asked the Minister for Justice if his attention has been drawn to reports in the media (details supplied) referring to the transfer of members of the Garda involved in the Kerry babies case, that the transfers followed consultations between him and the Commissioner and that the transfers were made in the interests of the service; if these gardaí were exonerated by a judge of the High Court and then transferred, his views on the fairness of this treatment; whether the members have suffered financially and in status and should be reinstated in their former positions and whether he will change the system.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Transfer of Gardaí.
7.
I have seen the newspaper reports referred to. I would refer the Deputy to the detailed reply which my predecessor, Deputy Noonan, gave to a parliamentary question on this matter on 23 October 1985, the day before the newspaper reports appeared. It is correct to say that discussions of the findings of the Kerry Babies Tribunal took place between my predecessor and the Garda Commissioner but it is not correct to infer from that that Deputy Noonan involved himself in any way in the decision to transfer the members concerned. As indicated in the course of the reply to the parliamentary question on 23 October, decisions on transfers are made by the Commissioner, and it would not be appropriate for me as Minister for Justice to comment publicly on any individual case.
As to the question of changing the system, it is not clear to me what the Deputy has in mind. I have no intention, however, of intervening in matters which are properly the responsibility of the Commissioner.
Will the Minister agree that if there is a fault it is in the system and that it should be changed? Will the Minister agree that the gardaí involved are professionals who carried out their duties in accordance with established practice and procedures? Does the Minister also agree that the judge exonerated these men and that transferring them in the best interests of the force amounted to criticism and has given credence to the original allegation which has led a large section of the population to believe that these four men were responsible for injustices and guilty of negligence?
From my answer, Deputy Skelly will have understood that I will not follow up his invitation to respond in relation to matters which do not fall within the ambit of the Minister for Justice. I am not sure what Deputy Skelly has in mind when he suggests that there is a fault in the system. I should also like to point out that the exoneration to which Deputy Skelly referred concerned specific allegations. Other matters are dealt with in the report and it would be wrong to read it as an exoneration from all kinds of criticism. Having said all that — and it has all been said before in the House — I should like to remind Deputy Skelly that the deployment of members of the Garda is a matter for the Commissioner who makes his own decisions. In these particular cases the Commissioner made his decisions without interference from any quarter which was not entitled to interfere and I intend to continue that practice.
Does the Minister agree that these men have been made the scapegoats for a faulty system? Does the Minister also agree that it was a demotion for which no reason was given despite repeated requests? Is he aware that a deal was done by his predecessor on 20 November 1985 with the four gardaí involved to the effect that they would be reinstated within a period of four to six months——
Deputy Skelly seems to be making a charge of a serious nature by way of supplementary question against a member of the Government and that is not in order.
Does the Minister agree that these men were transferred in a blaze of publicity and they should be reinstated publicly? Does he also agree that there is widespread disquiet in the force because of these transfers and that 99 per cent of the force support these men, which was shown by the standing ovation given to Sergeant O'Carroll when he addressed the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors recently?
I attended a portion of that conference and tonight I shall attend the annual conference of the Garda Representative Association. I have quite a lot of contact with the Garda and I do not share some of the opinions enunciated by Deputy Skelly. It is untrue and unwarranted to suggest that the persons in question were being treated as "scapegoats for a faulty system". I emphasise that I do not have the slightest notion what Deputy Skelly means by the reference to a system. These people were not transferred in what he referred to as a blaze of publicity. Various people seemed to take the opportunity to try to cultivate publicity; I am not referring to the four people in question but others tried to create a blaze of publicity although the tinder of the press is usually fairly dry and does not need much of a spark to get it going. The allegation that there was a deal with my predecessor at some point is totally and utterly without foundation.
Would the Minister say if it was the Commissioner's decision to publish his views in relation to these four men at the same time as the Minister published the report on the findings of the tribunal? Does the Minister agree that one of the most offensive aspects of the handling of the case is the fact that on the same page on the same day as the gardaí were cleared of the allegations made against them under the tribunal, the disciplining of the gardaí appeared on the same page? Was that the Commissioner's decision and was it purely accidental that it appeared at exactly the same time as the report?
I am not entirely sure, although I am open to correction, that the two things happened on the same day.
They did.
I think they happened on two succeeding days but I am not sure so I will not make a big point of it. The dates on which newspapers publish the information they get are a matter for them——
It was an extraordinary coincidence.
Equally, the date on which my predecessor made a statement in the House about the findings of the tribunal was a matter which would have been largely dictated by the situation in the House and not by any other consideration. I assure the House that there is no foundation for the implied allegation by Deputy Woods that there was collusion between my predecessor to bring about a particular result. Quite the contrary is the case and it has been emphasised since by those who know what they are talking about that the changes referred to in Deputy Skelly's original question are an internal Garda matter.
Could the Minister explain why they happened at the same time——
I have already answered that. It is a scandalous allegation and I feel sorry for the Deputy having to scrape the bottom of the barrel in that way.