More barriers than normal being erected around #dail ahead of #watercharges protest later with Molesworth S… https://t.co/8T96MZOYIF
— Newstalk 106-108fm (@NewstalkFM) July 7, 2015
Everybody stay cool.
Tag Archives: Dail
Flying traffic cones last night outside Leinster House
Further to the melee outside the Dáil last night,
And following reports that a female garda was knocked unconscious,, Labour Senator Mary Moran and Anti Austerity Alliance Councillor Michael O’Brien spoke to Seán O’Rourke on RTÉ Radio One this morning.
On the matter of the female garda, this is what both contributors said:
Senator Mary Moran: “I must say the the scenes last night were nothing short of horrific, Sean, as I was leaving Leinster House. A female garda standing close to my car last night, it was unbelievable, traffic cones came across the car and hit the girl who was standing in a protective cordon and she dropped like a ton of bricks on to the ground. Now that was absolutely horrific, she was knocked unconscious. To me what was absolutely worse, after that was the fact that people seemed to think that this was funny and came up and started videoing it and laughing around it. I mean that girl was, seriously, to see somebody crumble. You know standing one minute and lying unconscious in the next minute was absolutely unacceptable I think last night.”
Anti Austerity Alliance Councillor Michael O’Brien: “I didn’t see the garda collapsing. I did see a cone travel over the garda lines and land on the car. That much I did see. I did see the garda in question being led in to an ambulance some half an hour after the incident and I don’t stand over the throwing of objects whatsoever.”
Listen back in full here – from 1.37min (Moran) and from 7min (O’Brien)
Earlier: About Last Night
(Sam Boal/Photocall Ireland)
Meanwhile…
Wayne F writes:
This photo is from last nights water protest outside the Daíl! Garda deploying Baton Penis with sex face and hip thrust
How little?
Catherine Murphy, Independent TD for Kildare North, dropped a series of revelations in the Dáil today concerning alleged preferential treatment given to Denis O’Brien by IBRC, formerly Anglo Irish Bank.
The claims emerged as Ms Murphy introduced a bill to permit the Comptroller and Auditor General to investigate the sale of Siteserv to Mr O’Brien and other IBRC transactions.
Grab a tay.
“This bill extends the functions and powers, or seeks to extend the functions and powers of the C & AG [Comptroller and Auditor General] to cover IBRC. It was the Taoiseach that first suggested that the C & AG review the Siteserv sale’s process and it was then pointed out to him that IBRC does not come within his remit.”
“With this Bill, I’m attempting to address that problem by broadening the remit of the C & AG. The reason I’m anticipating the need to involve the C & AG, if not a full Commission of Investigation, which may well be a better option, is because I believe the Government have got this badly wrong, not least because most of the key players in the Siteserv saga have links with KPMG and its eventual purchaser and vice versa, is a web of connections and conflicts, that requires outside eyes to unravel.
I have no doubt that the special liquidator [Kieran Wallace] is more than capable of doing such a review but his direct involvement in the sale process, and his relationship with the eventual purchaser of Siteserv, and his current actions in the High Court, in supporting Mr O’Brien versus RTE, place him in a position where there is, at the very least, a perceived conflict of interest, if not an actual conflict of interest.
The review is not confined to Siteserv but it is the transaction that prompted a review. I would worry about the transactions that have been excluded from the review, given that what we now know, that in the final months before prom night, the relationship between the department and IBRC had completely broken down.
“If deals were being done without the knowledge or input of the minister then we need to know what they were. We are now aware for example that the former CEO of IBRC made verbal agreements with Denis O’Brien to allow him to extend the terms of his already expired loans.
We also know that the verbal agreement was never escalated to the credit committee for approval. I’m led to believe, and I would welcome the minister clarifying, the rates applicable at this time, that the extension also attracted some extremely favourable interest terms.
