If we really care about Refugees, we'll stop allowing Shannon to be used to bomb their homes…
- Details
- Parent Category: Dail Work
- Category: Dail Diary
Dáil Diary no 54 – 2 October 2015
If we really care about Refugees, we'll stop allowing Shannon to be used to bomb their homes…
Here’s my ten minute piece on the current Refugee Crisis, in the Dáil yesterday -
“I too welcome the motion and, even though I speak only for myself, because I am an Independent Deputy, I will be supporting it. Unfortunately, our approach last winter was not quite so positive. We argued about the cancellation of the Mare Nostrum programme and protested to the Europeans that it was not a good idea. When programme was brought to an end, the refugees were never going to stop trying to come across the sea, they were just going to drown and that is what happened to many of them. People were also drowning when the Mare Nostrum programme was working but it was, at least, a big help at the time.
There is no doubt that this is an incredible crisis. On the issue of the refugees coming in, I support Deputy Mac Lochlainn's point about the importance of getting these people into a work situation as quickly as possible. Surely, it would be rational to do this. The manner in which we have dealt with that issue in the past has left too much to be desired.
I still worry about this situation. If we consider what has happened in the past 20 years, the statistics are frightening.
The militarisation of the planet has continued to increase, especially since 2001. In the past five years, there has been a 16% increase in the proliferation of arms in comparison to the previous five years, a frightening development. Of the 60 million people currently displaced, it is estimated 33 million of them are displaced because of war.
What will we do about this? Ireland is a small country but I believe we can play a positive role in this regard. Several weeks ago, Annette Groth, a member of the German Parliament who had been in Hungary watching the plight of the refugees there, told the German Parliament:
Germany is the third biggest weapons exporter in Europe and has good relations with, for instance, Saudi Arabia and Qatar ... Our government is still delivering arms to Saudi Arabia which happens to be supporting ISIS, the jihadists.
We all realise the whole Middle East region has gone crazy but we cannot stay silent on the reason for it. The number of refugees will actually increase, not decrease, unless there is a serious examination of the root causes of it all. For example, Deputy Mac Lochlainn made the point some countries are prepared to help more than others. Two countries not prepared to take in refugees are Saudi Arabia and America, yet the part they are playing in the destruction of this region is unbelievable. Yemen is being destroyed, with refugees being created every hour there, but no one has said a word about it.
Shannonwatch, through freedom of information requests, got the statistics on the planes coming through Shannon Airport last year. There are planes going through the airport from America to Saudi Arabia with all kinds of arms and most likely cluster bombs, which are being used in Yemen. We are allowing Shannon Airport to be used by the American Government and the arms industry to bring arms to the Middle East region to cause havoc. Bombs are falling on innocent people's homes and they are being driven out of them but we are not stopping it. It is great we sent two boats to the Mediterranean and it is to be commended that we are prepared to take in refugees but how can we continue to allow Shannon to be used for as a US military base? If the Minister for Justice and Equality did nothing else for the rest of her time in government before the election, it would be wonderful if she took a positive decision on this issue, as it would mean so much. We cannot possibly defend our facilitation with what is happening.
Those fleeing to Europe now are fleeing to countries which sold the arms that caused the havoc and displacement in the first place. The Russians have now started to bomb Syria, making them as culpable as the Americans. Bombs do not solve problems; they create them. The French and British cannot wait to get in there more. The region is a minefield now. They have been training rebel groups to fight Bashar al-Assad. While I would not defend Assad for one minute, the alternative is worse. The ISIS crowd are flourishing because of what is happening. It is crazy what they are like. Bad as Assad is, his is one of the last multicultural governments in the region. His biggest crime is that he is independent of America and Israel. I accept he is guilty of many crimes against his own people over the past five years. He should be tried for war crimes, the same as the likes of Blair, Bush and Obama for what they have been involved in.
