asked the Taoiseach the reasons for the removal of Commissioner Garvey from office; and when those reasons arose.
3.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dismissal of Garda Commissioner.
2.
asked the Taoiseach (a) if it is correct that Garda Commissioner Garvey, after 38 years service to the nation, was dismissed on two hours' notice; (b) if so, if he considers such dismissal to be in accordance with the principles of natural justice; and (c) if he is aware of continuing public disquiet owing to the circumstances of the dismissal.
4.
asked the Taoiseach if he will inform Dáil Éireann of the precise reasons for the dismissal by the Government of the former Garda Commissioner, Mr. Garvey; and why the Government felt it necessary to give effect to that dismissal at two hours' notice.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 4 together. The Government, through the Minister for Justice, are answerable to Parliament for the Garda Síochána and it is hardly necessary to say that the person who fills the office of Commissioner must have the confidence of the Government. If, having considered the position carefully, the Government say to themselves that they have not that confidence, it becomes their duty, however distasteful it may be, to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that there is a change.
It is obvious that such a conclusion on the Government's part need not necessarily be based on any one reason and that, in practice, it is unlikely to be so based. However, since it is the Government who have to be satisfied, it is they alone who must assess the situation and make the decision; and suggestions that they should be expected to give reasons for their assessment or to enter into public debate about it fail to take account of the central issue which is whether or not the Government have confidence in the holder of the office.
Mr. Garvey must have been aware for some time that the Government were concerned about the manner in which the general direction and control of the Garda Síochána were being exercised by him. When the request to resign was conveyed to Mr. Garvey, he then knew that the Government had reached the conclusion that a change was necessary. As it would be wholly inappropriate that the Garda Síochána should remain under the control of a Commissioner concerning whom the Government had reached such a conclusion, it was imperative that the change should be effected without delay.
It is clear to everybody that Mr. Garvey had an exceptionally successful career in the Garda Síochána and I think it may be relevant to place on record that his promotions to higher ranks, other than his appointment as Commissioner, were made by a Government of which I and a number of my colleagues were members. His promotion to the rank of Assistant Commissioner was made by a Government in which I was Taoiseach. His appointment as Commissioner was one which we, in Opposition, did not criticise, nor would we at the time have had any basis for doing so.
I hope, therefore, that I will not be taken as making a purely formal gesture when I repeat that the Government took the step they did only with the greatest reluctance and with sincere regret. Nothing in the decision takes from the positive qualities which Mr. Garvey had shown in various ways in his earlier career— qualities which were recognised by successive Governments.
I would like to add that it would be the Government's wish that anything that could reasonably be said to minimise the effects of the decision on Mr. Garvey and his family should in fact be said. In deciding what is possible in that regard, account has had to be taken of all the circumstances, including the possibility of legal proceedings being instituted by Mr. Garvey, as publicly mooted by him. I can, however, say at this point that it has been decided that Mr. Garvey will be awarded the gratuity and pension that would have been granted to him if he had retired in the ordinary course. This of itself necessarily implies that his removal from office was not on the basis of misconduct—the relevant Garda pensions orders provide that, in a case where there has been a removal from office, a pension may be awarded where the removal was "for any cause other than misconduct". In addition, the Government have directed that Mr. Garvey be given an additional lump sum of £3,250 by way of ex-gratia payment.
Would the Taoiseach not accept that the House, the people and ex-Commisioner Garvey have a right to be told the reasons for the Government's loss of confidence more especially if, as the Taoiseach has said, in relation to the payment of the pension, the causes are not ones of misconduct? Would the Taoiseach not accept that the House is entitled to be told when this dissatisfaction arose? Did the Taoiseach and his colleagues before being in Government have reason for dissatisfaction? If not, why was the suggestion made during the election campaign that he would be removed from office by people in the Fianna Fáil Party and Fianna Fáil candidates and why, long before his dismissal, was a whispering campaign started by leakages in the Press leading to an editorial in one of our daily papers, The Irish Times, highly critical of this manner of attack on the character of a public servant?