I understand that Mr O’Brien was enjoying a rate of around 1.25%, when IBRC, and arguably, when IBRC could, and arguably should have been charging 7.5%. We are talking about outstanding sums here that are upwards of €500million. The interest rate applied is not an insignificant issue for the public interest.
We also know that Denis O’Brien felt confident enough, in his dealings with IBRC that he could write to Kieran Wallace, as the special liquidator and demand that the same favourable terms extended to him by way of a verbal agreement could be continued.
We now have Kieran Wallace, who’s been appointed by the Government to conduct a review into the IBRC review, actually joining with IBRC and Denis O’Brien in the High Court and seeking to injunct the information I’ve outlined from coming into the public domain – surely that alone represents a conflict.
In FOI documents released to me, the minister, his officials and the Central Bank and even the Troika acknowledge that IBRC, the former Anglo Irish Bank, is no ordinary bank and there’s a significant public interest because the bank had been fully nationalised and was in wind-down mode.
They all accept that this is the people’s money that we’re dealing with and that there can be no dispute regarding the public interest in this. The same FOI materials detail incidences where the minister can specifically intervene, and issue an ministerial order that material matters have significant interest. Included in these material matters are incidences that are outside the ordinary course of business.
I would argue that what I’ve outlined out here regarding verbal deals, extensions, etc, are outside the normal course of business and I would ask the minister to exercise his right to intervene in the current proceedings and defend the public interest.
“I’ve a motion on the order papers, signed by the majority of the Opposition – 45 members have signed it and more are welcome to – calling for a debate into the proposed review. When I tried to raise it on the order of business, I was silenced and I was told to take it up with my Whip. I am the Whip of the Technical Group and I did raise it at the weekly Whip’s meeting.
The Government Chief Whip told me that they would not be altering the KPMG review, the Government would not be giving time to debate this issue and suggested that we use Private Members’ time.
It’s not just an Opposition issue, minister. This is an issue for all in this house. It’s an issue of serious public concern where there is public money involved and I know, if you got your hands on maybe an extra €20 million, I don’t think you’d have to think too hard on how to spend that money. I urge the Government to reconsider this and give the Bill and the motion the time they deserve. I believe this is in the public interest. Thank you.”
There you go now.
1.25 per cent.
Yesterday: Deputy Murphy is Out of order
Scary update:
Solicitors acting for Denis O’Brien have asked us to remove this post asserting that it is a breach of a High Court Order [O’Brien Vs RTÉ]. They gave a 7pm [Thursday] deadline or they would begin injunction proceedings.
We have replied that article 15.12 of the constitution allows all Dáil statements “wherever published” to be privileged and we currently await their response.
Scarier update:
In response, Denis O’Brien’s legal representative said the High Court ruling “covers what could be reported about what was said in the Dáil by Catherine Murphy” and again put us ‘on notice’.
Unfortunately The judge in the case never revealed the terms of the injunction.
In a statement tonight Catherine Murphy said:
“I am a public representative. Information came to me, from a number of reliable sources, that is, without doubt, in the public interest. I have a duty to put that information into the public domain and I fully intend to fulfill my democratic mandate.”
Meanwhile, we will keep this post up until it is humanly impossible not to.
Save yourselves.
Pray for us.
Yesterday
Independent TD Catherine Murphy attempts to raise concerns about the involvement of KPMG in the review of the Siteserv deal.
Enter Ceann Comhairle Seán Barrett.
Catherine Murphy: “There is a motion on the Order Paper, No. 197, to which there are 45 signatories. Unusually, it has been signed by almost the entire Opposition. I am calling on the Taoiseach to consider allocating time for a debate on it. It concerns the review by KPMG of Siteserv and other issues. It was pointed out when we were debating the matter that there were conflicts or, at least, perceived conflicts with the individual who was to carry out the review.
Seán Barrett: “I am sorry, but we cannot deal with that issue on the Order of Business.”
