I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the order in which they submitted their questions to the Ceann Comhairle's office.
Private Notice Questions. - Prisoner Releases.
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he is satisfied with the release on compassionate grounds of two men convicted arising out of the murder of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe; whether any steps were taken to make local gardaí or the McCabe family aware of these releases, given the sensitivities involved; the conditions attached to the releases, if any; whether he intends reviewing the compassionate leave system in view of today's revelations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will make a statement on the release on compassionate grounds of two men convicted of the murder of the late Garda Jerry McCabe.
I call on the Minister to reply to the two questions.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is abroad on business and I wish to reply to the questions raised on his behalf. Within the last few months four of the people in custody on charges arising in connection with the murder of Detective Garda McCabe have been granted short periods of compassionate parole. The applications for compassionate parole were considered in accordance with the normal criteria which applies in such cases.
The House will appreciate it has never been the practice to disclose personal details in relation to prisoners, especially of a kind which would warrant the granting of compassionate parole.
Nevertheless, I am assured that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was satisfied in each case that the granting of a period of compassionate parole was justified.
I have no doubt that Members share revulsion at the dreadful crimes committed by the prisoners in question. I understand particularly that releases of this kind can cause understandable distress to the family of the victim. However, the granting of compassionate parole has long been a feature of prisons administration both here and elsewhere and each case must be assessed on its merits.
We are aware of media reports today about the behaviour of two of the prisoners in question when they were on temporary release. I want to make it clear that no reports of breaches of the conditions surrounding these temporary releases have been made to the prison authorities. Any such reports would be fully investigated.
The Garda authorities were informed of the releases in question. It is an operational decision as to what gardaí are informed of the fact that temporary release has been granted. It is also at their discretion whether particular individuals are informed about releases. All releases are subject to standard conditions, such as to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. It is not the practice to disclose in individual cases what further conditions, if any, may be added.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who is abroad at the moment, has been made aware of the media reports in question. While he has no plans to review the compassionate leave system which has been operated by successive Administrations, he is determined that if any abuses of the system come to light, they will be fully investigated and any appropriate action taken.
Since it is a fact that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, signed a letter of undertaking to Mrs. Ann McCabe that these prisoners would not be subject to any early release and aware of that good lady's anxiety in this particular case, do the Minister and the Minister of State feel it is their absolute responsibility to inform Mrs. McCabe of these early releases? Is it satisfactory that a mem ber of the McCabe family could have come across one of these people by accident without any knowledge that they were at liberty? Is there any confidential agreement between the Department or the Prison Service and these prisoners? Are they subject to any special privileged regime or have discussions taken place with representatives of these prisoners for a particular regime to be applied to them?
I want to outline for the Deputy the difference between compassionate parole and early release. Compassionate parole is not early release. I understand that in some of the cases the gardaí informed the family of compassionate parole, but that did not happen in all cases. The Minister has asked that procedures be put in place in particular circumstances to ensure that the victim's family is informed of compassionate parole being granted in these cases for obvious compassionate reasons. We are not talking about early release but about compassionate parole.
Will the Minister of State acknowledge that what she is now referring to as compassionate parole is temporary release and is normally referred to as temporary release? Does she understand and accept that there would be widespread public revulsion at the fact that temporary release has been granted to these prisoners, given that it is less than two years since these four persons were sentenced for the murder of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe? Would she acknowledge that in the context of the imposition of sentences of 14 years, it is unprecedented for four persons sentenced and convicted for the murder of a member of the Garda Síochána to be given temporary release within less than two years of them starting to serve those sentences?
Could the Minister of State explain why it is only now that the Minister is considering the issue of ensuring that in the context of any future release the widow and perhaps other family members of Detective Garda McCabe will be informed? Could she explain how the Minister reconciles the granting of temporary release to each of these prisoners in the context of assurances given to this House and publicly given by the Taoiseach and the Minister prior and subsequent to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and as recently as August of this year that the killers of Detective Garda McCabe would not qualify for early release? Is it the reality that temporary release is now providing for early release by stealth? This House requires confirmation from the Minister of State, the Minister and the Taoiseach that further early releases will not be granted to these prisoners at such an early stage in their sentences.
Martin Ferris rules OK.
