Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:1. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on justice reform last met. [15435/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 5 April 2017
Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Michael Moynihan
Ceist:2. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on justice reform last met; and will next meet. [16396/17]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:3. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on justice reform last met; and when it will next meet. [16424/17]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Ruth Coppinger
Ceist:4. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on justice reform last met. [16454/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraRichard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:5. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on justice reform will next meet. [16464/17]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Gerry Adams
Ceist:6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if a meeting of the Cabinet committee on justice reform was held on 7 March 2017; and when it will meet again. [16552/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (61 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
The last meeting of the Cabinet committee on justice reform took place on 7 March 2017. The date for the next meeting has not been scheduled yet but it will be confirmed in due course and I will advise the House of that.
A number of Members are offering. I ask that we stick to the time allocation so that we can get through everyone.
I am amazed the last meeting took place on 7 March given everything that is happening.
There is an unprecedented storm going on in terms of the behaviour of An Garda Síochána, the scandals around the breath tests, wrongful convictions and the questions over the Commissioner, yet the Cabinet committee has not met since 7 March. It is absolutely extraordinary. Even more extraordinary, the Taoiseach does not know when the next meeting will be.
I want an answer to a very specific question. In my experience, it is unprecedented to table a parliamentary question and not get an answer within four or five days. I have raised this on several occasions. I tabled a parliamentary question on 23 February - I want to know if the Taoiseach's committee discussed this - asking how many people under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality were suspended on full pay pending investigation. I received an answer stating it was 26. I asked a follow-up question, which was whether the Minister could give a breakdown of the agencies under the Department of Justice and Equality in which these suspensions took place, the grade involved and the length of time the suspensions were in play. The Minister told me that she could not answer me. I find it completely unacceptable that she refuses to give me information. I do not believe that she does not have the information. To be frank, I suspect the information is being withheld because it is relevant to the question of whether Nóirín O'Sullivan should remain in position when she is under investigation for very serious matters.
All right, Deputy.
I would like a response on this matter because that is not acceptable. Has the Taoiseach discussed it? Is he aware of these suspensions? Is there one law for Nóirín O'Sullivan and another for other employees under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality?
I disagree with Deputy Boyd Barrett when he states it is extraordinary that this matter was not considered. The Government has responded to the issues that have arisen in recent times in respect of An Garda Síochána, particularly in terms of fixed charge notices and mandatory alcohol testing. The Government has responded and not just a Cabinet sub-committee, which is a feature of Government that allows for issues to be discussed and recommendations to be made for consideration by Cabinet. As I pointed out, the Government has decided that there should be a root and branch analysis of An Garda Síochána in terms of its structures and the policing role and responsibility. This will deal with the management and structures for all functions carried out by An Garda Síochána; the composition, recruitment and training of personnel; the culture and the ethos of policing; and the structures and the legislative basis for oversight and accountability. This is to be carried out completely independently of An Garda Síochána.
I assume the parliamentary question to which the Deputy refers is one that he tabled. The committee does not discuss questions submitted by Deputies to the relevant Minister which go through the Office of the Ceann Comhairle.
This was a question of particular relevance.
These are not matters for discussion by the Cabinet sub-committees.
This was not just any question.
The Minister will respond in whatever way she can to Deputy Boyd Barrett.
Or not. She has not-----
The answer to the Deputy's question is that the Deputy's parliamentary question was not discussed by the Cabinet sub-committee, nor should it be.
It should.
The fundamental issue is what is the function or role of the Cabinet committee on justice reform. It is clear that all reform efforts up to now have failed and the Garda Inspectorate reforms have not been implemented. I put it to the Taoiseach it is extraordinary given the revelations about the latest debacle of 146,000 being wrongly summonsed to court, 14,700 being wrongly convicted and close to 1 million breathalyser tests that never took place having been falsely recorded. The Garda Commissioner stated that they are organisationally shameful, were false and, at worst, there was deception and, at best, incompetence. Given the scale of the falsehoods involved and the disruption to the criminal justice system, does the Taoiseach consider it acceptable that the Garda Commissioner did not inform the Minister of it and did not inform the Policing Authority that such an audit was under way? Has the Taoiseach spoken to the Policing Authority about it? What is the Government's sense of the failure of the Commissioner to inform the Policing Authority? I do not want to be fobbed off with "an administrative oversight" because I do not buy it. Given the scale of the falsehoods and the undermining of the criminal justice system, why the Policing Authority was not informed about this matter is a very serious issue.
