief superintendents, but the public are witnessing a constant drip of highly damaging information that is corroding the public trust in the Garda at a time when the reputation of the force is already at crisis point. That must be extremely demoralising for the rank and file gardaí on the ground, especially when it appears that there is zero accountability at the very highest levels of the organisation. The rank and file gardaí are the ones who put on their uniform every day, leave their families behind and go out to defend all of us. There is a thin line in terms of respect for them, democracy and what, since the foundation of the State, they try to enforce.
The Commissioner, by clinging on to her position, is only delaying the inevitable and causing real and long-lasting damage to the wider reputation of An Garda Síochána. It is no longer credible for the Commissioner to say that she is part of the solution and not part of the problem, especially when one considers that she has held senior positions in Garda human resources management since 2003 and was promoted to the position of deputy commissioner with responsibility for operations in 2011. Deputy O'Callaghan questioned the Tánaiste earlier on various issues that arose in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The Commissioner was deputy commissioner with responsibility for operations during that period. If she did not know what was going on, she should have known. The buck stops with her.
For almost 14 years, the Commissioner has been in a position to effect internal reform of the Garda and demonstrate accountability but that accountability must start at the top. As things stand, and with clear indications that there is more to come in terms of unacceptable practices, which we heard about in the statements last week, it is time for the Commissioner to step aside. The public cannot have confidence in the Commissioner's protests around instituting robust accountability measures when she appears to have excluded herself from those checks, regardless of what scandal emerges. That is the position.
Does the Tánaiste not believe that the public has reached scandal saturation point with respect to the breadth and scale of the latest Garda mismanagement fiasco? Does she not believe that it has done huge damage to its reputation, which is very important to retired members, members of the Reserve, who are being encouraged to join in radio advertisements and who want to do that, and the vast majority of members of An Garda Síochána who do an excellent job? The Tánaiste might answer those questions.
I thank Deputies Michael Healy-Rae and Mattie McGrath for their comments and questions. Of course, I am aware of the criticisms that have been made regarding the lack of explanation as to precisely what happened regarding the breath tests. I accept fully that, as both Deputies noted, we need full explanations. It is obvious that Garda breath tests were not recorded properly by a number of gardaí and robust systems were not in place. Of course, this has led to a lack of confidence. I have no doubt about that. We must re-establish that confidence but I do not believe there is any one action that will re-establish that confidence. I think it must be a series of actions, quite a number of which I have outlined here. At this point, it is only speculation as to what happened. Was it carelessness, exaggeration or deceit? This is why I agree with what both Deputies have said, namely, that we need an investigation into this. We need to find out who was responsible for this, what happened to supervision and whether there was collusion. There are many districts here because this exaggeration is right across the divisions. It is extremely serious. That is why the Government and I believe an independent investigation is the way forward in respect of finding the answers to the questions both Deputies have asked about this. It has undoubtedly dented confidence and we and Garda management need to rebuild it. I think Garda management can do this by being more transparent in everything it does and outlining the reforms.
When we came in here this evening, we were told there was to be a review. During the debate, the Tánaiste told us that it would be a Patten-like commission, which is fundamentally different. The Tánaiste needs to clarify exactly what is proposed because if we are looking at a Patten-like commission, she is then questioning the changes she made and is certainly not expressing confidence in An Garda Síochána because that is a fundamental change and that is what she announced this evening. The Tánaiste told us this evening that there was a minimum inflation rate of 65%. These phantom breath tests were supposedly carried out and supervised and they were recorded. I spoke to a former garda who knows about these things. He told me that these tests are supposed to be supervised by an inspector or superintendent. That often did not happen. Anyone who highlighted an issue of deficiency in the system was totally vilified. The management was aware it was extremely poorly managed. Some quiet roads were expected to produce the same number of fines as busy roads. There was always the magic number of three per checkpoint - three seat belt offences, three tax or NCT offences or three failed breath tests. All one needs to do is talk to somebody who was involved in this. I was told the collection of fines was assigned to specific warrant officers. This proved to be inefficient and collection was not really prioritised. At times, cheques and money orders were collected and not processed. They were left in drawers in Garda stations. A huge number of fines were cancelled in courts because the fines were there and there was inefficiency. How does the Garda Commissioner not know that this is happening if it is known at management level that there are difficulties with this system? I do not buy people being aware of tittle-tattle about Deputy Wallace's phone but not knowing about something as significant as this. I think this was a wholesale and systematic system of inflation throughout the force. Could the Tánaiste tell us whether it will be a Patten-like commission?