I make no excuses for Assad or the Russians but Ireland has an opportunity to play a positive role. We are an island, a small country, but it does not stop us from having a real and strong neutral voice for peace. We cannot start talking about peace, however, while we continue to allow Shannon Airport to be used as a US military base. That is the height of hypocrisy. Up to 2.5 million US troops have gone through Shannon since 2001. The amount of arms that we allow through with permits on civilian planes is astronomical. We refuse to search military planes that land at the airport. When people are in opposition, they say we should search the military planes in Shannon. When they get into government, however, they say they have assurances from America that all is well. All is not well.
Deputy Clare Daly and I had three days in court in Ennis recently. Witnesses came forward who were working in Shannon to testify they saw arms on military planes which is illegal. Still our Government does not want to look into this. The judge accepted the bona fides of the testimonies of these individuals. He ended up fining us in the end, which was irrational given his own arguments but that is a different issue.
Will we look at the Shannon issue and stop helping one country bomb another? It would mean so much. Can one imagine visiting people in the Middle East region and watching bombs falling on the houses beside them, looking to kill someone involved military activity but wiping out women and children? Can one imagine sitting there knowing the bombs could have come through Shannon before they were dropped? What does it say about us that we can tolerate this?
The manner in which the world operates has never been as disappointing. The arms industry, along with the pharmaceutical industry, is one of the two largest industries in the world. One cannot get elected President of America without the support of the arms industry. It will cost Hillary Clinton $2 billion just to run for president, which is a lot of money. One needs the arms industry’s support to run for President of America in a serious manner. The end result is payback. Bombs have to be dropped on people to support the arms industry and keep it thriving. We are complicit because we choose to turn a blind eye to Shannon Airport being used as a US military base. We should be ashamed of ourselves.”
Mick Wallace.
Good soundness is a result of proper supply and hygiene. How can medicaments hels up? Circumstances that can influence your choice when you are buying medications are different. Below are basic reasons about cialis vs levitra vs viagra which one is better. Surely there are also other momentous questions. Choosing the perfect treatment edition for a racy disease can get really confusing considering the advantages and disadvantages of the existing treatment methodologies. When you buy remedies like Cialis you have to keep in mind about levitra vs cialis vs viagra. The most significant thing you must look for is which works better viagra or cialis or levitra. A long list of prescription drugs can lead to erectile malfunction, including many blood stress medicines, pain remedies, and most of antidepressants. Sometimes the treatment options may switch on erectile dysfunction remedies or hormone treatments.
Will we ever have a Government that’s interested in Public Transport…
- Details
- Parent Category: Dail Work
- Category: Dail Diary
Dáil Diary no 53 – 28th September 2015
Will we ever have a Government that’s interested in Public Transport…
Last week I got speaking time on the issue of Public Transport in Ireland or should I say, the lack of it. Successive Governments have failed to adequately invest in public transport, which leaves the citizens with a poor service, and an environmental headache as well. We still don’t have a Government who are seriously interested in addressing this problem, as outlined in my speech -.
“I realise that what is before us is technical legislation, but I welcome the occasion to address the issue it raises of public transport. There has been a serious lack of discussion of the Government's transport strategy. In response to one of my written questions last April, the Minister stated that the framework, Investing In Our Transport Future; A Strategic Framework for Investment in Land Transport, would address the need for a new rail policy and that a public consultation process would take place in the coming weeks on the current and future role of rail in Ireland. That was April. Now, the final version of the framework has been published and the only mention of the much-needed rail policy is simply repeated references throughout the 36 page document to the fact that we need a new rail policy, that we have historically low levels of spending on public transport infrastructure, that just to maintain the existing infrastructure we will need to spend a lot more and that if we are to meet our 2020 obligations on carbon emissions and renewable energy targets in the transport sector, we must spend more again. However, because we are living under the dictates of a neoliberal Government that is still shoving austerity down our necks, this much-needed funding is unlikely to materialise. Instead, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport is letting our transport infrastructure go to rot while making plans for the privatisation of our public transport system.
This is just another case of the Fine Gael-Labour Government putting the interests of business above all else, including the principle of democracy itself. To quote UCD's Julian Mercile:
'Privatisation decreases democratic input into economic decisions and planning as ownership of key economic sectors and provision of significant services is taken away from the public. In short, privatisation is a neoliberal policy par excellence as it contributes to the increasing business power over the economy.'
