Questions remain on penalty points controversy

The use of ‘medical emergency’ to explain terminating fixed-charged notices has plunged. Are we getting healthier, or is there another reason, asks Michael Clifford.

IRELAND’S drivers are growing more cautious and the nation getting healthier since the penalty points scandal first reared its head over a year ago. This proposition might be put to Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan today when he appears before the Public Accounts Committee.

Among the files in possession of the committee is evidence about the number of terminations for the wearing of seat belts in recent years.

In 2011, there were 344 cases of fixed-charged notices terminated by senior officers for drivers not wearing belts. In 2012, there were 506 terminations for the same offence. Last year, when the scandal was blowing through Leinster House and beyond, there were none. Has everybody belted up? Why have the terminations really dried up?

Similarly, the number of terminations for the excuse of “medical emergency” have plummeted in the last year. Medical emergencies were rampant among the 67,000 terminated notices over the last four years.

The PAC’s brief is to investigate how public money is spent or lost. For each cancellation of a fixed-charge notice, the cost is at least €60 to the State. According to the evidence that has been presented to the committee, the exchequer was losing around €100,000 per month through notices cancelled in a wholly inappropriate manner.

The commissioner will be asked about the internal garda report into the affair, led by Assistant Commissioner John O’Mahoney, and he will be asked about the Comptroller and Auditor General report which stated one in five charge notices — around 42,000 a year — resulted in no financial penalty.

The affair has now rumbled on for over a year, and has seen many issues raised. What follows is a sample of questions that might be put to the commissioner by committee members.

Question one

Why is the incidence of terminations for “medical emergency” no longer so prevalent? O’Mahoney found that most of these cases were genuine. Has the nation got healthier?

Question two

Why are so many examples of terminations unexplained, with the assigned space left blank?

Question three

Three officers were cited for possible disciplinary action on publication of the O’Mahoney report. What, if any, action has been taken?

Question four

One of the reasons for moving against these officers was that they had terminated notices from outside their own area, which they had no authority to do. The C&AG report shows this practice is widespread. Will there be any follow on investigation?

Question five

Why are so many terminations granted without any supporting evidence?

Question six

Is there no system in place to carefully examine requests to terminate notices for repeat offenders?

Question seven

Is there any excuse too bizarre to have been recorded as a reason to terminate?

Question eight

How could a few accountants in the C&AG’s office detect a far wider culture of terminations than the internal investigation led by trained gardaí?

Question nine

Were the two whistleblowers interviewed for the O’Mahoney investigation? If not, why not?

Question 10

Does the commissioner believe, as Justice Minister Alan Shatter stated in the Dáil, that the whistleblowers did not co-operate with O’Mahoney?

Question 11

Does the commissioner concede, on the basis of the C&AG report, that the culture of terminations was more widespread than portrayed by O’Mahoney?

Question 12

What investigation was made to determine the prevalence of terminations for gardaí?

For instance, a PAC file shows that an inspector terminated for a colleague, who was in a different area and off-duty at the time of detection.

Another who received a termination on the basis of being on-duty was actually driving a commercial van when detected. Are these exceptions?

Question 13

Does the commissioner accept the spirit of the discretion vested in senior officers in regard to fixed charge notices was abused across the country?

Question 14

With regard to the whistleblower who brought this material to the attention of the PAC, does the commissioner agree that this officer has done a service? After all, the instances of terminations on dodgy premises have fallen dramatically in the last year.

Question 15

Is the commissioner concerned that the whistleblower still serving within the force may has been penalised for coming forward with his evidence? Transparency International referenced “unwarranted sanctions” against the officer in a letter to the commissioner last week.

Question 16

Is the commissioner up to speed with the law deeming it an offence for employers to penalise whistleblowers, as per the Criminal Justice Act 2011 Section 20?

Question 17

What precise protection has the commissioner offered the whistleblower who is still serving? The PAC relies on whistleblowers of all hue to reveal mismanagement and waste. It’s in the members’ interest that whistleblowers are protected.

Question 18

Does the commissioner believe the treatment of Clare Daly, an elected member of parliament, when arrested on suspicion of drink-driving, was connected to her role in highlighting abuse of the penalty points system?

Question 19

Has the commissioner in his 40-odd years of service ever encountered a case where a female TD was handcuffed, dispatched to a cell, and kept there for two hours?

Question 20

Does the commissioner believe the treatment of Ms Daly sends out any signals in terms of a police force’s role in a democracy? Did he instigate an internal inquiry into the matter?