I assure Deputy Shatter and others that both the Minister and the Taoiseach have stated on many occasions in the past that the persons convicted for the death of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe do not qualify for release under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. That has been made patently clear.
As regards who is informed about compassionate parole, the Garda authorities were informed of the releases in question. The Garda authorities then determine what appropriate people should be informed. It is an operational matter.
That is not true.
Although the Minister is not in the country at present, I felt it was appropriate for him to know about today's lunchtime reports. He has asked for specific procedures to be put in place to ensure that Mrs. McCabe is informed about the release of any of the prisoners involved in this case on compassionate parole.
The Minister of State did not answer the questions asked.
I will restate my original two questions and I hope I get a direct reply this time. Does the Minister feel it incumbent on him and does the Minister of State feel it is a responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, not of the Garda authorities or anyone else, having personally signed an undertaking of the nature I have revealed to Mrs. McCabe, to inform her of the temporary release of one of her husband's murderers? I want a clear answer to my next question. Are there any confidential arrangements involving the Department or the Prison Service in connection with the detention of these prisoners? Have there been any negotiations on these prisoners' behalf with the Minister or representatives of his Department? The Minister of State indicated to the House that four of the convicted prisoners have been granted parole on compassionate grounds or temporary release. How many occasions in total involved these prisoners?
There were four individual cases.
Four people.
Four individual cases and four individual compassionate paroles. This relates to three days compassionate parole.
It is early release. There is no such thing as compassionate parole.
It is not early release.
It is temporary release.
The prisoners are subject to the regime at Castlerea. There have been dis cussions with Sinn Féin about the prisoners in question but no confidential arrangements have been made.
Has the Minister of State discussed the matter with the Garda authorities?
(Interruptions.)
The Minister of State must be allowed to reply without interruption. Deputy Shatter.
Will the Minister of State indicate how the coincidence has arisen whereby each of the four prisoners have each been granted one occasion of temporary release? Will she inform the House of the dates of each of these temporary releases and the prisoners to which they apply? Will she inform the House whether reports in today's media alleging that one of the prisoners, when supposed to be visiting his sick mother, spent the night in a hotel with a woman and another prisoner was subsequently found in a pub after hours, are correct? Will she explain how the policy of zero tolerance can be reconciled with the approach taken to these prisoners and how the duty of the Government to safeguard the lives of the Garda Síochána can be reconciled with temporary release being granted so early in these sentences? Will she indicate whether the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, an official of the Department or the Minister of State signed the papers authorising the temporary releases and, if so, when were they signed?
In relation to the statistics, I should inform the House that a total of ten such applications were refused since their convictions.
The Minister of State is not answering the question.
I am giving the House the full information. I do not think that is wrong.
The Minister of State is not answering the questions in relation to this important issue.
The Deputy must allow the Minister of State to reply without interruption.
I am giving the Deputy the full information but he is interrupting me.
The Minister of State is not answering the question.
Deputy Shatter, please. The Minister of State is in possession and should be given a chance to reply.
On the discussions with Sinn Féin, it argued that the prisoners qualify under the Good Friday Agreement. However, the Government does not accept this. In relation to who authorised the compassionate parole—
Martin Ferris authorised it.
Deputy Flanagan, please.
I assure the House that I did not sign the documentation. However, the Minister did authorise the releases.
Who held his hand?
The Minister of State is not—
I ask the Deputy to allow the Minister of State to reply without interruption.
The Deputy is so busy interrupting that he is not even listening.
That is not what I asked.
The Deputy should listen because I am speaking very slowly and clearly. If he wishes to keep interrupting me, it is his problem if he does not hear the answers.
The Minister of State should tell that to the families of those who were shot.
Deputy Enright, please. I call Deputy Noonan.
It is making a mockery of the justice system.
I ask Deputies to cease interrupting, otherwise we will move on to the next business. It is grossly unfair not to allow the Minister of State to reply. Four or five Deputies are interrupting continuously. If that continues, we will move on to the next business. The Minister of State is entitled to reply. There will be an opportunity for Deputies to ask questions if they so wish. If they do not wish to do so, we will move on to the next business.
On the reasons for granting compassionate parole, it is not the practice to disclose the reasons for such parole in any particular case. In relation to what was reported in the media today, I assure the House that in this case no report was made to the prison authorities or to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, the Minister has asked for inquiries to be made to establish the truth or otherwise of the allegation.