That this much-needed rail policy is unlikely to materialise during the life of this Government is a strong illustration of the Government's poor performance on the issue of climate change mitigation. Such a policy should have as its guiding light the following principle - high-speed rail powered only by renewables and affordable public transit which can unite every community in the country. Instead of anything as progressive and forward-thinking as this, the Government has overseen a whole series of cuts to Irish Rail staff and services and only responds to rising demand in the public rail system in a piecemeal fashion when crisis levels of overcrowding are reached.
The only remarkable expansion has been on the Luas network which happens to be privately owned by the French company Veolia. While the Government plans to privatise the public transport sector, municipalities in Europe are bringing public transport back into the public sector. The French town of Saumur remunicipalised its public transport which had been outsourced to Veolia and a number of departments are planning to do the same. As a result of eliminating Veolia's profit margin, Saumur, which has a population of only 30,000, is expected to achieve significant annual savings of between €400,000 and €800,000. In this country, the cost of public transport has risen by over 60% in the past five years at the same time as services have been drastically cut. Clearly, the Government has no plans to make public transport affordable, especially in light of the move towards the idea of bringing in the for-profit private sector.
Transport is not to the forefront of the renewable energy discussion to anything like the extent it should be. As Gavin Daly pointed out recently on the "Ireland After NAMA" blog, transport accounts for one third of Ireland's energy demands and is growing rapidly, yet it barely ever registers in the energy debate. In fact, instead of transport demand growth being seen as an area of concern, the Government encourages it and trumpets it as evidence of a recovering economy. It happened again this morning when the Minister boasted that the increase in the number of cars on the road was a tribute to the Government's achievements in the economic sector and not, in fact, a testament to its failure to provide adequate public transport, protect the environment or tackle climate change. It is shocking that since the Government came to power, not once has a Minister of his or her own volition linked rail to climate change mitigation. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport was forced to acknowledge the connection three times in response to written questions from Deputy Broughan and me. The Minister can check the record. Transport energy demand, which was responsible for a third of total energy use in Ireland, grew by 2.9% in 2013.
Renewable energy in transport reached 2.8% in the same year. This is an abysmal situation. Advancements in renewable energy in the transport sector are being outrun by the increase in overall transport energy consumption. We are not even running to stand still - we are going backwards.
The Minister's transport blueprint repeatedly laments the lack of funding that his Department gets. This morning, he asked Deputy Catherine Murphy where we would get the funds from to create a joined-up rail transport system. I have an idea for raising some money for investing in renewable public rail while helping to slash global carbon emissions by 20%. According to recent IMF figures, Ireland will subsidise fossil fuel companies to the tune of $1.22 billion this year, $262 per head, increased from $1.09 billion in 2013. The Government has managed to increase corporate welfare to the fossil fuel industry by $130 million in just two years.
The vast fossil fuel subsidies estimated by the IMF for this year include payments, tax breaks and cut-price fuel. The largest part of such subsidies is the cost left unpaid by polluters and picked up by governments, including the heavy impact of the local air pollution, floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change. We can stop this corporate welfare by endorsing the polluter pays principle and invest the saved money by removing carbon from the public transport sector.
We are on course for serious fines for failing to meet our climate change mitigation targets. According to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the cost to the Exchequer of purchasing compliance will be billions of euro by 2030 in a "business as usual" scenario, that is, if we continue with a neoliberal government committed to enforcing austerity no matter what the cost to people or the environment.
In reply to a written parliamentary question in March, the Minister was clear that public transport had a crucial role to play in alleviating the consequences of climate change. Rail is among the most efficient and climate-friendly forms of transport. In the draft "Investing in our Transport Future" document, however, rail was talked about as being dead weight. The discussion was framed around the question of what extent of the rail network it was appropriate to retain. The document went on to make the mad suggestion that, unlike car ownership and use, public transport usage was generally adversely impacted by increasing incomes. The report contains no footnotes or references about from where this claim comes. Irrespective of whether it is true, the Minister should fight for the betterment of Ireland's public transport sector and not act as a lobbyist for the National Roads Authority, NRA.