Murphy: “There has been further damaged by virtue of the fact…”
Barrett: “Is time being allocated to debate the motion?”
Murphy: “…that IBRC joined the process last week.”
Barrett: “I am sorry, but the Deputy cannot raise this issue on the Order of Business. Will she, please, resume his seat?”
Murphy: “It joined the court case last week. Essentially, a court case was taken by Mr Denis O’Brien…”
Barrett: “Deputy Martin Heydon is next. I am sorry, but Deputy Catherine Murphy is out of order.”
Murphy: “The conflicts of interest are now greater than they were.”
Barrett: “The Deputy is out of order. Will she, please, resume her seat? She cannot raise this matter on the Order of Business.”
Murphy: “If there is to be a review and we are to spend public money on it and there is someone who is…”
Barrett: “The Deputy has a Whip. She can ask them to go to the whips’ meeting and arrange a debate.”
Murphy: “It seems that time should be provided…”
Barrett: ‘Will the Deputy, please, resume her seat?’
Murphy: “That there are 45 signatories on the Opposition side is no small matter.”
Barrett: “The Deputy can ask her Whip to deal with the matter at the whips’ meeting.”
Murphy: “I am asking the Taoiseach to consider allocating time to debate the motion.”
Barrett: “Will the Deputy, please, resume her seat?”
Martin Heydon (Fine Gael): “I wish to ask the Taoiseach about promised legislation following last Friday’s historic vote. It represented another move by the Government to improve equality in society, as well as fixing the economy. I wish to ask the Taoiseach about another issue on which the Government has made progress…”
Good times.
Related: Sanctions being finalised to crack down on disruptive TDs (Irish Times)
Previously: Not Going Away
Transcript via Oireachtas.ie
Independent TD Catherine Murphy, top, and Tánaiste Joan Burton in Dáil this morning
This morning, during Order of Business in the Dáil, Kildare North Independent TD Catherine Murphy told Tánaiste and Labour leader Joan Burton that she is experiencing major delays in receiving replys to Freedom of Information requests that she has sent to the Department of Finance.
She also said she received one FOI response two weeks after a newspaper obtained the exact same FOI response – even though they were due to receive them at the same time.
Catherine Murphy: “The programme for Government included a commitment to introduce new Freedom of Information legislation, which it did, and my understanding is that it also, it also allows for a review of that legislation. Tánaiste, I have put in Freedom of Information requests into the Department of Finance and I’ve got to say that I’m really unhappy with the way the legislation is playing out.”
“I was due to have responses about the same time as responses to the same questions were given to a journalist. Two weeks later, I got them, the exact same pieces of Freedom of Information. I’ve other material that I’m waiting, that’s overdue by weeks. I’ve gone through the appropriate channels, making the complaints and they’re not being provided to me. I’m not being given an explanation. And I’ve got to say it’s completely unsatisfactory.”
“Will you consider strengthening the legislation, if it’s found not to be working and if there is evidence that this is not working, at an earlier date, will you bring in a review before the term of this government is concluded, thank you.”
Joan Burton: “Well, we’ve just very significantly strengthened and expanded and restored the remit of the Freedom of Information Act and, certainly, I’m not aware of the details of what you’re complaining about – I will certainly refer that to the Minister for Finance for comment and reply to you. But what I think is also important and what this government has, as a policy, is to have a more open information society whereby, rather than having people request information, solely through the Freedom of Information Act, that as much information as possible is actually published. I don’t know about the specific incident you’re referring to, Deputy. So, as I say, I’ll refer it to the Minister for Finance for further comment and reply to you.”
Previously: Redactulous
Last night – before Independent TD for Kildare North Catherine Murphy gave her contribution to the Dáil debate on the sale of Siteserv – Independent TD for Wicklow and East Carlow Stephen Donnelly and People Before Profit TD for Dun Laoghaire Richard Boyd Barrett also had a few things to say.