Will the Minister of State confirm that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the prison authorities have been provided with four doctors' letters on behalf of the four prisoners claiming that a close relative in each case is seriously ill, that the Department and the Minister has decided not to look behind these letters and that these letters from doctors are the only grounds on which the decision to grant compassionate leave has been taken? Will the Minister of State inform the House if the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has decided whether the normal Christmas relief which applies to many prisoners will apply to the four people who have been found guilty of the killing of Garda Jerry McCabe?
On the Deputy's last question, no decision has been taken in that regard.
When will the decision be taken?
I am not the person who will make the decision.
I am not asking—
The Deputy is not entitled to ask anything while the Minister of State is on her feet replying to a question.
On the question of the doctors' letters and the background documentation for compassionate leave, I assure Deputy Noonan that the normal criteria which applies in such cases, and which has been applied to such cases by Ministers for Justice in the past, has been applied in this case. It is not the practice, and never has been, to disclose personal details in relation to medical certificates, illness or otherwise relating to the reasons for the granting of compassionate parole.
(Interruptions.)
Has a decision been taken not to look behind the letters from the GPs? Are the letters from the GPs the only grounds for the decision to release people on compassionate grounds?
I call Deputy Howlin. The two questions can be taken together.
The Minister of State informed the House previously that the Department and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform were unaware of any breaches of the terms of early release on any of the four occasions to date. Did they receive a letter from the GRA, subsequent to the raid on a pub in Lifford, County Donegal, during which one of those convicted, Pierce McAuley, was found on the premises after hours and was that fact reported to the Department at that time?
I understand the letter from the GRA discloses that this man was on a licensed premises, but it did not refer to the after hours aspect.
Is it all right for this man to be released on compassionate grounds and be in a public house as long as it is during normal drinking hours, even though that was not the case in this instance? Did that not raise concerns for the Minister?
There is a very clear distinction between the two situations.
Once it is in Donegal, it is different.
Is it all right—
The Deputy must allow the Minister of State to reply.
There is a difference and if the Deputy is not aware of this—
I am asking the Minister of State—
Deputy Howlin, please allow the Minister of State to answer the question.
The Minister of State has zero tolerance for the rules.
Deputy Dukes, a number of Deputies are offering and I want to facilitate them. We will move on to the next business if the Deputy keeps interrupting the Minister of State.
The Deputy asked whether the Department, the Minister or I were aware of the issues reported in the media today. That is the question I am answering.
So there is no disquiet about—
Deputy Howlin, please.
I first heard about this issue this afternoon and the Minister first heard about it when I contacted him. The letter from the GRA did not disclose the details in today's news reports. There is a difference between the two.
(Mayo): Is it not ironic that the Minister of State should continue to use the terms “compassionate parole” or “compassionate release” in relation to these people? Is she not aware that absolutely no compassion was shown to either Jerry McCabe or Ben O'Sullivan outside the post office in Adare when they were mown down in cold blood and summarily executed? Was it not brought to the Minister of State's attention that in the past three weeks alone Mrs. Ann McCabe expressed her absolute revulsion at the prospect that the early release of the murderers of her husband should even be contem plated? Is she not aware that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Taoiseach have repeatedly assured the leaders of all parties in Opposition, Deputy Howlin and myself that there was no question of the Government countenancing the release of these people under the term of the Good Friday Agreement? Will she not be honest with the House and acknowledge that what we have here is, in effect, a stepping stone to full release?
And that there will be a special regime in the interim.
(Mayo): That is correct; a special regime which does not apply to bag snatchers, drug addicts or petty criminals. Is it not the case that all the accolades and medals for bravery and gallantry will be set to naught by virtue of this matter which hit the headlines by accident as a result of this leak?
I re-emphasise that, in terms of compassionate parole, the normal criteria applied in this case.
It is temporary release.
With regard to early release—
There is no such thing as compassionate parole; it is temporary release.
The Minister of State should be allowed to continue without interruption.
What we must decide, in terms of the terminology we use, is whether these people are on early release or are they on a three day release because of the traditional—
They are on temporary release. The Minister of State is trying to invent a category of release to cover up—
Deputy Dukes should allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
I am not inventing a new category. Since time immemorial this terminology has been used in relation to this type of release. I would not use this terminology if I had a choice, I do not believe the term "compassionate" should be used in respect of this case.