In his address to the UN Secretary General's climate change summit last year, the Taoiseach stated: "Leaders must show conviction, clarity, courage and consistency in their actions." I am sure that he said that with a straight face, maybe with a fake expression of concern, but it beggared belief that he could say such, given the policies that the Government has been prepared to implement. The climate change Bill is disappointing. It will be before the House again next week, but it leaves much to be desired. That our Governments are reluctant to tackle climate change because it is never an election issue is a major problem. We work from election to election in five-year cycles, but climate change requires a long-term strategy. We are not taking that point on board. Someone will have to do it some time. The longer it is left, the more work someone will have to do.
The Minister has the gist of my points. I would love to be able to get on a train to or from Wexford at weekends instead of driving in traffic that can be soul destroying. Rail is a beautiful way to travel. We must upgrade the system. It requires a great deal of investment. I have often stated how wrong it is that the EU does not have an arrangement under which governments can borrow money on the books at less than 2% to invest in infrastructure instead of being driven into public-private partnerships, PPPs, under which money can cost up to 15%. It does not stack up. It is another form of corporate welfare. The Government should be fighting tooth and nail for such an EU arrangement. This country needs major infrastructural investment not just in public transport, but also in social housing, as everyone knows. Money does not grow on trees, but the EU should play a more positive role in allowing the Government to borrow money at proper rates for investing in infrastructure, that is, 1.7% instead of 15%."
Mick Wallace
Good health is a result of proper food and hygiene. How can medicaments hels up? Circumstances that can influence your choice when you are buying medications are different. Below are basic reasons about cialis vs levitra vs viagra which one is better. Surely there are also other momentous questions. Choosing the unimprovable treatment variant for a racy disease can get really confusing considering the advantages and disadvantages of the existing treatment methodologies. When you buy remedies like Cialis you have to keep in mind about levitra vs cialis vs viagra. The most significant thing you must look for is which works better viagra or cialis or levitra. A long list of prescription drugs can lead to erectile dysfunction, including many blood stress medicines, pain remedies, and most of antidepressants. Sometimes the treatment options may include erectile disfunction remedies or hormone treatments.
Still No Real Reform of How we do Policing…
- Details
- Parent Category: Dail Work
- Category: Dail Diary
Dáil Diary no 52 – 25th September 2015
Still No Real Reform of How we do Policing…
The Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald has finally introduced the Police Authority Bill, with the usual, not unexpected, fanfare. The Bill is a serious disappointment, as it leaves the paws of the Government of the day, all over Policing. We really need to depoliticise Policing in Ireland, and this Bill does little or nothing for this objective. What I would say about it, is that it is consistent with so much of the hallmark of this Government – A lot more spin than substance. The media coverage of the Bill was at least as disappointing as the Government’s effort – Ireland would be so much a better place if we had a serious, independent media. Here’s my 20 minute contribution in the Dáil. -
“I would have liked to have an hour. Before the summer, we did a great deal of work on this legislation and went through the various sections. I will have time to cover just a few sections today. Generally speaking, I consider that the proposed authority is much weaker than the one we proposed in our Bill. It is clear that ministerial and political control over the authority, the Garda Síochána and the Garda Commissioner is to be retained. The proposed authority will be a weak and toothless body tainted by Government and ministerial influence. It will not have the capacity to provide adequate oversight and monitoring functions over An Garda Síochána and the Garda Commissioner. It will not have the capacity to hold the Garda Síochána and the Garda Commissioner to account.