Here’s what happened:
Stephen Donnelly: “Public trust in the political system in Ireland has collapsed and tonight’s debate is a perfect example of why that has happened. The only reason an investigation is being conducted into the sale of IBRC assets is because of the work of Deputy Catherine Murphy. The motion before the House concerns who should conduct that investigation but serious questions of political governance must also be investigated. Why did the Minister make no mention of his Department’s concerns in response to numerous parliamentary questions from Deputy Catherine Murphy? Did the Minister inform the Taoiseach, the Economic Management Council or the Cabinet about his Department’s concerns?”
“If departmental concerns about this serious issue have been kept secret, what else has been kept secret? What other parliamentary questions have been avoided or fudged by the Minister? If these concerns are worthy of investigation, and they are, why is it only being done now, years after the Department raised its concerns? I will tell the House why. It is because the Minister’s cover-up has failed and he has nowhere left to hide.”
Ceann Comhairle Seán Barrett: “The Deputy cannot make an allegation of a cover-up. I ask him to withdraw it.”
Donnelly: “I will withdraw the allegation of a cover-up – heaven forbid.”
Sean Barrett: “We have parliamentary procedure here. The Deputy cannot abuse privilege.”
Donnelly: “The motion before the House condemns the appointment of KPMG to undertake a review of transactions in IBRC as it advised Siteserv during the sale. The Government amendment acknowledges that and states that the sale process was run by Siteserv along with its advisers KPMG Corporate Finance and Davy Corporate Finance and calls on Dáil Éireann to support the review, which KPMG has been directed to conduct. It is extraordinary stuff. In essence, KPMG is being by the Government to investigate itself. This is not a perceived conflict of interest. It is the definition of a conflict of interest. The Government should ask KPMG to step down and appoint a person or organisation who was not involved in the deals under investigation. Should the Government refuse to do so, KPMG should take it upon itself to step back from this situation.”
Richard Boyd Barrett: “The context for this debate is what happened to ordinary citizens in this country in 2012. When some of us on this side of the House screamed in opposition to the vicious cuts imposed, particularly in budget 2012, that hit the most vulnerable people and when many people in this House asked in the same year whether the unsustainable debts of tens of thousands of ordinary mortgage holders who were just trying to keep a roof over the heads could be written down, we were told this could not happen under any circumstances because there would be moral hazard associated with doing it. At the same time that ordinary people were being told that they could not have their debts written down by the banks we had bailed out, those same banks were writing down the debts of companies to the tune of hundreds of millions of euro and to the benefit of some of the richest people in the country, including the richest person in the country. There were three or four different deals from which he benefited to the tune of hundreds of millions of euros in writedowns paid for by the taxpayer.”
“Concerns expressed by the Minister’s Department on foot of questions raised in this House at that time were simply covered up in the sense that the Minister did not bring those concerns to the attention of this House even though his own Department was saying it had concerns. Why has it taken years to drag this out of him instead of a Government that is supposed to be in favour of transparency coming before the Dáil and saying it had big concerns about what was happening with these writedowns? Why did the Minister not do that? This raises suspicions from the word go. When the Minister was finally forced to accept that there was something to look into, he got the insiders to do it. These are the people who were involved in this dubious sale – KPMG. It is unbelievable. He is asking people to investigate themselves. How can he seriously expect that to be a serious investigation?”
“Government Deputies piled into the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform today to oppose a motion I put down that stated that the committee should ask some of the key players to come before it to answer questions. The Government does not want that either. Instead, it wants the insiders involved in the deal to investigate themselves. This is a joke and stinks to high heaven.”
Liam Twomey: “That is a lie.”
Sean Barrett: “I am now calling on Deputy…”
Boyd Barrett: “I am not. Government Deputies piled in and then…”
Interruptions
Boyd Barrett: “I ask Deputy Twomey to remain quiet. Deputy Twomey can reply when he is speaking.”
Twomey: “He cannot even tell the truth.”
