PAC Meeting | Sept 18, 2014

Business of the Committee [Extract]

Deputy John Deasy: Comments were made about the committee's role with regard to penalty points. What is our plan? Are we waiting for the Garda to finish its audit? Will we then invite the acting Garda Commissioner back before the committee? Have we been in contact with the Garda on this? What are we proposing?

Chairman (Deputy John McGuinness): An investigation is ongoing and we are to get a copy of the report. That is the up-to-date position, as I understand it. We can arrange a meeting with the acting Garda Commissioner to go through the latest information when we have the report.

Deputy John Deasy: Will the meeting be in public session here?

Chairman: We can do that, yes. We can include the latest information in our concluding report.

Deputy John Deasy: That relates to my second question. How close are we to concluding our end of things?

Clerk to the Committee: I had a draft report prepared based on the hearings we had up to the summer, including the road safety elements that we covered with the Road Safety Authority. This report can be deferred easily until the latest issue involving Sergeant McCabe's allegations has been dealt with, if the committee so wishes. I was going to circulate the draft report tomorrow.

Deputy John Deasy: Through the years the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has compiled four or five reports on this issue. Is it being actively considered at the moment or is everything finalised on this matter?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy: We have finalised and presented our report. In fairness to the Garda Síochána, a period of time should be allowed for new arrangements to bed in. After this period we will consider re-examining the controls, but we are not doing anything at the moment.

Deputy John Deasy: We are waiting for the Garda to finish its audit and at that point we will incorporate what we need to into our report. At the same time we will invite the acting Garda Commissioner to come before the committee. That is fine.

Chairman: I do not think we can conclude our report without consideration of that. We can only consider the concluded report when the Garda investigation is completed. This is very different from how we started - we started with a private hearing involving Sergeant McCabe and we were unsure. Then we received the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and got full information. This is new information and we will see what emerges from the Garda report.

Deputy John Deasy: Do we have any idea of the timeline for the finalisation of the Garda audit?

Chairman: I understand the Garda is dealing with this as an urgent matter.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy: A public report within three weeks has been mentioned. I can verify that.

Clerk to the Committee: I can get in touch with the Garda.

PAC Meeting | Thursday, 10 July 2014
An Garda Síochána: Road Traffic

Deputy John Deasy: I welcome the acting Garda Commissioner. My first question relates to notices issued for speeding offences which arrive in the post. In many of the cases that come before the courts, the reason for the summons is that no payment was received for the fine. In many cases, however, people state that they have not received the notice. Would it not be better for everyone involved if notices were sent by registered post, given that people take notice of registered post? This is a common sense measure which would save court time and has been suggested to me by serving gardaí several times in the past year.

Acting Garda Commissioner, Noirín O'Sullivan: This is one of the areas we are very conscious of. We mentioned it earlier when talking about the non-delivery of fixed charge notices. The criminal justice working group has been established to look at the recommendations from the fixed charge processing system inspectorate report, and that is a matter that has been prioritised by the working group in terms of the registered delivery of fixed charge notices. The change would be the introduction of a presumption of delivery via enactment of Part 3 of the 2010 Act. This would help address the issue and enable a speedier service.

John Deasy: Ms O'Sullivan expects that people will receive notices by registered post in the medium term.

Noirín O'Sullivan: Yes, I think so. Mr. O'Sullivan from the Department of Justice and Equality co-chairs the working group, so he could update the Deputy on the position in that regard.

Doncha O'Sullivan: The working group is looking at a provision in the 2010 Road Traffic Act which changes the presumption with regard to delivery. This would mean that if there was a certificate of delivery, the presumption in court would be that a person received it. He or she would then have to be able to provide active, positive evidence that he or she did not get it. The context is that at the moment the Garda must essentially prove that a person received the notice, which is impossible.

John Deasy: The working group is changing the burden of proof.

Doncha O'Sullivan: Yes; essentially, we are changing the burden of proof. The road tax office tells us that very few people contact it to say they did not receive a road tax disc in the post. It uses the same address that is used for serving fixed charge notices. The hope is that the burden will shift. The working group is looking at other reforms aimed at trying to address and improve this matter. The registered post issue can be considered in that context, but it is one of a number of issues that are being looked at.

John Deasy: What is the timeline for making this change?

Doncha O'Sullivan: The main timeline is linked to the introduction of what is known as the third payment option, an issue that will also be helped here. We hope we will be able to agree a plan to roll out the information technology required to implement the third payment option. While we might reach agreement on that this year - I hope it will be soon - there is a long lead time to deliver this IT plan. It would take at least a year to do that.

John Deasy: My next question relates to the number of road deaths, which are the main reason the witnesses are before the committee. The number of road deaths has increased in the past couple of years.

I want to bring the witnesses back a few weeks to when the Secretary General of the Department of the Transport, Tourism and Sport and representatives of the Road Safety Authority appeared before the committee. Perhaps this a question for the assistant Commissioner Mr. Twomey also. I asked a question about analysing causation and the reasons for road deaths. The example I used was the lowering of the maximum allowed blood alcohol level a couple of years ago in legislation. I was surprised that no analysis had been done by an organisation such as the Road Safety Authority when it comes to road fatalities. In the meantime, the committee has contacted the Road Safety Authority a few times. Given the increased number of checkpoints, more random breathalysing, more GoSafe cameras and the lowering of the blood alcohol limit, it seems obvious that one would analyse these measures and link them with road fatalities so that we can know what works and what does not. I am amazed that an organisation such as the Road Safety Authority does not conduct that kind of analysis on an ongoing basis. We pass legislation all the time, but in some cases I do not believe the evidence is behind it completely. I think the witnesses know where I am coming from. I wonder what kind of analysis the Garda Síochána conducts when it comes to an issue as serious as this.

Noirín O'Sullivan: Absolutely. There are a lot of complexities involved in the whole area of serious or fatal injuries in road collisions. If it would be helpful, I will invite Superintendent Con O'Donohue, who deals with the RSA on a regular basis in respect of this matter, to explain some of the issues I am raising.