(Mayo): Why were they released?
That is the terminology that has been used by successive Ministers for Justice to describe a three day release.
(Mayo): Those people should not even have been released for three minutes.
I call Deputy Shatter. I intend to bring the debate on this question to a conclusion in approximately five minutes. If Deputies wish to interrupt that is fine, if they want to ask questions that is equally fine.
Does the Minister of State accept that the temporary release of these four prisoners so soon after their conviction for a horrendous murder is totally contrary to all the public assurances given by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Will she advise the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that Members on this side of the House demand that one or other of them come before us tomorrow to make a formal statement concerning the background to this matter—
Hear, hear.
—particularly as the Minister of State, by her own admission, is not personally acquainted with most of these events and given that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform signed the documents which facilitated the temporary release?
I stated earlier that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is abroad but I believe it is necessary to highlight the fact that, at this moment, he is addressing a United Nations conference on organised crime.
Will he comment on the early release of people who—
The Minister of State should be allowed to conclude.
He could speak from experience, on early releases.
The Minister will, this evening, sign a UN convention on trans-national crime. The difficulty is that Deputies do not appear to want to listen to my answers, they appear to want to barrage me with comments. The Minister is not present because he is addressing the United Nations conference to which I referred.
I stress to Deputy Shatter, who obviously was not listening earlier, that everyone is aware of the views of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and of the Taoiseach, which have been clearly outlined on numerous occasions.
This is release by stealth.
Members should allow the Minister of State to conclude.
They say one thing and do another.
The Minister of State must be allowed to conclude.
Members either want to hear the answer or they do not. If they continue to interrupt they will not hear my answers and it will be clear that they do not want to hear them. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Taoiseach have stated on many occasions that the persons convicted in connection with the death of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe do not qualify for release under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. If Deputy Shatter had been listening he would have heard me say that earlier. That is the third time I have made that remark during this debate—
Were they or were they not released from prison?
—and yet I have been asked that question—
I ask the Minister of State not to answer questions that come by way of interruption.
I put it to the Minister of State that, in the context of the normal regime which applies in respect of temporary releases, this decision is extraordinary and unprecedented in view of the seriousness of the crime committed, the statements of Mrs. Ann McCabe and the relatively short portion of their sentences that theses prisoners have served. Is there a political dimension attaching to this decision? Has some agreement been reached with Sinn Féin or any other political grouping in respect of this matter? This is not the normal practice that applies in respect of the temporary release of ordinary prisoners. Even though the Minister of State indicated that these prisoners are not eligible for release under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, is this not a way to release them which does not fall within the normal bounds? Is there a political dimension to this decision?
Before the Minister of State replies, I wish to take questions from the two Members who are offering, Deputies Finucane and Flanagan. We will then conclude on this matter.
Mr. Coveney
I also wish to ask a question.
Given that this tragic incident occurred in west Limerick, it is incumbent on me to express my thoughts on it. The Minister of State is aware of the sensitivities which apply in respect of this issue and of the groundswell of public opinion against the decision to release these prisoners. Is it not rather sad that we are obliged to question her about this matter which would not have come to light unless the GRA was alerted to the releases by some of its members and expressed its opinion on them? Does the Minister of State not believe that this will be seen by everybody as laying the groundwork for the full release of these people?
The Deputy is making a Second Stage speech.
The Minister of State should forego the charade and state that these are not compassionate releases, they are temporary releases which will act as a stepping stone towards the full release of these people.
Deputy Finucane should conclude. I wish to facilitate his colleague, Deputy Flanagan.
In her reply to the original question, the Minister of State cited normal practice and precedent. Will she elaborate on that statement? Never before in the history of the State has such a lax regime existed as obtains in Castlerea. I challenge the Minister of State to cite the precedent for persons convicted of the execution of members of the Garda Síochána being given favourable and early release terms within 18 months of their conviction.
Zero tolerance.
In her reply, the Minister of State relies on precedence. I challenge her to quote chapter and verse for the precedent she appears to cite in her defence.