Paul Murphy: “Is it not unparliamentary to accuse people of lying?”
Later
Twomey: “In respect of the charge made by Deputy Boyd Barrett against the Government, it was explained quite clearly to him and I will not repeat it in the Chamber because the committee was discussing a matter in private session. He knows exactly what the reasons were and that they had nothing to do with Government Deputies piling in.”
Boyd Barrett: “I do not accept the reasons and the Government Deputies did pile in.”
Twomey: “If we use the Chamber to just throw wild accusations around, we will have a very poor quality debate in this House. If I came in and started accusing members of Sinn Féin of being involved in things because they happened to be associated with other things, it would not go down too well either.”
Mary Lou McDonald: “It happens regularly. There is nothing new there. Apparently, it is not a breach of privilege either.”
Twomey: “No, because we have not accused it of anything even though it is always taking exception to something so perhaps I have hit a raw nerve. Opposition Deputies are not clear what they want from this debate. They said today that they are looking for an inquiry to be carried out by the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform.”
Boyd Barrett: “I did not say “inquiry”.”
Twomey: “They want an inquiry carried out by the committee over the next number of weeks. We now listen to them saying that they want a full inquiry, which they know will take at least two or three years. They should make up their minds if they are really serious about telling the people of Ireland that they offer credible opposition. What in God’s name do they want to offer them because right now that stands for nothing? It just stands for populist, ranting one-liners that possibly work for them but they certainly do not work when it comes to delivering a proper sense of governance for this country. We can decide that we do not want a rapid inquiry that will deliver by the end of August and that we want an inquiry that will go on for over three or four years, like those we were used to in years gone by, and that would probably report back to some Dáil in the future when we are all long retired.”
Finian McGrath: “That is not what a commission of inquiry is about. It is short and snappy.”
Liam Twomey: “Opposition Deputies need to make up their minds. The way a few parliamentary questions in 2012 are forgotten by the Opposition and the sudden righteous indignation in this Chamber undermines how we should go about our work. If there are serious issues here, we need to have a quick inquiry to look into them and, if necessary, move on to a much deeper inquiry. To stand up here and just throw out accusations against people undermines the entire process. Does Deputy Paul Murphy think that every official in the Department of Finance is a crook?”
Murphy: “No.”
Twomey: “Just the ones who deal with IBRC? It is so easy to throw it out. Opposition Deputies do not know what they want. They do not know what type of inquiry they want. Their accusations are shocking. It is shocking how easily they accuse people and throw their names out with no regard. Deputy Finian McGrath talks about trust in the system. Does he seriously think that trust in the system results from throwing around accusations in the Chamber knowing he is protected by parliamentary privilege?”
McGrath: “I did not throw out any accusations.”
Twomey: “It is really shocking. I have listened to this debate.”
McGrath: “The Deputy is living in cloud cuckoo land.”
Twomey: “Obviously, I am clearly hitting a raw nerve with somebody here and they realise that the quality of the debate is no better than the 24-hour news cycle.”
Transcript via Oireachtas.ie
Last night: Bringing Down The House
Independent TD for Kildare North Catherine Murphy
“The Minister, Deputy [Michael]Noonan, stated that what happened must never happen again and that the Government could not get back the €34 billion put into Anglo Irish Bank, but the Government did not ask for it.
It is criminal that people are still paying for it. It is as if we took on the mortgage of the big house up the road, subsequently restructured it and were singing the restructuring’s praises because we no longer had to pay as much as we believed we would.
This is the spin, but we are still paying every penny of it as well as the interest. In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister told me: “The schedule for extinguishing the balance will be €500 million in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.” On 23 December, the first €500 million was borrowed and burned. He continued: “That will rise to €1 billion in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. It will double again to €2 billion” per year from 2024 onwards until it is paid, which looks to be in 2034.