Con O'Donohue: From 1 January 2014 we improved the data that is provided to the Road Safety Authority. A number of changes to the data that it had requested were rolled out as part of a project on 1 January 2014. This also means the RSA is getting the data in a more timely fashion than previously. Allied to that, on a regular basis, about every three or four years, the Road Safety Authority and its predecessors have come to look at a sample of Garda files. They get down and dirty in terms of the actual investigation files to see what they can elicit from those files in terms of the causation factors. Recently I met the RSA's research manager. There is a proposal to start another research project within the next couple of months. Our files are open at all times to the Road Safety Authority to come in and analyse them. It will be going to tender, as the RSA does not have the resources to carry out this significant job, which is exactly what the Deputy is saying - getting down and dirty into the files to see exactly what were the causation factors for particular accidents, whether it was a combination of sleep deprivation and alcohol or drugs, speed, or the condition of vehicles. Currently, the RSA gets data from our PULSE system; essentially, the PULSE system records that a collision occurred and gives the headline issues. It always has that.

John Deasy: Let me break it down somewhat. Let us say there were 200 fatalities - I think the number was 190 in 2013. How many of those fatalities related to excessive blood alcohol? Is that information tracked by the organisation? It is fairly basic. I appreciate Mr. O'Donohue's response and what is being done. Of those 190 fatalities, how many of those were related to alcohol?

Con O'Donohue: Off-hand, I cannot tell the Deputy about the alcohol-----

John Deasy: Do you track that?

Con O'Donohue: It is recorded. In regard to seatbelts, I am aware that in 20% of the fatalities people were not wearing seatbelts.

Deputy John Deasy: Does Mr. O'Donohue know where I am coming from with this? This is basic stuff. I have been around here for 12 years, and I always think that some people legislate blindly because they do not have a clue. If the Garda Síochána and the Road Safety Authority do not know, how do legislators know what legislation to pass if it is not evidence-based in terms of what works and what does not work?

Con O'Donohue: I understand.

John Deasy: There is a big gap here.

Con O'Donohue: We certainly-----

John Deasy: It is clear from the number of road deaths ten years ago compared to the number today that there has been a massive drop, so some things definitely work and improvements have been made across the board. I still do not get why more analysis is not done when it comes to causation.

Noirín O'Sullivan: In terms of blood alcohol count, as I said at the outset, sometimes it can be difficult, particularly if people have been fatally injured in road collisions or require medical intervention very early on. That is a priority. Research is done by the Medical Research Bureau, also which has responsibility for analysing the blood alcohol content of samples. As Mr. O'Donohue has said, we see that speed is cause of many fatal road collisions and serious injury collisions; also, non-wearing of seat belts and the use of mobile phones. Coming into the autumn period, there is a lack of awareness by pedestrians in terms of dark clothing and stepping off footpaths. Sometimes cyclists wear earphones and iPods. There are many causation effects other than blood alcohol content, but that is being monitored.

John Deasy: I thank the acting Garda Commissioner for her response. Maybe I could ask Superintendent O'Donohue another obvious question. The number of road deaths increased from 162 in 2012 to 190 in 2013. What is the reason for the increase, given that we have made all these improvements? We are here to discuss the GoSafe system. More checkpoints have been put in place, as mentioned by the Road Safety Authority. What is the reason road deaths have increased by almost 30 in the year?

Con O'Donohue: There are a variety of contributing factors to most collisions, as alluded to by the acting Garda Commissioner. Some of them are very unusual. The Deputy mentioned that legislation was passed. The reduced blood alcohol limits, mandatory alcohol testing, the safety camera project and all the various initiatives taken in recent years have reduced the very high level of road deaths that obtained ten years ago.

John Deasy: I accept that.

Con O'Donohue: We are now at a stage at which the number of fatalities will bottom out. The best countries in the world, unfortunately, still have road fatalities. At some point the number will bottom out.

John Deasy: Fair enough.

Con O'Donohue: There will always be a blip. Sometimes they cannot be explained in terms of an overall trend. We were surprised that in 20% of the fatalities last year people were not wearing seatbelts. That is one that jumped off the page, with everyone asking, in this day and age, why 20% of people were not wearing seatbelts. Speed is still a factor. With the change in the economy, as things start to improve we are getting more vehicles on the road. I spoke to Road Safety Authority about that issue and asked if it is an issue we need to research. Would fuel sales indicate that we are getting more vehicles on the road and more mileage travelled? As a consequence, there is likely to be an increase in the number of deaths and serious injuries. The Road Safety Authority, which has a research function, has not come back to us on that yet, but it will. Certainly, we are working with the Road Safety Authority and the National Roads Authority on the engineering issues. All the time we are sharing and trying to get information. As to 2013, whether it was a blip or whether the number of fatalities is beginning to level out, we still have to keep striving the reduce the number. We are aware of the tragedy for families with one fatality, so we will never be satisfied. At the same time, we all know we will never reach zero, although that should be the ultimate aim.

John Deasy: I thank the superintendent.

The last set of crime figures showed that homicides had risen by 22.5%. The acting Garda Commissioner made a comment at the time in which she said the increase was not attributable to organised crime. Can she explain? To what does she attribute the increase?

Noirín O'Sullivan: Unfortunately, no more than for road deaths, any death is a death too many, no matter how it is caused. The increase in the homicides is not attributable to organised crime.
 It is certainly attributable to a greater propensity to violence and "familial" interactions - I do not like using the term "domestic" - as opposed to other types of interactions such as organised crime. There is something to be done here in regard to responsible behaviour and awareness.

While the homicide rate is up this year, there is a detection rate of 67%, which I see as positive. I do not like to talk of homicide in these terms, because even one death is a death too many. We want to prevent deaths rather than detect them.

John Deasy: The acting Commissioner is basically making the case that society is becoming more violent.