It is unacceptable and an apology has been issued by the Garda Commissioner. The Policing Authority should have been informed. The chairperson of the independent Policing Authority, Ms Feehily, is doing an exemplary job in independently and objectively dealing with the issues for which it has responsibility and in respect of which further powers may well be given to it. The Tánaiste only became aware of the figures in respect of the mandatory alcohol testing and the fixed charge notices on 23 March when the press conference was put together by An Garda Síochána.
Is that not extraordinary?
It is not acceptable-----
It is extraordinary.
It is certainly unprecedented and the situation is it is not acceptable and the Garda Commissioner apologised profusely for it.
It is truly astonishing that the Cabinet sub-committee on justice reform has not met in a month. In light of-----
The Government has met.
Let me deal with that. I was a member of the last justice reform committee. The Government does not have at its meetings the Garda Commissioner, the chairperson of the Policing Authority or the senior administrators in the Department of Justice and Equality, all of whom should have been there to answer questions of key Ministers in advance of any decisions being made at Cabinet. Did the Taoiseach not see it as appropriate to convene a meeting where all those principals would be present to answer questions such as the one just asked by Deputy Martin? Before the Cabinet could come to profound decisions such as whether to have a Patten-style root and branch commission, surely the precursor would have been to have at least one but probably a series of meetings of the Cabinet sub-committee asking the views of the Policing Authority, asking the Commissioner questions directly and asking the Department of Justice and Equality those questions. I welcome the Taoiseach's response this morning that he will shortly publish an implementation plan. However, does he agree that in the interim we also need amendments to the powers of the Policing Authority to make directions on reform to be implemented by An Garda Síochána?
The Garda Commissioner and the chairperson of the independent Policing Authority do not attend Cabinet sub-committee meetings.
That is not true.
They do. The Taoiseach knows they do.
No, to have meetings with the Garda Commissioner or the-----
We have been at them - both of us.
Yes, we have had them before and they were there to give information about security----
They do attend them then.
Yes, but the Cabinet sub-committee deals with questions about police, policing and issues of governance and so on. It is not a situation where the Garda Commissioner attends at every Cabinet sub-committee.
No, but the Taoiseach can bring them in and has done so.
As the Deputy knows, the Cabinet sub-committees deal with issues about the relevant Departments and so on for recommendation for decision by Government.
Does the Taoiseach not think this is relevant?
The Deputy was at many of them himself and is well aware, for instance, in dealing with matters of finance that he did not have all the chief executives of the banks there-----
We did-----
-----or the Governor of the Central Bank unless specifically requested. Government was dealing with this and Government has made its decision-----
Without talking to the principal players. Amazing.
-----in respect of the request from the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality to the independent Policing Authority to deal with the mandatory alcohol testing and the fixed charge notices matters and to have a root and branch reform of the structure of An Garda Síochána and the future role and responsibility in terms of policing.
Not exactly evidence-based decision making.
Does the Taoiseach not want to ask the question himself?
Deputies, please.
The point is that Government will not sign off on it until the parties opposite have their say in respect of the proposition from Government and the inclusion of whatever recommendations are contained in the Fennelly report are considered by every Member of the Oireachtas so that we can try to get this right in the interests of its future role, responsibility and independence and the nature of whether it be security and policing or security and policing separated in the future.
The views of Deputies, as public representatives, are very important in this regard.
I was not referring to publishing a plan on reform but to a progress report on a plan that has been published already. The Garda Inspectorate has made its views known and we considered those views at the Cabinet sub-committee. The question now is one of getting on with implementing those changes and that work is under way. The programme is for a couple of years, as the Deputy is aware. We discussed the issue of civilianisation, which means taking gardaí out of the system so they can be on the beat by replacing them with civilians. The Olson report is very comprehensive and is being followed through. I will provide everyone with an update on that.
It seems the seriousness of this issue had not permeated the Government. The reputation of the whole system of justice has never been so low, yet the Taoiseach has not bothered to convene a committee on which key players sit and is choosing not to use the forum in question. If the Government is looking after all of this, why is the Taoiseach persisting with the fallacy that it is possible to investigate the most senior garda in the land, while leaving her in situ, with all of her authority, to undermine the investigation?
We had the recent revelations, with Sergeant Maurice McCabe and others being blackguarded. Will the Taoiseach comment on the position of Garda Superintendent Dave Taylor who, having been arrested over leaking information about another Garda scandal four years ago, returned to work on 14 February last only to have a fresh disciplinary case brought against him on the very same matter by the same Commissioner?