Given this background, would the Taoiseach not agree that the House is entitled to be told when the loss of confidence arose, and why it arose if it was not because of misconduct? Would he not agree natural justice requires that, if ex-Commisioner Garvey was not guilty of misconduct, the reasons for his dismissal and his removal should be stated so that his character may be fully cleared?
If the Deputy had put a question instead of making a speech I would have been able to answer it more comprehensively. I want to say emphatically that I had no responsibility for, and I know nothing whatever about, and I do not believe there were undertakings, promises or anything else in connection with the election campaign about the removal of Mr. Garvey.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
As for leakages to the Press about the manner in which the Commissioner was carrying out his duties, again I have no responsibility whatever for those. They were not anything of the Government's doing in any way. As far as the time when this lack of confidence occurred is concerned, I think it will be well known to Mr. Garvey that he had been having consultations with the Minister and with the Secretary of the Department for a period of time. The Deputy is aware, as I have indicated in the answer I gave to his question, that the Commissioner is obviously contemplating legal proceedings so, whether there has been a breach of natural justice will be decided as a result of those proceedings. I do not think I can add any more to what I have already said.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that by dismissing Mr. Garvey in the manner in which he was dismissed by giving him two hours' notice with no explanation for the dismissal, that apart from the internal speculation and effect of such an action by the Government it also has repercussions so far as our image abroad is concerned? Further, would the Taoiseach not agree that it is quite clear that the principles of natural justice were contravened by the action of the Government?
Again, I can make no comment on natural justice beyond what I have said in my supplementary reply to Deputy FitzGerald. I have no knowledge of, nor have I been given any intimation, of any repercussions abroad as a result of the Government's action in this case. I do not want to say anything here that would in any way add to the hurt that Mr. Garvey must have felt but, in fairness to my colleagues and myself, I want to say it is strange that the decision should have come as a surprise to him. Leaving aside any other aspects, it is a matter of common knowledge that serious questions had arisen concerning Mr. Garvey's approach to serious problems within the Garda force.
The Taoiseach said he was not responsible for leakages that occurred to the press several months ago. Does this mean the Taoiseach is denying that the press were briefed by or on the authority of a member of the Government in regard to the Commissioner, leading to the protest in the editorial in The Irish Times against this type of underhand behaviour?
I am saying I gave nobody any authority—I mean a Minister or anybody else—to talk to the press about the situation. I do not believe it happened.
The Taoiseach did not give the authority but he accepts that it happened and that it has been exposed in the press. If it has happened without the Taoiseach's authority, what action will he take?
This ill becomes the leader of the main Opposition Party. If he has information to the effect that he is now trying to suggest let him say it. I believe I can deny it.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
I say to the Deputy I do not want it sent to me. Let him say it here and now.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Deputy Browne.
Arising from the Taoiseach's assertion that there have been a number of reports of unrest and dissatisfaction within the Garda force, is it his intention now to accept that there is very much more wrong in the force than ex-Commissioner Garvey? Does the Taoiseach intend to hold a general inquiry into conditions in the Garda force generally?
I did not say that I had heard of reports of unrest.
I am calling the next question.
May I ask a final supplementary question? Will the Taoiseach, or persons on his behalf, now reply to the letter from ex-Commissioner Garvey's solicitors, which reply was postponed because of questions here today?
That reply was sent last night. Unfortunately the press were not told because it was sent from the office of the Chief State Solicitor. The press were informed this morning that a reply had been sent and I understand the contents of the reply have been made public.
The reply was that there would not be a reply before a statement was issued today. As I understand it, what it said was the following:
I am assured that all the issues involved were given very full and careful consideration by the Government, who deeply regret having to act as they did and who had no wish to cause distress to Mr. Garvey or his wife and family. With regard to your suggestion that a public announcement should be made forth-with, I am to say that a statement will be made by the Taoiseach in Dáil Éireann this afternoon.
Is the Taoiseach going to reply to the letter?
I think that that reply and my answer today together are an adequate reply to the letter.