What the Government has said is that we believe that given the series of issues that have emerged, it is time for a review of the issues I outlined earlier to the House about the organisation and management of An Garda Síochána. However, I have also said that I want to consult with colleagues around the House and have a discussion about the best way forward. Some people have called for a Patten-like commission while others have said that we need an independent review, for example, of policing and security and the management systems that are in place. Many people think that some of the areas for which gardaí have responsibility should be completely civilianised. All these issues need examination. I am just giving a broad outline of our thinking on that at this point.
In respect of the Deputy's argument that it was systematic throughout An Garda Síochána, that is very clear in respect of alcohol testing. It is very clear that it was across all areas and that figures were inflated across all districts. This is why we need an independent examination of precisely what happened.
This involves errors in 146,000 fixed charge notices, 15,000 wrongful convictions, a million fake breath tests, allegations of falsification of checkpoint figures, allegations of falsification of speeding figures and, most concerning, the claim last Sunday by Jim Cusack that the Garda Síochána Inspectorate found that An Garda Síochána has been covering up and lying about serious crime, including rape. Does the Tánaiste now accept that we cannot believe anything An Garda Síochána tells us about any data or statistics? Does the Tánaiste accept there is a serious cultural problem in the higher echelons of Garda management? Does the Tánaiste accept that the only way to break and change that culture is for those responsible and engaged in wrongdoing to be removed from their positions? Does the Tánaiste accept that it is the job of the Commissioner as the person responsible for discipline to take that action at an early stage? Does the Tánaiste accept that if the Commissioner is not prepared to do that and if she is not up to the job of enforcing discipline within An Garda Síochána, she should go?
I believe that action should be taken if wrongdoing has happened. The scale of it-----
Why is the Tánaiste saying "if"? She knows there is wrongdoing.
Clearly, once the independent examination has been carried out and the facts emerge-----
This is the old trick - playing for time.
We do not have explanations at present. I do not have the explanations. As Deputy Shortall heard at the press conference, An Garda Síochána does not have an explanation as to why this happened.
They had three years to get an explanation.
What An Garda Síochána has arrived at is the scale of the audit. I agree with Deputy Shortall that it is unsatisfactory that at this point, we do not have answers as to how this happened, who was involved and why it happened. I want to get those answers as quickly as possible and I agree with Deputy Shortall that people must be held accountable. Of course, people should be disciplined and if people have to be removed, of course, they should be removed. I would expect the Garda Commissioner to do that when and if those facts emerge. Clearly, the scale of what has happened is enormous.
In respect of Deputy Shortall's point about culture, this has long been identified by the Garda Inspectorate reports. Some months ago, tenders were put out regarding a cultural audit that is being undertaken. The Policing Authority will have oversight of that. This is another attempt to get to the bottom of the issues that maintain the type of behaviour we have seen in recent weeks.
In response to Deputy Catherine Murphy, I would say that we must build on the reforms that are already in place. It is not about negating the reforms that have already been made. It will be about building on those reforms. I do not believe that it undermines them to say that we need this overall examination because of the scale of what has emerged.
The phrase "grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented" comes to mind in respect of this issue.