Noirín O'Sullivan: Certainly there is more of a rush to violence not just in terms of deaths, but in terms of serious injury and people acting without thinking.

PAC Meeting | June 19, 2014
Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
Mr. Tom O'Mahony (Secretary General) and Ms Moyagh Murdock, right (CEO, Road Safety Authority) called and examined.

[Extract]
Deputy John Deasy: I have an issue which is not directly related to the discussion but it is pertinent to the Department. A couple of years ago legislation was passed to reduce blood alcohol limits for drivers from 80 mg to 50 mg. Has any analysis been carried out on the effectiveness of that measure? Has anyone in the Department looked at causation or levels of effectiveness in the reduction of blood alcohol limits from 80 mg to 50 mg?

Tom O'Mahony: The RSA carries out the research but it might be a bit soon.

Moyagh Murdock: Is the Deputy is referring to the effectiveness of the ability to drive with a lower alcohol level?

John Deasy: No, I am talking about prevention of death.

Moyagh Murdock: I will need to revert to the Deputy with more specific analysis. Over the past 12 months, mobile checkpoints and detections for breath tests have shown a significant reduction in the level of detections with the new levels in operation. Lowering the levels has raised awareness and there are fewer people taking chances. The figures over the past 12 months have demonstrated a 3% reduction in the number of detections, even though the number of mobile checkpoints has increased.

John Deasy: The number of checkpoints has increased.

Moyagh Murdock: Yes, by 9%.

John Deasy: There has been a 3% reduction. It is not possible to say because the RSA has not done an analysis.

Moyagh Murdock: There has not been any major analysis but I can give the Deputy some of the top line figures for the number of detections and the number of checkpoints-----

John Deasy: No, that is okay.

Moyagh Murdock: There has been an increase of 9% in mobile checkpoints over the 12 months and a reduction of detections on alcohol issues by 3%, so a combination of the two would indicate that there has been a reduction in risk-taking. However, there are still too many getting caught, having taken the chance.

John Deasy: What kind of analysis is carried out by the RSA as a matter of course to determine whether legislation is effective or ineffective? Surely this is pretty landmark legislation when it comes to road safety. An appreciable period of time has passed since the enactment of that legislation. Is there a set period of time for the RSA and the Garda Síochána to determine its effectiveness?

Moyagh Murdock: Over recent months we have been working with the Garda Síochána and interfacing with the PULSE system to collect the statistics. There was much work done and significant investment by the RSA to get that information in order that our own research section can now utilise it. The system is now working. We receive excellent information on a daily basis. It will take some time to build up some statistical analysis but we are happy to come back with information on the effectiveness of the legislation. A raft of new legislation is being rolled out in the coming months and points are being increased from two to three over a number of offences.

John Deasy: In short, Ms Murdock is saying there has been no analysis as such.

Moyagh Murdock: The analysis we have done in the past would be more of a manual analysis. We did not have the capability until more recently to do the type of database interrogation about which the Deputy is talking. There certainly was analysis done in the past, but we will have a much more interrogative analysis in future that will allow us to produce information on a more scientific basis.

John Deasy: When will that analysis be available?

Moyagh Murdock: We are using the information as we go along. It is a question of setting the parameters of the investigation and deciding what information we want to find out. That process is under way and we have the capacity to come back with specific results on specific queries and set out an analysis of them. The Garda Síochána issues monthly statistics on fatalities, collisions, checkpoints, and the number of detections of speeding, driving while intoxicated and other offences under the road traffic legislation. There is a whole raft of queries on which we will be able to work with the Garda.

John Deasy: I have a related question in regard to drug driving. Given that the number of checkpoints is up by 8% or 9%, has there been a corresponding increase in the rate of detection of drug driving?

Moyagh Murdock: I do not have that information to hand. Our research and education section is working very closely with the Garda on this issue.

John Deasy: Does Ms Murdock have any idea of the numbers? This issue has been knocking around for some years now.

Moyagh Murdock: It is a work in progress. I will come back to the Deputy with information.

John Deasy: Does Ms Murdock not have any sense as to the effectiveness of the current regime?

Moyagh Murdock: I do not have that information to hand. We are working with the Garda on the effectiveness of detection and, in particular, the challenges in terms of on-the-spot detection. There is a working group engaging with the Garda on that issue. I will get back to the Deputy with more details.

John Deasy: I am not sure whether the Comptroller and Auditor General's office has done any work on this. I would like some type of analysis to be done with regard to blood alcohol levels, drug driving, increased checkpoints and the effectiveness of measures that are taken legislatively and by the Garda. It is important that such an analysis be done.

Moyagh Murdock: Absolutely.

John Deasy: We are all striving to improve road safety, but if we do not know what is effective, we are shooting in the dark. The weakness in the system for years has been that some of the measures that were taken were introduced by legislators who were not tuned in to what really needs to happen. The only way of finding out what is required is by doing the type of indepth analysis to which I referred. I am surprised it has not been done given the time that has passed since the enactment of the legislation. The issue of drug driving has been spoken about endlessly.

Moyagh Murdock: The technological advances we have implemented, with the PULSE system now interfacing with our own systems, will facilitate what the Deputy is talking about. I agree 100% that we should be able to produce that type of information, not just in regard to drink driving but also drug driving. I am optimistic that we will be able to get information for the Deputy in the near future. That project has just come to fruition. It involved a significant amount of development work and an investment of more than €400,000 in developing the IT interface.

PAC Meeting | March 13, 2014
Justice and Equality / State Pathology Building Project
Mr Brian Purcell, Secretary General Department of Justice, called and examined.