It seems Fine Gael is doing its best to defend the Garda Commissioner and keep her in place, with Fianna Fáil seemingly happy to facilitate it in doing so. We are hearing disturbing reports of what gardaí are describing internally as a praetorian guard around the Commissioner. Two retired gardaí have been brought in to protect the Commissioner. Is the Taoiseach aware that a communication has been sent to every single garda who could testify to the Charleton investigation stating that he or she must liaise with the internal committee the Taoiseach was not even told about before testifying to the commission? Was the Taoiseach aware of this or did the Commissioner not bother telling him about it? The Commissioner hired two retired gardaí and did not bother informing the Government about it. She is clearly giving the proverbial two fingers to any idea that she will be neutral while this investigation takes place. I am surprised the Taoiseach has not convened the committee to ask her about this matter.
Deputy Adams may contribute now as the time for these questions is almost concluded.
This is all very strange because it is another case of déjà vu. The Labour Party is now proposing a root and branch review of An Garda Síochána, having voted against such a review in government when we made a similar proposal. Some of this goes back before my time. According to the 2015 report from the Garda Inspectorate, a significant number of the recommendations in its report had been made in one form or another over the past two decades. This takes us back to Fianna Fáil whose position is that it is unable to express confidence in the Commissioner and would remove her if it was in government. However, the party has also indicated it will not support a motion requiring the Government to do exactly that.
As a result of the Government's rejection of root and branch, Patten-style reform, the Commissioner is answerable to the Minister for Justice and Equality rather than an independent policing authority with real powers. The Government is not approaching this issue as it should, nor did it deal with the case of the previous Minister for Justice and Equality, Mr. Alan Shatter, and previous Garda Commissioner as it should have. I do not have any great confidence that it will approach this issue properly.
While we were told the Cabinet was briefed on the establishment of a commission to examine the future of policing, we were not told whether this came from the Cabinet committee on justice reform. Did the committee discuss this issue at its meeting of 7 March? The Taoiseach does not even have a date for the next meeting of the committee.
This is a case of "I told you so" because the previous Government dismissed our proposal in the most defensive, triumphalist and dismissive way when it had a large majority and did not have to listen to Sinn Féin or anyone else in opposition. Now the decent members of An Garda Síochána and those who depend on them to keep the peace and keep us safe have been let down.
In respect of Deputy Coppinger's comments, I believe that Mr. Justice Charleton is an exceptionally qualified person to conduct the commission of investigation, in respect of which he has been given the authority, terms of reference and facilities to do his job. I will not comment on the working method of his commission.
It is not about Mr. Justice Charleton but about the Garda Commissioner.
Please allow the Taoiseach to answer.
Mr. Justice Charleton is an exceptionally qualified person to do this job and he will be allowed to do his job. He expects to be able to report-----
This has nothing to do with the question the Taoiseach was asked.
The Taoiseach should stop talking down the clock and answer my question.
The Deputy is asking me to comment on structures associated with the commission or people who may have to attend in front of it.
I referred to the Garda, not the commission.
That is entirely a matter for the sole person in charge of the commission, Mr. Justice Charleton, who is exceptionally qualified to do a first class job.
The Ceann Comhairle must take up with the Taoiseach his avoidance of the question.
The Garda Commissioner is moving to subvert the commission of investigation.
In respect of Deputy Adams's point of view, the proposition for the setting up of a root and branch analysis of the future of the Garda came from the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality at Cabinet. As the Deputy knows, the Cabinet is the body which makes the ultimate decisions in respect of all Cabinet committees. That is why it was one of the many discussions that took place at Cabinet and the decision was to have a root and branch analysis of the future of policing, the structure, role and responsibility of An Garda Síochána and so on. The decision involved the Oireachtas which is the reason Opposition spokespersons and leaders, including Deputy Adams, will have their say. When the Attorney General advises publication of the second Fennelly report, they will be given copies and will be able to take the report into account. This is to ensure that we, as an Oireachtas, get the future structure, role, responsibility and work of An Garda Síochána right and citizens can have confidence and trust in the body.
That is not to say this is a whole new body of work. As I pointed out to Deputy Howlin, the recommendations of the independent inspectorate are now being implemented. The independent Policing Authority, with which Deputy Howlin had a very close association when it was being set up, came into effect last year under the supervision of its chairperson, Josephine Feehily, who is doing a first class job in its independence and oversight. The Tánaiste is not averse to giving the authority extra powers and she will take advice from Members on that matter.
Can we get some answers, please?
I am sorry. We have gone substantially over time and must move on to the next group of questions.
May I ask a supplementary question given that the Taoiseach went one minute over time?
Everyone went over time. We are three minutes over time at this stage.