The Government seems to have missed the point completely regarding the primary function of the authority, which is to provide democratic accountability. A policing authority should be a way for the citizens to hold the Garda to account through a more direct form of democratic accountability than is currently provided for through parliamentary accountability of the Garda through the Minister for Justice and Equality in the Dáil. Membership of the authority is to consist of Civil Service representatives and people with legal and human rights backgrounds. There is no mention of representation of civil society groups or minorities, who are most at risk of Garda malpractice, as we had proposed. The Bill permits the authority, subject to the consent of the Minister, to ask the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to investigate any behaviour of the Garda Commissioner in the context of his or her functions relating to policing matters that leads it to believe the Commissioner may have committed an offence or behaved in a manner that would constitute serious misconduct. How can the authority be expected to hold the Commissioner to account when it cannot investigate the Commissioner without the Minister's consent? The Commissioner remains under the political protection of the Minister.
The issue of national security remains one of the over-riding issues in the proposed legislation. Uniquely in Europe and other common law countries, An Garda Síochána has responsibility for both policing and national security issues. Conor Brady, who is a former GSOC commissioner, has noted that the invoking of national security by An Garda Síochána to prevent full investigation is already a huge obstacle. Under the proposed legislation, the Minister is the final arbiter if there is disagreement on whether an issue is considered a policing or a security one. As the Minister may be self-interested in this categorisation, it is illogical to consider this a safeguard of any sort. The proposed definition of national security includes "acts intended to subvert or undermine parliamentary democracy of the institutions of the State but not including lawful advocacy, protest or dissent unless carried on in conjunction with any of those acts." It is clear that the current Government would consider the May Day and Shell to Sea protests, and more recently the water charges and water installation protests, to come under this national security heading. This would allow the Minister to retain full and direct control. Therefore, the authority would have no role to play in any policing issue arising.
Deputy Frances Fitzgerald: Information on Frances Fitzgerald Zoom on Frances Fitzgerald That is ridiculous.
Deputy Mick Wallace: Information on Mick Wallace Zoom on Mick Wallace I have mentioned some of the issues in Part 1 - sections 1 to 7 - of the Bill, so I will not go back over them. Part 2 of the Bill relates to the personnel and organisation of the Garda Síochána. On the appointments issue, section 8 of the Government's Bill sets out that the Garda Commissioner and any deputy Garda Commissioners are to be appointed by the Government and the Government shall accept the nomination of the authority. However, the authority can only nominate in accordance with the recommendation of the Public Appointments Service, PAS, which will provide it with one name only. The authority will have to seek the prior written approval of the Government before it can ask the PAS to undertake a selection competition. It will also have to get the approval of the Minister before agreeing the selection criteria and process with the PAS for the competition. Furthermore, the Government may veto the authority's nomination in "exceptional circumstances", a phrase that is not defined.
Section 8 also sets out that if the Garda Commissioner or any deputy resigns, he or she will have to address his or her letter of notification to the Minister, and the Government will notify the authority later that the Commissioner or the deputy has resigned. Under the Government's new Bill, removal from office may be by Government decision alone, with only a duty to consult the authority if the reason relates to policing services. This is for the same reasons set out in the 2005 Act. The authority can only recommend to the Government that the Commissioner or deputy be removed if the reason relates to policing services. In any event, the Government is obliged only to consider that recommendation and not to act upon it.
This Bill also provides that both the Government, for policing and State security reasons, and the authority, in terms of policing services, have the power to remove assistant commissioners, chief superintendents and superintendents. It also proposes that the Ministers for Justice and Equality and Public Expenditure and Reform will determine the number of appointments to assistant Garda Commissioner, chief superintendent and superintendent but that the authority may make these appointments, subject to a selection competition and any regulations that may be made. As this means the system under the 2006 and 2014 regulations will remain in place, it will not be a question of selection by the PAS. Instead, the promotions advisory council and the promotions advisory board, controlled by the Garda Commissioner and the Minister, will decide the candidates that the authority will be asked to rubber-stamp.
The power of the authority has been weakened since the proposed heads of the Bill in November, in which the authority alone had the power to remove assistant Commissioners, chief superintendents and superintendents from their positions. Now, both the Government and the authority have that power.