[Extract]
Deputy John Deasy: We have been here for a long time so I will be as brief as possible. I apologise if this has come up previously, but I have a question about the company car and penalty points issue. The Comptroller and Auditor General examined this issue and his investigation found that the State was losing approximately €1.12 million every year because drivers using company cars were evading their penalties. The report showed that one company alone had more than 200 unresolved cases. Many companies responded to the effect that they did not know who was driving the car at the time of the offence. Almost one quarter of road traffic offences involving a company car during 2011 and 2012 were quashed and almost half were not pursued. I raised this issue with the Garda Commissioner when he came before this committee recently and asked him why, after ten years, it has still not been resolved. The problem was first noted in 2002 or 2003 and it has still not been resolved.

I understand that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport is obviously key in this matter. I heard a report on radio yesterday which was based on what the Garda inspectorate had reported. What kind of input does the Department of Justice an Equality have in this situation, where a problem has gone on for so long? When I asked the question of the Garda Commissioner I found his answer to be unsatisfactory. I asked him if the legislation that was passed in 2003 was ineffective and if new legislation was needed. I now understand that further legislation was passed but was not acted upon. The relevant elements within the legislation have not been dealt with by the responsible Departments. What role does the Department of Justice and Equality have in this? Whose has the lead responsibility for this within Government? In my opinion, there has been a real dearth of leadership on what is a very simple issue. A problem has been identified, legislated for but not resolved. We are talking about sizeable amounts of money and I want to know why somebody has not taken this by the scruff of the neck and dealt with it, once and for all. What role does the Department of Justice and Equality have here? What does the Department intend to do about it?

Brian Purcell: It certainly is a very valid criticism of the system that is in place at the moment. To answer the final question first, one of the recommendations in the report of the Garda inspectorate is that the Minister would immediately task the Department with chairing a group of the relevant stakeholders in all of this ---

John Deasy: I am going to stop Mr. Purcell there. Why did it take the Garda inspectorate issuing a recommendation for that to happen? This has been obvious for ten years. It has been legislated for twice. Why does the Department need the Garda inspectorate to tell it something that is already evident? It is evident to anyone who has looked at it.

Brian Purcell: Deputy Deasy is right; it has been going on for a considerable period of time. Legislation is in place, namely, the 2010 Road Traffic Act, a section of which would address this problem but that section is in Part 3 of the Act which is awaiting commencement. One of the issues that has held up the commencement of the Act is what is called the "third payment option". It is our intention, in the context of the new group that has been set up and which is having its first meeting this afternoon, to recommend that the legislation is amended in such a way as to allow for the commencement of the provision that relates to the company car issue, separately from the rest of Part 3, so that it can proceed without being held up, pending the introduction of the third payment option.

John Deasy: The legislation is deficient as is and needs to be amended. Is that correct?

Brian Purcell: To be fair, the legislation itself is not deficient. In order for the relevant section that applies to the company car issue to proceed, the Act would have to be amended to enable that element to proceed, separate from the other elements in that particular part of the legislation. I think that is how we will proceed but I do not want to pre-empt the group's discussions. The group will be jointly chaired by my Department and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and I think that the best and quickest way of enabling us to deal with this problem would be to go down that route. Maybe when the group meets I will be told that there are other options but I believe that this is the way we will move it on. I can assure Deputy Deasy that the Minister, my Department and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport are committed to resolving the outstanding issues as quickly as possible.

John Deasy: That is fair enough, but a punter might ask Mr. Purcell why it is taking so long to deal with this. The Comptroller and Auditor General has conducted his investigation and found that very significant amounts of money are being lost to the Exchequer. Why does it take so long for two Departments and An Garda Síochána to get around a table? Why does it take a Garda inspectorate report to precipitate that? That question must be asked. The Public Accounts Committee has to ask that question. We are now potentially talking about a third tranche of legislation, assuming we amend the 2010 Act, to get this right. The question must be asked as to how efficient problem solving within our Departments really is, in the face of the company car issue. Mr. Purcell has answered my question - he has a road map and the group is meeting. However, even a cursory look at the history of the company car issue would lead one to assert that the Government has failed dismally to deal with it in a reasonable time period. I do not know if the Comptroller and Auditor General has anything to say on the issue, given that he is the person who came up with these recommendations.

Seamus McCarthy (Comptroller and Auditor General): It is disappointing that something which was first raised in 2003 and presented in a relatively straightforward way as an obvious problem has not been resolved ten years on. While there have been attempts to solve the problem and there seems to be a way to do so, the lack of a resolution thus far is disappointing.

Brian Purcell: I would not disagree with Deputy Deasy or the Comptroller and Auditor General on that. It should have been moved on before now. It was dependent on dealing with the third payment option which is something that is complicated and will be quite costly to implement, particularly in terms of the investment in IT that will be required. The solution to move this along as quickly as possible is the one I have indicated and I will certainly be pressing ---

John Deasy: Is the Department of Justice and Equality taking the lead on this or the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport?

Brian Purcell: The group is jointly chaired by ourselves and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. An amendment to the Road Traffic Act is required. I must point out, by the way, that I am not blaming the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport but---Exactly. The Commission said that he was not blaming the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.

Brian Purcell: We must ensure that both Departments push this measure through. The group has not been set up to deal with this issue solely, but with a range of issues that have been covered in previous reports in addition to the latest report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and by the inspectors' report. The issues range across the core services in the Garda Síochána and other related agencies. We have been given clear instructions by the Government and the Minister that problems areas must be progressed as expeditiously as they can. That is the direction in which we are going.

John Deasy: Fair enough. On foot of Mr. Purcell's response to the question, I must address the issue of penalty points in the broad sense. I have reflected on what has happened in the past couple of years and the processes that have evolved as the penalty points became an issue in the media, the Oireachtas, the Garda Síochána, the Department and among the public. Let me list the reports: we now have a Garda inspectorate's report; we are looking forward to a Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission report; Assistant Commissioner O'Mahoney's report; countless reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and other reviews. Why has nobody in the Department taken a leadership role and with PULSE technology dealt with infractions that were easy to identify? The Garda inspectorate has obviously done this. Why has it taken so long for Government to deal with this issue? Why was it a case of pushing the problem from desk to desk and passing the buck? We have ten reports. The question I pose may not be for the Secretary General directly or the Department of Justice and Equality, but they are involved, but what is the reason for the myriad of reports on an issue that should be reasonably simple to address? Should there not have been an easier way to deal with this issue? Why are elements of government in turmoil over something that should have been nipped in the bud if problems, such as those identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General years ago, were addressed? Why are we now waiting for another report from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission? Does the Secretary General have a response?