In the wake of scandal after scandal and cover-up after cover-up, systemic malfunction after systemic malfunction and systemic failure after systemic failure, I ask the Tánaiste whether a root and branch reform and restructuring of An Garda Síochána is now urgently needed. Is it not time that the Commissioner and the top tier of the Garda is removed immediately? Is it not time that a Patten-type commission be put in place to reform and restructure An Garda Síochána? Will the Tánaiste give us an assurance here tonight that no rank and file gardaí will be scapegoated by any investigation arising from this issue?
I thank the Deputy. I also want to respond to another point on whether we can believe any of the statistics being published. I want to make the point that I initiated action and met the Central Statistics Office to ensure the current crime statistics were more robust than they had been and the CSO has confirmed that they are. That work is ongoing but I want to make the point that the work has been done. It is important we are aware of that fact.
The Deputy asked whether a more root and branch reform of An Garda Síochána is necessary, as well as the changes that have already been implemented. I have said here tonight that I believe this is something we should consider and the Government announced it earlier today. I want to engage with Deputies in this House as to the exact form this should take. Clearly that will be a longer-term measure but it is extremely important at this stage, given the range of issues that have emerged. In the meantime, we must continue to address all the issues that have been addressed by the Garda Síochána Inspectorate that have emerged. Action is being taken on a whole range of issues. With the penalty points issue, for example, we now have a robust system in place that has objective verification and the numbers dealing with the issue have reduced. We must deal with each individual concern in this way to get to the bottom of what has actually been happening.
We now have 28 minutes remaining for other questions. The list is as follows; Deputies Pringle, McGuinness, Curran, Michael McGrath, Troy, Connolly, Breathnach, Fitzmaurice, O'Keeffe and McDonald. I am concentrating on those Deputies who did not have an opportunity already. I invite Deputy Pringle and I shall be quite strict on time. The Deputy has one minute.
I will be brief. We heard on "Morning Ireland" this morning that the Medical Bureau of Road Safety audited 200 breath test units, which the Garda figures showed to have done over 400,000 tests. The units had actually only done 200,000 tests. This was in August 2015. The bureau immediately contacted the Garda to tell it there was a problem with the reporting. It was, however, ten months later before the Garda contacted the Department and told it there was no issue with mandatory alcohol testing, MAT, data checks in this regard. Has the Tánaiste asked the Commissioner to explain why it took An Garda Síochána ten months to contact the Department? If the Tánaiste has not asked this, then why not?
I thank the Deputy for observing the time. The Tánaiste has one minute.
I have had detailed discussions with the Commissioner about this whole issue. A key question has been the information flow to the Department regarding the scale of the matter. As I have explained, the audit was under way and the Garda was responding to the letter it had received from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. The issue had emerged and concerns were raised also by individuals. The Garda decided it would carry out audits on the MAT data for the last year in June 2016 and I waited. In June 2016 it informed me of the work it had been doing and was now completing a national audit - as it said - up to the second quarter of this year.
The Sergeant Maurice McCabe issue and the general whistleblowers issue has given a clear indication to us that there is corruption and poor management within the Garda force and the Tánaiste does not need a report to do because they have given us that information. What we are now witnessing is the catastrophic failure of management of An Garda Síochána. I believe that because the management is central to this and it cannot oversee the type of reform that is necessary. Calls have been made for those people to stand aside or to give others a chance to come in and manage things better. That is what needs to be done. There are a million cases and the Tánaiste cannot convince me that throughout the State there is not a number of gardaí who have the information in respect of all of this. How can the Tánaiste expect the current Commissioner and those around her to find the information and bring it forward in a public way when the information was there for so long and ignored? It was a cover-up.
I repeat that the audit was done internally. The facts were put into the public arena by An Garda Síochána, which is important. The system we have put in place for the implementation of reforms includes independent supervision of those reforms by the Policing Authority. This needs to be developed and enhanced. We need to support the Policing Authority to ensure that we get very transparent sight of the issues and of the actions being taken to deal with the range of subjects on the table now. We know there are many concerns because of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate report and its more than 1,000 recommendations. The recommendations are not going to be implemented overnight but they do need to be implemented and it is being overseen by the Policing Authority. I am relying on the Policing Authority to have that oversight but clearly Garda management must play its role also.
The Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and our party leader all spoke of the seriousness of this issue and in particular about the public perception and confidence in An Garda Síochána. One of the reasons for this is that the Garda seems to be continually embroiled in issues such as this. The Tánaiste said she was aware last summer of the fixed charge notice issue and the convictions but not about the scale of the matter. I have only two questions for the Tánaiste and I do not know if she can answer both of them tonight. What other issues of governance, procedure or possible wrongdoing has been made known to the Tánaiste and her Department and what specific actions are being taken in that regard? The Tánaiste and the Government have said they have confidence in the Commissioner but it is clear that the Tánaiste does not have confidence in the inquiries into the matter advocated and advanced by the Commissioner last Saturday. Is it possible and credible that the Tánaiste has confidence in the Commissioner but not in the actions of the Commissioner?
With regard to the first question, this has come up a number of times following on from the Commissioner's remarks that other issues may emerge. I asked the Commissioner whether she was referring to specific issues. She said no, it was just a point she was making about examining past procedures and being intent on reform and that issues would now come into the public arena that had not come into the public arena before. She was making that remark in a general way.
The Deputy asked about any other information I might have on scandals or issues of governance. There is no particular issue. The Commissioner may have been referring to the Templemore report also and I understand that is being published today or tomorrow. That report clearly raises serious governance issues and will be referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Committee of Public Accounts. Other than that, there is nothing specific to which I would refer with regard to the second question.
I will take the Tánaiste back to the letter about the breath tests from the Garda to the Department of Justice and Equality in June 2016. The Tánaiste has said there was no indication given in that letter as to the scale of the problem. It is clear from what the Commissioner told me yesterday and from her public statements that it was not at that time known to Garda management either. We know from the director of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety that An Garda Síochána was informed in autumn 2015 - with respect to the sample checked by the bureau - that the actual figures were out by 100% vis-à-vis the figures on the PULSE system. There was a figure of some 400,000 on PULSE as opposed to 200,000 actual mouthpieces used.
The Garda had that information. It also knew from its own audit of the southern region that there was a very serious discrepancy. Is the Tánaiste really saying to the House that, in June 2016, knowing all of that information, the Garda Commissioner gave no indication whatsoever of the gravity of the problem the Garda was tackling and seeking to measure? That is an extraordinary position. Is it the case that the Tánaiste did not ask and the Commissioner did not tell her, even though they had been told of the scale of the problem at that stage?
The Garda would not have been aware of the scale of the problem at that point because the audit had not been completed.
The southern audit had been.
Well, that is my information.
The Tánaiste, without interruption.
Just to be clear, they knew the figures were out by hundreds of thousands. They knew that in the autumn of 2015. That is a fact. They knew it.
The Tánaiste to respond.
I am informed by An Garda Síochána, indeed the public has been informed by An Garda Síochána, that the scale of the problem only became clear when they had the full figures of their own audit, just a few weeks ago, and these figures were compared with the database. The database had always been available, and one of the points I would make is that there should have been much closer liaison in respect of the national statistics. If the Garda had been collecting them, that would have dealt with this issue much earlier. However, that was not happening then. I would point out to the Deputy that when Assistant Commissioner Twomey wrote to the Department in June 2016, it is clear that the Garda authorities were concerned because at that point they said they were moving to a national audit. That audit continues. In the letter, it was made very clear that the Garda authorities were concerned and that was why they were taking action in respect of the discrepancies that had come to their attention. I presume, at that stage, they were putting together the information from the southern region plus the information from the medical bureau. They did say they were moving to a national audit.
There were no numbers given.
No. At that point, no. They identified it as an issue that needed a national audit.
I thank the Tánaiste. I want to accommodate a number of others. I have to be fair to all. I call Deputy Robert Troy.