It is difficult to see how An Garda Síochána can be expected to function as a cohesive and disciplined body when, depending on one's rank, one can be removed by, and thus answerable to, one, two or even three different bodies, namely, the Government, the authority and the Garda Commissioner. Further confusion arises where one body appoints and another has the power to remove, for example, in the case of assistant Commissioners, chief superintendents and superintendents, where the authority makes these appointments - at least nominally, with the Minister deciding how many appointments are to be made - but both the authority and the Garda Commissioner can remove such appointees.
The authority should have full power of appointment of the Garda Commissioner, subject only to consultation with the Government. It is unfair and irrational to ask the authority to be responsible for systemic issues and policies and performance issues when it cannot appoint or remove those responsible for implementing those policies and priorities, in other words, the Garda Commissioner and the deputy Commissioners. Given that the assistant Commissioners, chief superintendents and superintendents all work in a hierarchical structure under the Commissioner and deputy Commissioners, who are appointed by the Government, giving the authority the power to appoint and remove them is meaningless. Furthermore, this power of the authority is largely circumscribed by existing regulations regarding promotion, which will continue. Through these regulations the Minister and the Commissioner will continue to make these decisions through their proxies on the promotion board. It is also unfair and irrational to expect the authority to be responsible for resources, budgets and staffing if it has no part to play in deciding the number of appointments to be made to senior management ranks, for example, assistant Commissioners, chief superintendents and superintendents.
On the code of ethics, the Bill now proposes that the authority shall, within 12 months, establish a code of ethics that includes standards of conduct and practice for members and internal whistleblowing provisions. However, the authority is obliged to consult more bodies than the Minister would have had to consult had she ever drafted the code of ethics. For example, the authority will have to consult the Garda unions whereas the Minister would not have had to do so under the 2005 Act. The authority also has to consult the Ministers for Justice and Equality and Public Expenditure and Reform. In addition to European policing standards, the authority must also have regard to the policing principles when drafting the code of ethics. The clause regarding a breach of the code of ethics being a breach of discipline which was in the heads of the Bill in November is not in the finalised legislation. Similarly, the code of ethics as guidance for gardaí in carrying out their functions was included in the very important new policing principles but has been removed. Currently, the 2007 discipline regulations ensure a breach of the code of ethics, if it existed, would be a breach of discipline. However, the regulations are only secondary legislation and can be revoked at any point by the Minister and regulations, when drafted or being revoked, never go before the House to be debated as they are just the exercise of Minister's executive power. Therefore the authority will bring in a code of ethics with great fanfare but breaching it will not be a breach of discipline because of the changes in this Act. There will be no sanction for breaching the code, rendering it meaningless.
The introduction of the trade unions as one of the bodies the authority is required to consult is curious as the Minister would not have been required to consult the unions if she had ever gone ahead and drafted a code of ethics. There is a requirement to consult the Garda Commissioner as representative of an Garda Síochána and this really would have been sufficient. It is curious also that there is a requirement to consult the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, as setting standards of conduct and policing practice cannot be considered an industrial relations issue. There is no reference to the code of ethics or the Garda code being published. The biggest problem with the newly proposed legislation is that there will be no sanction for breaching the code of ethics which makes it meaningless. This is even weaker than the position under the current 2005 legislation, where we have no code of ethics because no Minister ever went ahead and drafted one.
On the roles of Minister, the authority and the Garda Commissioner, the Bill now proposes that section 20 be amended in order that the authority, with the written approval of the Minister, shall determine the priorities of the Garda Síochána and establish performance targets and can only determine or revise them following consultation with the Garda Commissioner. The Minister will lay these priorities before the House on receipt from the authority. The Commissioner must inform the authority of measures taken to achieve the objectives of the priorities determined and performance targets established and supply that information within the time specified by the authority. Regarding security services principles, the Commissioner shall follow the same procedure but just be answerable to the Minister.