Brian Purcell: It depends on which aspect of the problem is under focus. The fixed charge processing system has worked by and large in a particular way. In broad terms in a three-year period one will have 1.5 million fixed charge process tickets issued. In the context of the complaints made about PULSE, which Assistant Commissioner John O'Mahoney investigated, he examined the 1.46 million fixed charged notices issued, of which 66,000 were cancelled. Of the 66,000 cancelled fixed charged notices, some 37,000 were discretionary cancellations. Over a period of three and a half years that worked out at 10,000 a year, which was two per Garda district per week. On average, there are five Garda stations in a district, so that in every Garda station one ticket was cancelled every two and a half weeks. The vast majority of fixed charge notice fines are paid. The Comptroller and Auditor General has identified issues with summonses but in terms of the overall numbers, the system works reasonably well. The Garda inspectorate's report highlights particular issues. Given the commentary on the issue, may I point out the Minister for Justice and Equality referred the two Garda reports to the independent Garda inspectorate who provided an independent report, which has been accepted.

The issues that the Comptroller and Auditor General has rightly pointed out as needing to be addressed, such as the issue of summons, has been a problem for some time. There are difficulties with summons, such as the operational difficulty of serving summons. The changing nature of how we live, with the significant increase in the numbers living in apartments, complicates the serving of summonses. We need to take a very close look at this, but it will not necessarily be that easy to deal with. This is a problem that has bedevilled the system down through the years. We will have to come up with some sort of solution that works better than the current system. The working group will have to make progress on this.

John Deasy: I know the Minister referred the issue to the Garda inspectorate, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and so on, but having looked at it, I see a common thread. We are not dealing with issues as quickly as we should be, issues are put on the long finger and in some cases this may be up to ten years. I would add the penalty point saga to that. I do not think it is necessary for the Minister and the Department of Justice and Equality to refer it to somebody else, I think the Department should deal with it. In some cases, officials may think that is impossible and the matter should be referred to an independent arbitrator, but the leadership in the Department should deal with issues that the Comptroller and Auditor General has flagged.

I put questions to the Commissioner and frankly I could not believe some of the responses because they were so scant. That is the reason I raised the company car issue. As I have said, I have come to the conclusion after drilling into the figures that issues, which are simple to explain, are put on the long finger, when there is no need to do that.

The Secretary General has answered the question. In respect of penalty points, company cars and statute barred summonses, there is a distinct lack of action, whether that is the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Equality or of collective Departments. I think the group should focus on how to respond quickly to issues as they arise and deal with them collectively.

Brian Purcell: Deputy Deasy has made a valid point. The problem was first identified in the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2003 report. While things have moved on, in particular in respect of fixed charge processing system, some of the core difficulties still exist, in spite of efforts over a long period. There may have been some improvements but we still have not managed to deal with them effectively. It is correct to say that some of the recommendations from the action plan have already been acted upon but the key issues will be dealt with.

I give an assurance to the Chairman and members of the committee that we will ensure this is driven forward from now on, regardless of what may have occurred and whatever failings there may have been in dealing with some of these issues in the past. I have been given very clear instructions by the Minister that we have to ensure this group deals with these problems quickly. If there are resource issues involved, we have to deal with that element. As I stated, however, I assure the Chairman, members of the committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General that they can expect to see progress being made quickly in this area. I take the Deputy's point which is a valid one.

John Deasy: Mr. Purcell will see that there is a significant danger that members of the public will decide that the Department and the criminal justice system are inherently inefficient if these issues are not addressed within a reasonable timeframe. They look at the entire penalty points saga and ask what is going on and why people cannot simply step in and deal with it. While Mr. Purcell is correct that the system as a whole works well, it was known for years that the use of discretion was a major factor in the penalty points system, yet the issue was not dealt with appropriately and was left hanging. We now have four or five reports which clearly point out that the problem with the system has been known about for a long time. Members of the public believe the matter should have been addressed a long time ago.

PAC Hearing | 23 Jan 2014

Management of Fixed Charge Notice System
Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan called and examined

[Extract]
Deputy John Deasy: This material includes a large number of reports, including four reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General dating back to 2000 and the report from Assistant Commissioner O'Mahoney. The Garda Inspectorate is also looking into these matters as they relate to fixed charge notices and we have a report from the Garda professional standards unit dating from April. When one looks through all this material, it is fair to conclude, as the Commissioner stated, that the system has become better in some ways. That conclusion is proved by the figures. However, the system has also got worse in some areas. There have been marginal negative changes in respect of issues such as serving summons, inputting data, allowing offences or potential offences to become statute-barred and failing to prosecute individuals who are driving company cars. While the data shows there have been improvements, there have also been areas in which no improvements have been made. The Comptroller and Auditor General has made the same recommendations consistently since 2000, yet there has not been any improvement in some categories.
I will start with the positives. With regard to the collection of fines, the position 13 or 14 years ago was that more than half of such offences went unpunished. The rate of collection has improved, with only 20% of fines going uncollected today. The cancellation rate for on-the-spot fines was approximately 8% in 1998, whereas the most recent report cites a rate of 5%, which indicates an improvement.

Deputy John Deasy: When it comes to the serving of summonses, for example, in 2000 there was about 44% non-serving of summonses but it has gone up to 50% on the latest date provided to us by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Will the Commissioner start with that issue? What are the reasons and why has there been a marginal increase in the non-serving of summonses from his perspective?