“I am coming to a point about the relationship between this and that awful night when we turned the IOU into a sovereign bond. We have no way of knowing what the relationship was between IBRC and the Department of Finance on that night. In the Chamber, the Minister talked in glowing terms about IBRC’s board and chief executive and IBRC was only being wound down so quickly for one reason.
However, we were not told what the relationship was. This issue needs to be addressed in the House. Why was there a sudden urgency to liquidate IBRC? Was there even a relationship? Not even the senior management knew. Remember how Mr. Alan Dukes was told that afternoon; we saw it on Twitter.
The question of the relationship is important. Many issues like that arise. According to Mr. John Moran’s diary, he met Mr. Mike Aynsley on 1 and 2 August, but there are no notes from that high level meeting. How could it be that two days of meetings were held between the most senior people in the Department of Finance and IBRC and not even one note was kept?
“Turning again to the big guys as opposed to the small guys, Mr Denis O’Brien owed IBRC millions of euro. If he had a spare €45 million lying around, why was he not asked to use it to pay down his borrowings instead of using it to purchase a company that we have been told was a bit of a basket case? Why would the bank allow someone in such debt to use €45 million to expose himself further or did he know that Siteserv would quickly turn into something profitable?”
“The inquiry by KPMG relates to this debate. If we are to have hope for the future, we need to do things differently in terms of governance. We cannot ask the same people who were part of a deal to review that deal. It will not wash.
The public knows this. I took great offence when the Taoiseach yesterday spoke about the accuracy of some of my questions and how they were written. It was beneath him and his office. He should correct that statement. There was nothing wrong with the questions I posed. What was wrong was that I was not getting answers. They had to be pulled out like hens’ teeth. This is unacceptable.”
I am concerned by section 31(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2014. Under it, where a member of the Judiciary is involved in a review or inquiry, freedom of information requests are out of bounds. It is important that this issue is not just pushed off into the future and buried until 31 August, right bang in the middle of the silly season.”
I am very hopeful about this country. The claim has been made on many occasions from the Government benches that those of us on this side of the House show no evidence of having hope. In fact, we do have hope, but we may well have a different vision for the type of Ireland we want to create.
This is an opportunity to acknowledge that we should not dismiss things that are positive. Indeed, both of the Ministers, Deputies Richard Bruton and Simon Coveney, who are in the Chamber have been very much at the heart of driving some of the positive improvement we have seen. It is only fair that we acknowledge that. However, we should not be codding ourselves about any of the issues or tolerating spin; our discussions must be real. The Government would do well to remember that the public is wide awake and engaged with all of this.”
Catherine Murphy TD in the Dáil yesterday
Transcript via Oireachtas.ie
Pic: RTÉ
Former IBRC chief and FIne Gael leader Alan Dukes (top) and Enda Kenny in the Dail this morning taking siteserv questions from Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams.
You want Senior Hurling?
Enda: On 11/6/12, after IBRC’s review, Dept was concerned about letting Siteserv control the sale rather than handling it itself #dail
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) April 22, 2015
Enda confirms Dept of Finance recommended that Alan Dukes be asked to carry out a full independent inquiry [he says he wasn’t asked] #dail — Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) April 22, 2015
Martin now reading into the record quotes from Catherine Murphy’s FOI answer, showing the heavily redacted page to the #Dail [against rules]
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) April 22, 2015
Enda: Mike Aynsley and Alan Dukes insisted in June 2012 they were satisfied with the way in which the sale had been handled #dail — Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) April 22, 2015
Enda: There’ll be another FOI release tomorrow which will include minutes of meetings in Dept of Finance which outline Noonan’s position
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) April 22, 2015
[Gotta say it’s unusual that the release of documents under FOI would be brought to attention of a line minister, let alone the Government] — Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) April 22, 2015
There you go now.
Earlier: Are You Satisfied?