Section 21 sets out that the strategy statement shall be submitted by the Commissioner to the authority rather than to the Minister for approval but removes from the authority the power the Minister had to set the form and the manner of the statement. The Commissioner is required to have regard to Government policy, the priorities determined by the authority regarding policing and the Minister regarding security. The Garda Professional Standards Unit, GPSU report under section 24 shall now be submitted by the Commissioner to the authority and not to the Minister. The Minister's power under section 25 to issue directives to the Commissioner remains solely with the Minister and the authority may only recommend to the Minister that he or she issues a directive. The Bill provides a new power to the Minister to issue directives to the authority also. The Commissioner is still required to have regard to any relevant policies of the Minister or the Government and any ministerial directive issued to him or her when performing his or her functions, along with the new policing principles, as per section 5.
The authority cannot be considered independent from the Minister if it is in a linear hierarchical relationship with the Minister, as is demonstrated by the power in the amended section 25 which permits the Minister, on the approval of the Government, to give written directives to the authority regarding any of the authority's functions under the Act and the authority shall comply and shall also inform the Minister of the measures taken by the authority to comply. There is limited usefulness in severing the Commissioner's linkage with the Minister if it is intended to restore this linkage at the authority level. It is no use just sticking the authority in between the Minister and the Commissioner if the authority itself answers to the Minister and so becomes just an extra link in the same chain. As argued by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, "if it is to break the historic cycle of unwholesome ministerial influence on policing, Ireland's new authority must be fully independent". Furthermore, the authority is not given any power to issue directives to the Commissioner. The authority can only recommend to the Minister that a directive regarding policing be issued to the Commissioner from the Minister. The Minister's power under the 2005 Act to give directives to the Commissioner, that is, to give direct orders to the Commissioner, remains the same and is not even shared with the authority. Thus there is no change in the potential for direct ministerial influence on the Garda Commissioner's operational control of an Garda Síochána. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, emphasised that the independence of the police service from Executive control is central to the credibility and capacity of the police service to protect human rights, yet An Garda Síochána remains under direct Executive control under the new proposals. There is also no change to section 26(3) which makes the Commissioner directly accountable to the Minister in the performance of his or her functions and those of An Garda Síochána. This accountability provision has been criticised by Professor Walsh as reinforcing ministerial control powers by rendering the Commissioner statutorily accountable to the Minister for the first time in the history of the State.
On the issue of accountability, Part 5 now proposes no change to section 40 which sets out that the Garda Commissioner shall account fully to the Government and Minister through the Secretary General for any aspect of his or her functions, including the duty to provide any document. Clearly, the Commissioner remains accountable to the Minister and Government only. The new Bill just adds a section setting out that the Commissioner shall report to the authority with regard to policing services to facilitate the performance by the authority of its functions under this Act and extends the duty of Commissioner to provide documents to the authority also. The wide breadth of communication between Minister and Commissioner remains under section 41 and a clause is added to set out that if and in so far as a report by the Commissioner to the Minister relates to policing services, the Minister shall inform the authority of those matters. The Minister does not even have to provide the authority with a copy of the report. Furthermore, there is no comparable duty on the Commissioner inserted to keep the authority informed on significant developments relating to policing, for example, peace and public order, but only to keep the authority informed of matters relevant to the authority's functions.
No change is proposed to section 47 to provide the authority with crime statistics. Surely crime statistics should now be reported to the authority and not the Minister, or at least to both. It will be difficult for the authority to deal with policy issues if it is not entitled to the full statistical data that are available. There is no change to section 40 regarding direct accountability to the Government and Minister nor to section 40(2) and the all-encompassing duty on the Commissioner to provide any document or statement in the possession of An Garda Síochána that the Minister requests, for example, documents relating to Deputy Paul Murphy's arrest, which Professor Dermot Walsh has referred to as an "alarming provision".
The Bill, as published, rows back on commitment in the heads of the Bill to make the Garda Commissioner fully accountable to the board alone regarding policing matters. As with the 2005 Act, the Commissioner is to remain solely accountable to the Minister and Government. This is a fundamental change to the proposal in the heads. What is the point of having a Garda authority if it is not being asked to hold the Commissioner to account and if the Commissioner remains lawfully accountable to the Government and Minister? The Commissioner's duty to provide updates regarding policing continues to be owed to the Minister rather than the board, which is also a departure from the proposal made in the heads.