Mr. Martin Callinan: I suppose there are many reasons people will evade either getting a fine or conforming to whatever the sanction for that fine being imposed on them. It is the case that there is a greater population now, there is a transient community with people from both the North-South and east-west and there are data quality control issues in the context of registered owners of vehicles. The Deputy is right. Summonses are a difficulty and have been a difficulty for us for many years in terms of trying to get them served.

John Deasy: Let me be specific. I am sorry for cutting off the Commissioner. There are some other issues I need to get to. In the 2000 report the Comptroller and Auditor General made a recommendation and he made it again in 2012. The recommendation was very simple, that the Garda and the Courts Service need to work together to deal with the issues of summonses. That has not happened.

Martin Callinan: It is happening and we are engaging with the Courts Service and have been for some time on this issue.

John Deasy: Please continue.

Martin Callinan: I do not have a whole lot more to say to the Deputy. That is the case. We are working on it. I have a designated officer working with the Courts Service with a view to seeing what else we can do to improve. He has a group looking at it to see if there is anything further we can do. All I and my senior officers can do at every available opportunity we have is re-emphasise the need to ensure that summonses are served in a timely fashion. We reiterate that message quite frequently.

John Deasy: Has the Commissioner come across any evidence of deliberate non-serving of summonses by gardaí?

Martin Callinan: No.

John Deasy: Will the Commissioner explain to me how the serving of summonses is tracked right now? How is this monitored?
Mr. Martin Callinan: It is the function of every district superintendent to track the summonses that arrive to him or her for service. That is a function that should be taken very seriously. Primarily, he or she is responsible for doing that.
Deputy John Deasy: Has the Commissioner taken disciplinary action against any garda with regard to the non-serving of summonses?

Martin Callinan: No.

John Deasy: Has the Commissioner ever detected multiple non-serving of summonses by a particular garda?

Martin Callinan: To be fair, no. It is a volume issue. It is a difficult area for us and we accept it is a difficult area for us but we are working to try to reduce the level.

John Deasy: I am going to ask a question because we are going back 12 years. What can we expect with regard to that individual the Commissioner named as working on this with the Courts Service? Are we going to be here in 12 years' time with the same 50% figure? I have to ask that question because it is going on a long time and is getting worse. What can the Commissioner tell the committee to reassure us that figure is going to get better?

Martin Callinan: I think it is very clear that we are very serious about our business in terms of summonses and the courts process and we will continue to reinforce, as best we can, the need on our people to ensure that all of the summonses we get are served. This is not just unique to our own organisation, there are other organisations that suffer the same issues in terms of compliance with matters.

John Deasy: I will move to company cars and return to the recommendation made by the Comptroller and Auditor General in 2003. We are still in the same situation. I think the figure is 28%. Let me provide some background. The assurance at the time was that the Garda Síochána would contact the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, and deal with the issue. That was ten years ago. Can the Commissioner say why that did not happen with the Department?

Martin Callinan: It did happen and I have already indicated to the committee. In 2004, section 19 of the Road Traffic Act was introduced but, in effect, it was found to be not effective. It is the case that one can register a vehicle in a company name. We are working very closely on the issue. There are a number of people involved in this matter because we view it so seriously. The Road Safety Authority, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, the Department of Justice and Equality and the Courts Service are all working together to try to address this.

John Deasy: I am sorry to stop the Commissioner again. In 2004 the legislation passed was not effective. That was ten years ago. The revenue foregone for 2011 and 2012 is more than €1 million. Since 2004, when the Commissioner identified that the legislation was ineffective, what steps did he take with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to rectify that because in those two years the State lost €1 million?

Martin Callinan: We will work with any Department we can in an effort to improve matters but we do not make the law. We implement the law as best we can.

John Deasy: It there a lacuna in the law, the Commissioner identifies that and communicates that to different Departments all the time.

Martin Callinan: With the greatest respect, Deputy, that has been well-flagged in many Departments.

John Deasy: It has been for ten years.

Martin Callinan: It has been well-flagged.

John Deasy: This figure is very low. I will start with that again. I must press the Commissioner on this. This is fairly basic stuff. There are a lot of reports, including Comptroller and Auditor General reports but in some cases there has been no movement whatsoever with regard to changing the law and putting into place the procedures and systems to actually improve the system. In some cases it has improved but in other cases there are serious lapses, organisational lapses, legislative lapses and I do not think it is fair to say it is simply a matter of law enforcement. The Commissioner has a critical role with regard to identifying gaps in the law and communicating them to a Department so it can fix them, whether it is the Department of Justice and Equality or the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, but it has not been done.

Martin Callinan: With respect, it has. We are meeting those involved and are indicating the difficulties and the problems we have. On many occasions a discussion has centred around an individual's driving licence particulars being associated with a particular vehicle, for example, and maybe that might help to address the issue. In reality, what does one do with the employee who is employed by a large transport company who is driving a variety of lorries? The bottom line here is that under section 103 of the Road Traffic Act there is an obligation on either the secretary of a company or some company official to indicate who was driving the lorry.

John Deasy: They are not doing that.

Martin Callinan: Correct.

John Deasy: They are not replying-----

Martin Callinan: We have highlighted this issue many times so it is not fair to point the finger at the Garda and say it is not addressing it. We have highlighted these issues time and again and people are aware of the difficulties.

John Deasy: So the Commissioner is saying it is a lapse on the part of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to deal with this.

Martin Callinan: I am not saying it is a lapse on anybody's part. All of these people can speak for themselves. What I am indicating is where problems like this manifest themselves we interact with the various agencies that are involved in the process and we bring it to their attention.