Does the Tánaiste accept that the management could not but be aware, given the fact that, in August 2015, Professor Cusack informed the Garda that only 200,000 mouthpieces were provided for a time when they claimed 400,000 breath tests had been carried out? How could senior management not be aware of the scale of inaccuracies at that time? I do not know how the Tánaiste can accept that they were unaware.
In respect of the Road Safety Authority indicating in 2014 that there was an issue, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport at the time wrote to the Garda making it aware of his concerns. An Garda Síochána indicated in a detailed letter to the Department of Justice and Equality in May 2014 that it had looked into the claims regarding MAT checkpoints and was satisfied that correct procedures were in place. Who conducted that review? Is the person who conducted it still a serving member of An Garda Síochána?
Which review is the Deputy speaking about? I just missed that.
In May 2014, the Tánaiste's Department got a detailed letter back from An Garda Síochána saying that it had looked into the claims regarding MAT checkpoints and was satisfied that the correct procedures were in place.
Just to make the point, although I have already said this, there is a difference between MAT checkpoints and doing the breathalyser tests. The Garda authorities are satisfied that the figures in respect of the checkpoints are robust because, from a legal point of view, under legislation, they have to be authorised. They could only be wrong if somebody was taken off a checkpoint and the inspector has to report on that. That is the point I am making. The review was done in the western region because it was about the western region. Quite a number of initiatives were taken to try to deal with the issues that were in the whistleblower's letter.
In respect of the medical bureau----
Did they not state in the letter that the figures were inflated?
There are other Members I have to facilitate. Tánaiste, if you would deal with the question.
It said there were concerns about a whole range of issues. There were many, many issues.
Including the figures?
I am not sure that it mentioned figures but it probably said it was concerned about the accuracy.
In respect of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, the letter from it to An Garda Síochána was provided to me by the Commissioner at our meeting on 27 March. The letter did not set out any figures, nor did it raise any concerns about statistics. However, it referred to the ordering of testing equipment and noted that An Garda Síochána had not placed a request for additional equipment. Clearly, the implications of that should have alerted people at that point. It was after that, and as the audit emerged from the southern region, that the Garda authorities could see that they would need to audit further.
The previous two speakers asked the question that I am going to ask again now. When the anonymous complaint emerged, it concerned exactly this issue among others. Is the Tánaiste satisfied? An examination was carried out from which no issues arose. That was the first thing, in May. If the Tánaiste listens - and I think she should - to the transcript of today's edition of "Morning Ireland", she will hear that the bureau wrote in July 2014 to tell the Garda that the numbers did not add up, and it did not order any more mouthpieces for 2015 and 2016. Is the Tánaiste really stating that her Department was not informed by the Garda from July 2014 when the figures did not add up or that she and her Department had no knowledge of that very serious issue again in 2015? Is she telling us that the first time she or her Department became aware of the matter was in June of 2016? Is that what the Tánaiste is telling the House? If she is, there is something seriously wrong. We are now facing another independent inquiry because the basic facts that should be laid before this House by the Commissioner, through the Tánaiste, have not been given.
When the Commissioner wrote to me in respect of that original May 2014 issue, she outlined the range of actions that had been taken at that point. That issue was dealt with at that time. Subsequently, the medical bureau wrote the letter, as I have outlined. If one reads the letter, which I have, the bureau just refers to the ordering of testing equipment and notes that An Garda Síochána had not placed a request for additional equipment. The fact that they did not need additional equipment clearly indicated that there was an issue. In retrospect, clearly, that should have been acted on immediately. Subsequently, the audits started being done in the southern region because there were concerns raised. It was in June 2016 that I was then given the information. That is the reality of the situation.