According to the legislation, the first eight members of the Garda authority will be directly appointed by the Government following advertisements that were placed in June. The first authority will set the tone for the relationship between the authority and the Garda Commissioner and Garda Síochána. This is a negative step for an authority that is supposed to be strong and independent and mark a departure from politicised policing.
Membership of the authority is to be drawn from Civil Service representatives and individuals with a legal or human rights background. The failure of the Bill to make reference to representation of civil society groups is a major disappointment. In addition, the Garda authority should include some political representation, albeit not a majority, with the Opposition and Government being given equal representation. This would be in line with a recommendation made by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, Dr. Vicky Conway and Professor Dermot Walsh. In an effort to retain Government control over the authority, the proposals do not allow for any political representation or membership, perhaps because to do so would require Opposition involvement.
The chairperson-designate of the Garda Authority is a career civil servant who was appointed without an interview process, having resigned as head of the Revenue Commissioners one month prior to her appointment. This was clearly a set-up and means of exerting and re-channelling ministerial influence through the chairperson by having, as it were, the Minister's man on the inside. The process used amounted to an interference in the independence and impartiality of the Garda authority before it has been even established. Moreover, Josephine Feehily was involved the selection of the new Garda Commissioner in her first indirect wielding of political power over policing.
As the Minister will be well aware, Deputy Clare Daly and I introduced Garda Bills in 2013 and 2014. The Garda authority proposed in our legislation is unrecognisable in the authority proposed in the Bill before us. I do not know how the Minister can claim the authority is independent when it clearly has the paws of the Government all over it.
Lack of speaking time means I have only referred to some sections of the Bill. That this legislation does not stand up to serious scrutiny with regard to independence is a major disappointment. The Minister had an opportunity to do things much differently and God knows that is needed. I do not mean anything personal in expressing serious disappointment with the Bill as I do not know how much control the Minister or her officials had over the final document. I wish things were different and we had a policing authority that bore some resemblance to the authority proposed in our Bill.”
Mick Wallace.
Good heartiness is a result of proper food and hygiene. How can medicaments hels up? Circumstances that can influence your choice when you are buying medications are varied. Below are basic reasons about cialis vs levitra vs viagra which one is better. Surely there are also other momentous questions. Choosing the perfect treatment option for a racy disease can get really confusing considering the advantages and disadvantages of the existing treatment methodologies. When you buy remedies like Cialis you have to think about levitra vs cialis vs viagra. The most significant thing you must look for is which works better viagra or cialis or levitra. A long list of prescription drugs can lead to erectile malfunction, including many blood tension medicines, pain remedies, and most of antidepressants. Sometimes the treatment options may turn on erectile dysfunction remedies or hormone treatments.
Statement in response to media comments re legal action taken by Peter Robinson MLA.
- Details
- Category: Media
Statement of Gareth Noble, Solicitor, KOD Lyons, in response to media comments re legal action taken by Peter Robinson MLA in Respect of Mick Wallace.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mick Wallace commented:
"One would have thought that Mr Robinson would make better use of his time if he concentrated on stabilising the political situation in Northern Ireland, rather than taking legal action to shut down debate on an issue that is of great public concern, in particular for the taxpayer in the Republic of Ireland"
What is needed is open debate and transparency - something in short supply, North and South of Ireland."
Ends.
Good health is a result of proper nutrition and hygiene. How can medicaments hels up? Circumstances that can influence your choice when you are buying medications are various. Below are basic reasons about cialis vs levitra vs viagra which one is better. Surely there are also other momentous questions. Choosing the perfect treatment version for a racy disease can get really confusing considering the advantages and disadvantages of the existing treatment methodologies. When you buy remedies like Cialis you have to keep in mind about levitra vs cialis vs viagra. The most significant thing you must look for is which works better viagra or cialis or levitra. A long list of prescription drugs can lead to erectile disfunction, including many blood stress medicines, pain remedies, and most of antidepressants. Sometimes the treatment options may include erectile disfunction remedies or hormone treatments.