John Deasy: I will move on to statute barred offences and, again, I go back to 2003. At the time 5,500 cases were flagged as being statute barred in a particular period. In 4,561 of these no reason was stated in the computer file. The Accounting Officer at the time told the Comptroller and Auditor General that the reason for the high number of statute barred offences was due to a backlog of offences relating to the introduction of the new penalty points system. The Accounting Officer at the time, not yourself obviously, stated that since the backlog was now clear that - I stress - the situation should not arise again. In the current report the Comptroller and Auditor General examined over 3000 offences detected in 2011 and 2012, yet it is still a problem.
There were 3,000 offences detected in 2011 and 2012. It is still a problem. It results in a huge loss of revenue from the Exchequer. I do not think we can point the finger at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport or any other Department. This is basic in-putting of data. Court proceedings must be initiated within six months of the offence’s being detected. If they are not it will be statute barred. Why is this still a serious problem ten years on while the State is losing huge amounts of revenue because data is not entered?

Martin Callinan: There are a couple of aspects to this. If a member of the Garda Síochána who applies for a summons for a specific offence, whether it is a road traffic or any other matter, does not deal with that within the statutory period of six months it is statute barred. That is one aspect. The other is the notepads that we use. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s report, and the O’Mahoney report, identified problems for us in that respect. We have implemented a new system whereby all of these pads, which come in batches of 20, are bar-coded and accounted for. An accounting regime has been put in place. I expect to see improvements on that aspect.

John Deasy: It is a question of individuals. Some individuals are not doing this more than others.

Martin Callinan: It is. By the way, the Deputy mentioned in his question that I cannot blame any Department. I am not in the business of blaming any Department or any other agency for sins on my side of the fence. I want to make that clear.

John Deasy: That is fine.

Martin Callinan: I am putting my hand up here about several fault-lines within the system.

John Deasy: Does Mr. Callinan understand that it is reasonable to ask the question when nothing has happened after ten years and when the figures are so bad?

Martin Callinan: That is different. I will certainly answer the question but the Deputy should please not accuse me of laying the blame on-----

John Deasy: I am not.

Martin Callinan: The Deputy mentioned it. That is a point.

John Deasy: Let us be honest about this, someone is falling down in regard to dealing with this.

Martin Callinan: If we allow a situation to occur whereby a summons becomes statute barred then it is clear that we are at fault. That is a given.
We are putting matters in place in respect of the electronic notepad system to repair that. If there are other issues to be addressed we will address them. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report it is 0.4%.

John Deasy: With regard to what I said, it comes down to individuals not in-putting the data in some cases. Does the Garda Síochána have a system to identify those people? There are repeat offenders – offenders is the wrong word - people do this repeatedly or do not do this repeatedly. Is there a way to find those people and deal with that problem? What is the system for weeding this out?

Martin Callinan: In terms of processes, all of these things should manifest themselves in the ordinary management of a district or a division. All of these things should be addressed by line management within those areas.
I hope that the notepad issue I mentioned will take care of itself through the audit trail we now have. The inspector in the district has to make a return on a monthly basis to the fixed charge notice. It is the case, when people are out on mandatory alcohol testing, MAT, checkpoints or other road traffic duties in very inclement weather, that these forms are destroyed and are mislaid. All of the human elements come into play. I am not using this as an excuse but these are issues that arise in the course of ordinary everyday business. It is up to us in management to ensure that there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure that no summons is statute barred.

John Deasy: I have picked out three examples and I will finish on this point. I have to make the observation after going through all of this information dating back to 2000, and the four reports and sets of recommendations that the Comptroller and Auditor General and his office have made over those years, in those three areas I have outlined there has not been much improvement. In some areas there has been. To be fair it has been very positive. The system in many respects is far more rigorous. There are areas where I am to an extent at a loss to figure out why the improvements are not greater. That is merely an observation.
Since the new policy was issued in August, what improvements have been made and can Mr. Callinan give us some detail on the kinds of figures, if they have improved since then, across the board, since the new policy was initiated in August?

Martin Callinan: I have already mentioned the three-tier audit system, the professional standards unit which looks at the decision-making process-----

John Deasy: May I stop Mr. Callinan and ask what they do? Mr. Callinan said that there is a statutory requirement to have that unit. When I look across all these areas I ask myself, while all of this has been going on for the past 13 years what has that unit been doing in these areas? What is its role? How often does it meet? Mr. Callinan said it is a statutory requirement to have it but how effective is that unit?

Martin Callinan: It is a unit of its own right. It is an entity in Garda headquarters. I was statutorily obliged to set it up. As the Deputy can imagine from its title it considers professional standards for the Garda Síochána. It would typically go into a district or a division and examine the processes in operation and bring back recommendations across the whole system, not just penalty points. It makes recommendations and reports to local management.
The Deputy mentioned what has been happening in trying to correct this. Apart from those three tiers, the Assistant Commissioner, the professional standards unit and the internal audit unit, there are several changes in respect of the cancelling authority and redefining its area. In other words, superintendents in the new policy are not now in a position physically to access a machine and cancel it. It has to go to the fixed charge office with the recommendation to cancel or not.
A similar tracking system is in place in respect of the notepads so that a return goes every month to the fixed charge office which is auditing. I mentioned the three units. They are some of the things that have been happening since August under the new policy arrangement. Of course if there are other recommendations from the inspectorate or the Director of Public Prosecutions we will consider them and if we can factor them into the policy we will do so.

John Deasy: On the issue of whistleblowers, Mr. Callinan will not talk about individual cases. He has made that clear and the committee has accepted that. It is fair enough but can Mr. Callinan fill me in? I have a concern about the information that it seems is now frequently given to Members of the Oireachtas and committees. In some cases it might constitute a fragment of the information around one particular case, or an alleged offence. This committee needs to be careful about how it deals with that information because it does not give the full picture. Is that Mr. Callinan’s opinion too?

Martin Callinan: That is absolutely the case. If one considers the allegations that the Assistant Commissioner has examined on behalf of all of us it is very clear that in a substantial portion of the allegations the people who complained about corruption, malpractice, cancellations of all types had very limited access to the decision-making process. They simply did not have access, to put it in a nutshell. They opened a screen in the PULSE system and looked at a snapshot of the actual event but they did not see the complete picture.

