I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee. I must apologise at the outset as the version of the statement that we sent initially contained some typographical errors. Another version was supplied to the clerk late last night. We will blame the holiday weekend.
The Chairman has invited us today to discuss four topics. I thank him for the opportunity to make these opening remarks. It may be helpful if I touch on each topic briefly. The first topic is issues surrounding ICT, specifically the Garda internal audit service audit report 2017 in respect of ICT payment processes. The position on this item is that the Policing Authority does not receive the Garda internal audit reports on a routine basis. They are mandated, undertaken and overseen by the Garda Síochána audit committee, the members of which we do appoint. We are aware of media reports about this particular audit but it is appropriate to allow the audit committee to do its job first, before we get involved. We will shortly be receiving the annual report of the Garda audit committee. We will be meeting the chair of that committee and will have an opportunity to raise any matters arising from the annual report.
The second item was the report from the chief administrative officer in the Garda Síochána regarding the history of email usage in the Garda Síochána and the mechanisms for protecting security. I understand that the Garda has supplied the committee with a copy of the relevant report and I believe the committee heard evidence on this point recently from Garda senior management, which broadly corresponds with the information supplied to the authority. The main point I want to make this morning is that the roll-out of a new enterprise content management system is under way. It is an important step as it enables the secure, remote access of files from mobile devices and negates the need to send files via email. The sooner that is completed, the better. We would also like to see the key commitments the Garda has made to us being met, namely, to have in place a policy on Internet and email usage.
The third item is progress since the committee's report in respect of Garda oversight and accountability of December 2016 to which the Chairman referred. By way of the update requested, I thought the most useful thing I could do would be to circulate two important documents the authority has prepared and published recently. One is the authority's statutory report on its effectiveness and the adequacy of its functions at the end of two years. Committee members had several questions on this matter when I last appeared before them. The second document is the authority's submission to the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. Between them, these two reports address and set out the authority's position on many of the key matters discussed in the committee's report on oversight and accountability. For example, we call for the removal of duplication and ambiguity as to who does what in Garda oversight and accountability. We call for steps to be taken to ensure that there is a single pair of eyes on Garda performance, either by including security in the remit of a future policing authority or by having authority members included on a security oversight body. We call for much greater transparency by the Garda, including the extension of the Freedom of Information Acts to a broader range of Garda functions. We call for a future policing authority to have significant oversight competence in respect of the use of resources, both people and money. We also raise concerns about training and formation, culture and integrity.
The fourth item, which the Chairman has also mentioned, is the review of domestic homicides. As I said at the authority's most recent meeting in public in February, in many ways this has been the most frustrating and most troubling piece of work in which the authority has engaged. We began to examine the matter in March of last year. We are still not finished and we are still not fully satisfied. From the outset, the authority has made it clear that its key concern is the risk that wrong classification could have affected the quality of Garda investigations.
We have emphasised time and again the importance of good data for intelligence, public policy, risk assessment and crime prevention. This is not confined to domestic violence risks.
Related to that, the Policing Authority is concerned not to prematurely or unnecessarily alarm families. For that reason, and for reasons of practicality, much of the authority’s detailed work on this matter has been carried out outside of public fora through our committee structure or between officials. Before the most recent meeting in public about the homicide review, we pressed the Garda for assurances that in the 12 cases where it was reclassifying a death upwards into or within the homicide category, family liaison had been put in place and families had been contacted.
The authority’s approach to assessing any significant aspect of Garda performance is to gather data and information from a broad range of sources. We then compare and critically examine the information, and use it to inform ourselves and develop our oversight approach to a particular matter. With the Garda, we persist in private and public until we are satisfied or report to the Minister for Justice and Equality.
Our approach to the homicide data was no different. For example in addition to the Garda, authority officials engaged with the Central Statistics Office, CSO, and the Road Safety Authority, RSA. We had the benefit of Garda Inspectorate reports and a report from a Department of Justice and Equality working group on the crime counting rules. Since late March 2017, we had intelligence in addition to the official Garda documentation. Since then, there have been at least 20 formal authority meetings on the topic in plenary or committee and as many or more engagements at official level.
Several documents received from the Garda were rejected as inadequate, beginning with the correspondence we received for our meeting in public on 27 April 2017 where those watching would have been left in no doubt that the authority was not best pleased. Certainly, the media reports the following day got the drift. The paperwork which we received did not merit the title of report and I believe I made that very clear publicly.
Professional tensions within the Garda organisation regarding this matter were very clearly visible to us at the April 2017 public meeting, after which we had four key concerns. Despite assurances, was there an article 2 compliant investigation in each case? Were there arrangements in place to speak to families? Had the PULSE records been updated with sufficient information to mitigate risks to potential victims? Had the Garda analysis service been fully involved and signed off on the work?