Earlier today and yesterday, the Taoiseach said, as the Tánaiste has indicated this evening, that all the checks and balances are now in place. To me, that means, de facto, that the Garda authorities know the cause of the problem and that it must be known by the Tánaiste, particularly in respect of the breathalyser cases. A child in sixth class in school would tell us that the population of this country is 5 million. With the number of breathalyser kits that appear to have been used, every adult in the country would have been breathalysed. It just does not bear thinking how farcical this situation is. I would like the Tánaiste to give her view on the cause for the inordinate numbers of breathalyser kits. Clearly, she is at the coalface of this problem and has information that many in this House do not possess. From speaking to members of the public in recent days and, particularly, coming to this House today, the word is that this country has not changed in 60 years. It is incumbent on the Tánaiste to give her opinion as to why the PULSE system was not operating correctly or why those figures were recorded.
I am being very clear that it is completely unacceptable that this situation arose.
That is the first point I would make. We absolutely have to find out the answers to the very question the Deputy is asking. I am disappointed they are not in the public arena already and that I have not got a full report on how it happened from An Garda Síochána but I have not. I do not have the answer to that question. I can speculate, as I have already, as to whether it was casual reporting, whether there were ethical issues involved, whether there was no supervision and whether there was collusion about the figures. We can all speculate about how this happened. The reality is that it did. It is quite extraordinary that there is a discrepancy of 1 million and we absolutely need to get to the bottom of it. That is why we need an independent investigation.
I was asked whether I am suggesting an independent investigation because I think an internal investigation is not enough. Yes, I am saying an internal investigation is not enough because, as a number of Deputies have pointed out, we can see the internal audits were not accurate. Now that the comparison has been done between the Garda figures and the figures from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, we can see the discrepancies are a minimum of 65% in one area and go up to over 100% in another area. We have to find out why some areas were reporting figures that were over 100% inaccurate.
Does the letter Mr. Gay Byrne received not show the type of systems in place, in that they were more interested in finding out who wrote the letter? The Commissioner was appointed at a time when it was known in the Department of Justice and Equality, in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and by a Minister that some fiasco was going on in the Garda Síochána, yet she was appointed. It was known that she knew about this.
If there is somebody retired about whom allegations are proved in this inquiry, what sanctions will be taken against him or her? In the last weeks, we have listened to the Grace scenario and the McCabe scenario and we have listened to this today. Are politicians and Ministers being given the run-around by different Departments? They seem to be rotten to the core, given what is going on in this country. Are politicians being fobbed off when the media are the ones breaking all the news and all that is going on in different Departments?
To make the point again for the record, the Garda Commissioner was appointed by an independent process that was advertised publicly and internationally for the first time. It is important to say that and to say she came through that process and was deemed to be the best person to lead the reform and to lead An Garda Síochána so that we had and have policing for the 21st century. That is the reality of her appointment and I want to put that on the record.
In terms of what came from the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, and Gay Byrne, that was followed up and a comprehensive report came from it. My understanding is that the gardaí in the western region who were asked to look into this tried to get as much information as they could. It was an anonymous complaint so it was very difficult to pursue it. They examined the situation, they gave the facts about traffic enforcement back to headquarters and a report was put together. At that point, I went back and asked for further work to be done in regard to the issues that had emerged. Eventually, we had the audits I have been outlining.
Thank you. I call Deputy Kevin O'Keeffe.
In terms of the Department's work in this regard, I want to say-----
Thank you.
Can I just say-----
Sorry, you have overrun. I call Deputy Kevin O'Keeffe.
I need to say that the Department pursued these issues very diligently-----
There are other speakers and I must give them an opportunity. I call Deputy Kevin O'Keeffe.
Before I ask my question, we must acknowledge the good work that gardaí have done in recent years. We have seen an improvement in road safety and I want to support that.
The Minister, Deputy Ross, in the past number of months has sought a review of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 and he has come before the Select Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport in regard to new statistics. Has the Tánaiste kept the Minister, Deputy Ross, informed of the ongoing audits being carried out by the Garda and the Commissioner over the past number of months, given there may be discrepancies in the figures being used and anomalies that need to be highlighted? Should the Minister, Deputy Ross, have pulled back in his push-ahead with the amendment of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 2010?