John Deasy: Will Mr. Callinan give us an idea of what else there is? What constitutes the full picture beyond the screen?

Martin Callinan: For example, if an allegation is made that a particular superintendent cancelled a particular group of tickets, it would be necessary to go to the district office and examine the audit trail, providing it is there, of course, but this has not always been the case. If the trail exists one would have to examine it to see the circumstances, to see if it has been done correctly and whether the professional judgment exercised was proper and appropriate in the circumstances. That information is not available from these screen shots; one must go behind them.
For example, when dealing with the fixed charge notice system, in some instances the juvenile diversion scheme is at issue. Once a date of birth is recorded for a driver, it will automatically go to the fixed charge office for cancellation under the juvenile diversion scheme. Therefore, there are elements which are not visible when one looks at a screen.

John Deasy: What are the Commissioner's views on how this committee is doing its business? Let us say I agree with the Commissioner and that I have a similar concern. I am not questioning anyone's bona fides – whistleblowers – but I am getting to the nub of the issue. The Commissioner is saying that in his opinion he cannot make a decision or an analysis based on a fragment of information.

Martin Callinan: Yes.

John Deasy: What are his views on how the committee has been doing its business in that case? Is he saying that it cannot possibly-----

Martin Callinan: In relation to this particular aspect?

John Deasy: -----make a correct analysis if it does not have all the information?

Martin Callinan: I do not believe it is possible; I really do not believe it is possible. Far be it from me to criticise the important work that goes on in this committee, because it is necessary and important that we are called to account, as we should be. As the accounting officer for the Garda Síochána I have a statutory function under section 26 of the Garda Síochána Act to direct and control the force. The only effective way I can do that is to have a proper disciplinary regime in place so that when people step outside I have access to sanctions.
I should preface my remarks by indicating that one of the people who is now engaged in this so-called whistleblowing exercise is a person who is a serving member of An Garda Síochána, as I understand it. If that is the case, then he or she is subject to the disciplinary regulations. It is the case that at any time, at any place, anywhere, a member of An Garda Síochána can step outside the ordinary standards expected of that member. If that is the case then I would have to consider whether I would have access to the disciplinary regulations to deal with that issue. I am not for a moment suggesting that I will go down the road of exercising discipline in this particular case but it is certainly something on which I would have to reserve my position. If I am asked in general terms whether it is appropriate for a member of An Garda Síochána to use this committee as a platform for exercising whatever it is he or she wishes to exercise and make unsubstantiated allegations or provide sensitive personal data to a third party - such as this committee - then I will have to seriously consider my position and their position. I have already indicated to the Chairman that I have very serious concerns about the information, the data, that has been passed on to the committee. I am not aware of what is contained in that data but I can only presume it from the response of the committee. I have no issue with the committee taking legal advice and deciding how best to do its business but it is the case that I have also taken advice and I am told that, as we speak, I am in breach of the Data Protection Act and that it is possible that the person who supplied that information is in breach of the Data Protection Act. This is clearly a matter on which I will need to take action. I will reserve my position with regard to how I will deal with that. If I am asked in a general sense whether I would be in favour of a member of the Garda Síochána coming in here and using this forum, this committee, to expose material in the fashion in which it has been exposed or to make allegations that have not been substantiated, I think that is fundamentally wrong.

John Deasy: The Commissioner is also making the case that it is not possible to make a comprehensive case because not all the information is available. Is that correct?

Martin Callinan: If I may put it this way, I do not know what the committee has at its disposal. Certainly, if it is anything like the level and extent of the knowledge that the Assistant Commissioner had at his disposal about the allegations made, if that mirrors what the Assistant Commissioner was dealing with, clearly it would be impossible to make a judgment. That was part of my concern which I articulated in the letter to the Chairman. For instance, if the information is anonymous and if this committee were to rely on providing statistics in a public forum, then we are in a very rocky place unless these matters can be explored and properly teased out. I have indicated to the committee that there were issues within the system that needed to be corrected, and this has been done. However, I emphasise it is very important that as a disciplined force we do not allow a situation to occur in which 13,000 members of An Garda Síochána start making complaints about one another and investigating one another. We have to exercise some form of control. It is important that as Commissioner I have control and authority over the force. How can I manage the force unless I have access to that type of control? The organisation could not perform its policing or security remits if I and my officers were not in a position to exercise that type of control.
I do not want it to be said that I am considering disciplinary action with regard to these people. I have given it very careful consideration and I will continue to do so. However, there may come a point at which I will have to seriously consider this matter for all the reasons I have indicated. I cannot allow a situation to continue where information is being bandied around. I realise people are relying on a certain section of the law as an authority.
Wrongdoing by any member of An Garda Síochána will not be tolerated by me or by any member of my officer corps. The committee can take that as a given. There is a difference between reporting wrongdoing and consistently putting about large volumes of material. These are the parameters I must consider. When I became aware of it I issued a very clear direction to the two members involved. We had a discussion with Deputy McDonald on the last occasion I was before the committee as to when I became aware of the identities of these people and what they were saying. I have carefully checked my records since then. In December, following on from the information that the retired member of the force and a serving member, a sergeant, were working together to provide information and material for an elected representative, I took advice and I was advised that this was wrong.
In light of that advice, I set about putting in place a direction to both of these individuals that if they had any problem at all or any complaint to make, the first thing they should do is to revert either to the assistant commissioner who deals with very serious allegations or any other member of the Garda Síochána. As I recall, I used the words "without prejudice to the confidential reporting mechanism," because I fully recognise and support the confidential reporting system in An Garda Síochána and elsewhere. Everybody, not just in An Garda Síochána, is entitled to be in a position to confidentially report matters of wrongdoing that come to their attention. At the same time, these individuals have a responsibility as well, and the making of allegations that cannot be substantiated on a regular basis is a particular difficulty that I may have to deal with.

Deputy John Deasy: Thank you, Commissioner.