Previously: Siteserv And The Bank That Liked To Say Yes
McGuinness ordered to leave the chamber after trying to find out whether allegations surrounding death of Shane O’Farrell will be addressed
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) March 31, 2015
Ceann Comhairle tells John McGuinness (after he leaves the chamber) that he “ought to be ashamed of yourself” over #Dail behaviour
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) March 31, 2015
(1/2) McGuinness: “I don’t make [Dail rules] up either.” Barrett: “Oooh. That’s very insulting, isn’t it?”
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) March 31, 2015
(2/2) McGuinness [opening door to leave]: “I dunno. It’s probably accurate though.” Barrett [to door]: “You should be ashamed of yourself.”
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) March 31, 2015
And earlier…
Deputy @wallacemick claims Fine Gael backbencher has 3 fixed charge notices shelved/never served #ntfm
— Páraic Gallagher (@paraicgallagher) March 31, 2015
Previously: Delay, Deny Then Cover-up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXOyuYLFaBU
Yesterday, during Leaders’ Questions, Independent TD Mick Wallace asked Taoiseach Enda Kenny about certain matters relating to the gardaí.
On two occasions, Mr Wallace asked Mr Kenny when he was made aware of Garda malpractice in Athlone and what he did about it when he became aware of it.
Mr Kenny said he wasn’t sure what Mr Wallace was talking about.
Mick Wallace: “Much talk of police reform has not materialised. The Guerin report was published in May 2014, nine months ago, but only now is a commission of investigation being established. Its terms are too narrow and it will go through the Houses without debate. Will it even be completed before the next election? Will the Fennelly commission be completed before the next election or will it be kicked down the road? When will the report on the independent review mechanism be published? In July, the Minister stated the majority of cases would be reviewed within 12 weeks. That was a long time ago. The independent Garda authority was supposed to be up and running by the end of 2014. We have not even seen the first draft of legislation. The Garda Inspectorate’s report into serious crime, published on 11 November, has not even been discussed here yet. Debate has been stifled on policing issues. Since 11 November we have tabled 16 Topical Issue matters on policing matters but none of them has been taken.”
“The latest penalty points fiasco has reinforced the fact that indiscipline is rampant in the senior ranks of the Garda. As Maurice McCabe stated at the weekend, the penalty points system is broken and the Government is putting sticking plasters on it. There is no law and order with regard to senior management. There are no sanctions when they break the rules. This is not just about penalty points. If this is how the law is applied to the penalty points system, how is it applied when it comes to charging someone, arresting someone, and taking someone’s complaint seriously? The Garda Inspectorate’s report went to great lengths to point out the Garda widely ignores its own policy. Indiscipline is rampant. What is the Government doing about it?”
“In light of all this indiscipline and given that investigations into allegations of very serious wrongdoing, including Garda involvement in the drug trade, are ongoing in a number of Garda divisions, will the Taoiseach give us an assurance that the promotions and movement of senior gardaí will not include gardaí from these districts before investigations are complete? Will the Taoiseach confirm or deny whether Inspector John McDonald, who is in charge of the fixed charge processing unit in Thurles and who has been responsible for multiple terminations at a huge cost to the State, has been placed on a promotions list?”
Deputies: Out of order.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle Michael Kitt: “Please, Deputy, do not name these people.”
Wallace: “I would like the Taoiseach to listen carefully to my next question. Will he tell the House when he personally was first made aware of very serious Garda malpractice in the Athlone area, and what action did he take?”
Durkan: “Out of order.”
Kenny: “I cannot answer all of the questions Deputy Wallace has raised. Am I to understand he is naming people who have been recommended for promotion, whom he alleges have been involved in criminal activities?”
Frances Fitzgerald: “Is that what he is saying?”
Kenny: “That is the import of what he is saying.”
Wallace: “I am asking—–”
Kitt: “The Taoiseach has the floor.”
Kenny: “If I understand what Deputy Wallace is saying, people involved in criminal activity are being nominated for promotion. Am I to understand that is what he is saying?”
Wallace: “If the Taoiseach checks the record that is not what I said.”