I wish to address the concerns regarding the role of the Policing Authority and the witnesses, Ms Galligan and Ms West, from the analysis service. I am taking it, based on the committee’s discussion in public session and related comments, that Ms West and Ms Galligan have given their permission for certain matters relating to their contact with the authority to be discussed with the committee. I believe the chief executive raised this matter yesterday with the clerk to the committee.
At the outset, I would like to say that their evidence about how they were treated in their workplace sounded deplorable and is very concerning. It speaks to issues of culture and speaking out, matters which the authority raises continually. Differing perspectives and professional tensions are healthy and are to be expected, and ought to be welcomed. Although it is an employment matter, their experiences seem in this instance to have made the whole review more contentious than it needed to be.
Returning to the homicide review, the position is that the authority has many sources of intelligence and information regarding the review - perhaps more than Ms West and Ms Galligan realised - and has done a huge amount of work. The concerns which they brought to the authority’s attention were already well known to us before their contact. At a point where the analysts seemed to be having difficulty getting access to certain information, authority members and staff were being offered opportunities to review investigation files, which we declined, and be briefed in detail on cases.
In fact, having reviewed their evidence to the committee, I can honestly say that there was very little of substance in it about the review which we did not know or have grounds to believe since late March or early April of last year. Far from being misled, the authority rejected the document submitted by the Garda Síochána to our 27 April 2017 meeting in very strong terms.
In addition to expressing serious disappointment at the late arrival of correspondence at 8.30 p.m. the night before, we wrote to the Commissioner to express significant concerns about its tone, content and accuracy. This was also covered by the media subsequently.
The analysts' professional concerns were widely known, and the fact they were in contact with the authority could not have been considered by the authority to be confidential. For example, the analysts indicated it was a member of senior Garda management who provided the personal contact details of the authority staff member who was first telephoned in April 2017. In the interests of transparency, it was Garda management which gave us a copy of the letter of 11 May, addressed to several people in An Garda Síochána. This letter set out the concerns it had and its disquiet about them. The analysts were advised by authority staff that we had the letter dated 11 May. They were given an assurance that the authority was live to all of their concerns and that those concerns would be followed up. They were followed up. That letter further underlined the professional tensions around this whole matter which were already very visible to the authority.
The names and the facts and details which caused the analysts' disquiet were a matter of record and in no way confidential. However, the context of their direct communication with the authority subsequently was recognised as sometimes sensitive, and it was treated as confidential. The analysts specifically declined to allow later correspondence to be shared with Garda management, and that was fully honoured.
In terms of where are we now, the committee is aware that the Policing Authority received a report dated 21 September. This report differed so much from the April correspondence that initially we did not accept it either. Following robust engagement over the period from October to January, we have very recently reached a position where we accept that a police investigation did take place in each of the 41 cases which are the subject of this review. It is important that I say this for the information of the community. However, we have not yet been reassured about the quality of those investigations. At an authority committee meeting on 3 November 2017, we pressed for and secured agreement from the Garda for a peer review of the investigations in a number of cases. The Garda gave evidence to the committee recently about its approach to this work.
On the question of classification, An Garda Síochána has re-classified 12 of the 41 cases upwards, either into homicide or between classifications within the homicide group. We understand now how those positions were reached. From our work, we would say that some change was made to the classification of a further 16 cases, meaning that only 13 are unchanged. Authority staff have personally confirmed that the PULSE system has been appropriately updated in these cases, which is really important from the point of view of risks to any potential victims. The Garda have given us assurances that in those 12 re-classified cases, the families had been contacted before we discussed the matter in public. That was very important to us.
Another concern related to the role of the analysis service. We have been assured, as has this committee at its recent hearings, that the analysis service signed off on the report given to the authority in September and that it will be fully involved in the next phase. The authority intends to meet the working group charged with the next phase, which I understand includes Ms Galligan and Ms West, to ensure that it fully understands our concerns. It is important to us that this working group is managed in a way which allows all voices to be respectfully heard and considered. It is also important to us that it proceeds with some pace and reaches conclusions which we can interrogate. Furthermore, we will require interim reports. In the meantime, the homicide review remains a standing item on our agenda, and given the timelines outlined for the next phase it will clearly be there for some time to come.
The authority takes its statutory responsibility to oversee Garda performance very seriously. Our work is broad-ranging and complex. I hope I have provided a flavour of the approach we have adopted. It uses external performance indicators where they exist, and intelligence or information from a broad range of other sources in addition to that we receive from the Garda. Crime classification, PULSE, data quality and performance management are by now enduring themes for us and the 2018 policing plan contains some important actions in this regard.
At all times the authority is mindful that it must strike a careful balance between challenging An Garda Síochána and undermining it, and between transparency and concern for victims and families.