In regard to the point the Deputy makes about alcohol, if anything, what has emerged raises more serious issues about our approach to alcohol, how robust the legislation needs to be and how we need to get on with the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill. Effectively, and this is very upsetting, what has emerged from the statistics on the number of cases is the fact that the number of those who are drinking alcohol and driving is far greater than we thought. That is the first point to be made. The whole approach to road safety and dealing with the issues around alcohol need an even stronger approach-----
That is not what I asked.
No, but it is a very important point in regard to the Deputy's point. In regard to the fixed point penalty notices, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport would have been copied with the information that had been given to my Department in June 2016. The other point raised by the Deputy in regard to alcohol would have been on the agenda of the transport and justice committee meetings but no details were given in regard to the audit at those meetings because the audit was still ongoing.
Speculate as we might, the facts of this particular fiasco are not in dispute - more than 14,500 unsafe convictions and close on 1 million fake breathalyser tests. There is one thing the Tánaiste could do that would more than anything restore public confidence and send a very clear message that there is accountability, namely, she could call the Garda Commissioner to account. Her failure and the Government's failure to do that is, as I said earlier, an absolute dereliction of their duty. All of the Tánaiste's fine words about reform ring very hollow because she quite clearly does not mean them if she is not going to observe basic accountability.
I want to ask about the Garda internal audit function because this scandal has actually been rumbled by a mixture of an anonymous letter and the Medical Bureau of Road Safety associated with the RSA. I want the Tánaiste to explain to me how it is that the internal audits within An Garda Síochána got it so wrong. The Tánaiste said the review of the southern region reflected a discrepancy of some 17%, which was well wide of the mark. As worried as I was before this debate, I am more concerned now. I am concerned that there was messing going on and false data being placed on the PULSE system. I am worried that either the audit methodology or system was not capable of capturing these problems, or perhaps there was messing in the audit process as well. Can the Tánaiste answer as to why there was a discrepancy from 17% to more than 100%? What was the figure in the southern region?
These are the reasons I and the Government believe an independent investigation is necessary. Of course, the point I would make to the Deputy is that the scale of it only emerged when the comparison was made with the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, and the internal records, as such, will need to be examined to see if, at the time they did the internal audits, it was actually a 17% discrepancy. It was only when this was compared against the database of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety that it then became obvious-----
Why did the internal audit function not do something as basic as that?
This is why we need to have an independent investigation. It is quite clear the audit function in An Garda Síochána took too long. Again, I want to make the point that we were talking about paper-based records that had to be collected from every part of the country. Assistant Commissioner Finn took up office in December and he is the person who has now come and put all of this information into the public arena. I want to welcome the fact that has been done.
I think that is a function of the reforms that are there.
Thank you, Tánaiste.
The Policing Authority has been questioning various issues and this type of information is now emerging. I want to welcome that, but it is extremely disturbing, as I said.
Given the necessity for the public to have absolute confidence in the police force, in this case An Garda Síochána, and given that over the past ten or fifteen years there have been numerous questions raised about the operation of An Garda Síochána, is the chain of command applicable in An Garda Síochána at the present time? If not, to what extent can it be addressed in the interim period? Notwithstanding the proposal for an inquiry or review, the chain of command must be observed. That applies to those in operation at ground level observing authority and those at the top. Otherwise, we are wasting our time having a discussion. In the shortest possible time, I ask the Minister to try to ensure that that authority is stamped on and through the force to all sections without delay.
Deputy Durkan makes an extremely relevant point about the chain of command. It is one of the more disturbing aspects of this entire affair. Why did the chain of command not work more effectively? What was the chain of command doing about these issues? As other Deputies have said, there are procedures for reporting back on these breath tests. There are people who have responsibility for these issues other than the garda out on the beat. I absolutely believe that that is one of the issues that need to be examined in this independent inquiry.
I thank all Deputies for their co-operation in giving everyone the opportunity to ask questions.