Kenny: “What did you say?”
Wallace: “I asked whether the person responsible for the fixed charge notice system in Thurles, who has been responsible for multiple terminations, is on a promotions list.”
Durkan: “You named the person.”
Kenny: “I do not have any information about who is or is not on a promotion list. I am glad the Deputy clarified the comment that he made.”
Wallace: “The Taoiseach can check the record later.”
Kenny: “The Deputy raised a number of issues. The Guerin report will follow the inquiry that the Government has agreed to set up. That will be set in place after today. The Fennelly inquiry is under way. The sole member wrote to me looking for an extension of time until the end of this year, and I have granted that. I support, if possible, the production by the inquiry of earlier reports in respect of a number of specific matters.”
“The review commission received 307 cases, some of which go back 30 years, and the vast majority of those have been examined by the panel of senior counsel and junior counsel appointed to review those cases. I assume that when they have completed their work they will bring that to the attention of the Minister for Justice and Equality very quickly.”
“I understand that the changes that have been made in respect of fixed penalty notice are significant and that there are now three senior personnel who are entitled and authorised to relieve penalty charges where they might be applied for whatever particular reasons. Yesterday the Government appointed a judge to oversee that practice, to give it further transparency and accountability.”
“Regarding the issues that I have missed in the Deputy’s long list…”
Fitzgerald: “The Garda authority legislation.”
Kenny: “When is that due to be ready?
Fitzgerald: “It is due shortly.”
Micheál Martin: “The Garda authority is due in here very shortly.”
Wallace: “The abuse of the penalty points system was so endemic that independent bodies have had to be created to keep an eye on things. The Taoiseach is not accepting the fact that there is massive indiscipline in the senior ranks of the force. Can he explain why there has been so little opportunity to debate policing matters since last summer? Can he also explain why the Government has no appetite for depoliticising policing in Ireland, despite the recommendations of the likes of Professor Dermot Walsh? Anyone who read Conor Brady’s book over Christmas would have noted that the politicisation of policing in Ireland has gone on since the 1950s at a really bad level, and that is part of the huge problem we are facing. Until the Government decides to depoliticise it and we have an independent police authority that acts as a buffer between the Government of the day and the police force, we will continue to have these problems. The former Minister, Deputy Shatter, would still be in power and would still have his job if there had not been such a flawed system, and the Government is not correcting it.”
“I remind the Taoiseach of my last question to him, which he did not answer. I asked if he could tell the House when he was first made personally aware of very serious Garda malpractice in the Athlone area and what action he took.”
Kenny: “I am not clear on what the Deputy is talking about in respect of the Athlone area. He will have to give me further detail on that, and if he wishes to do so, he can give me it me after the completion of the Order of Business.”
Mattie McGrath: “Somebody might have picked it up.”
A Deputy: “What about you, Mattie?”
Kenny: “In respect of the independent policing authority, this is the most radical shake-up in the justice system since the foundation of the State. The appointment of the Garda Commissioner was subject to open competition and was a completely independent system for making that recommendation for appointment by Government. All promotions of senior personnel are done by a panel for which completely independent people apply. It is not a politicised system any more because the situation is completely independent, and there has been the most radical shake-up since the foundation of the State.”
“Out of 400,000 penalty points issued every year, about 2.9% are quashed, in accordance with the system that applies, where that is valid. There are only three people who can now quash penalty points. Since the new system was introduced, only seven cases have been referred for further analysis under this new system. In anybody’s language there has been a serious shake-up, and it has been for the better in terms of accountancy, accountability and transparency in a system that is very important for people.”
Previously: The Wrong Side Of The Thin Blue Line
Related: Claims Shatter ‘muzzled’ Garda inquiry debate (Juno McEnroe, Irish Examiner)
Garda over penalty point office in line for promotion (Philip Ryan, Irish Independent)
Transcript via Oireachtas.ie