Mr. Coveney
Can the Minister clarify the incomplete answer she gave to Deputy Noonan when he asked the reason for the temporary release on so-called compassionate grounds? Was the release allowed following four letters from GPs? Is it normal practice not to inquire as to the validity of letters from GPs?
Four letters to the system of justice and to the people of the country who rely on the rule of law.
Deputy Flanagan, please give the Minister of State the courtesy of listening to her reply. If Members do not wish to hear replies to their questions we can move on to the next business.
I cannot give details of individual situations. I can give an undertaking regarding the criteria applying in the case because there is nothing unique about them. Ordinary prisoners often qualify for this type of three day compassionate release.
These are not ordinary prisoners.
Compassionate release is not a term I would choose to use, but it is the one used to describe this type of situation. Deputy Flanagan, in his excitement, referred to this as early release. I am at pains to explain to Deputies that this is not early release.
They are just out early.
What is the precedent?
I am also at pains to explain that ten applications for compassionate parole from these same prisoners have been refused. We do not grant release every time we get a doctor's letter regarding these prisoners. There is nothing automatic about these decisions. Ten applications for compassionate parole for these same prisoners have been refused. Four have been granted.
They have not served two years of their sentences.
If Deputy Shatter does not listen he will not know my reply.
I am listening but what I am hearing is a disgrace. What the Minister of State is saying gives the lie to the undertakings given by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law reform.
Deputy Shatter is hearing nothing because he is not listening. If he does not listen he will not hear. That is his problem. He is interested in shouting but not in listening.
Deputy Shatter, if you do not resume your seat I will ask you to leave the House.
There are murderers on the streets.
Were all the letters from the same doctor?
Minister of State, I ask you to draw your remarks to a conclusion as it is obvious that it will be impossible to reply in the face of interruptions. We must move on to the next business.
Members on this side of the House are also entitled to courtesy.
I thoroughly agree with Deputy Enright.
We are entitled to courtesy from all parts of the House, including the Chair.
Deputy Enright, you are reflecting on the Chair. I ask you to withdraw that remark.
I have never reflected on the Chair.
You have reflected on the Chair, Deputy, and I ask you to withdraw your remark.
It was not my intention to do so.
Do you withdraw the remark, unequivocally?
This is a serious situation and we are entitled to ask questions.
Deputies have had three quarters of an hour to ask questions.
And no answers.
There has been no limit.
The Taoiseach who is watching this performance from above the Chamber could tell us more than the Minister of State.
The Chair is not responsible for the Minister of State's answers. Are you withdrawing the remark, Deputy Enright?
I have never reflected on the Chair. It was not my intention to do so now. I have never done so.
You are withdrawing the remark. I call on the Minister of State to conclude.
Will the Minister of State quote precedent?
Documentary evidence was available to the Minister in relation to each case.
They are all from the same source.
(Mayo): Were they checked out?
The normal criteria applied in these cases.
There is no precedent. There are no criteria.
What was at issue in these cases was three days' release. I stress for Deputies who were not listening, that is not early release.
I have never experience such ignorance as I have seen this afternoon on the Opposition benches.
(Interruptions.)
Were all the letters from the same doctor?
Zero tolerance.
It is appalling that the Minister of State is not allowed to reply without interruption from six or seven Deputies. The level of interruption is grossly unfair to any Minister.
This has never been done before.
Has the Leas-Cheann Comhairle any understanding of the level of public outrage at the events which are being excused here by a junior Minister when a senior Minister should be present.
Every Member of the House is entitled to ask a question or to answer one. The number of interruptions prevented the Minister of State from answering questions. We have now come to the end of question time.
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle cast his mind back to the reaction which might have been expected from these benches when Deputy Nora Owen was on the far side of the House and an event of this nature had occurred?
The Chair would not have approved of continuous interruptions when any Member of the House is on his or her feet.
Why is the Taoiseach frightened to enter the Chamber?
It shocks me that Deputy Bruton would come into the Chamber at this stage of the debate.
I have been listening all the time.
He seems to have missed the clear explanation for the absence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Minister of State is only doing what she is told.
The Minister is at a UN conference on organised crime and is speaking at the conference at this moment.
The granting of compassionate parole in these cases did not contradict the clear commitment given by the Taoiseach and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform with regard to the release of these people.
I did not interrupt, yet I did not receive an answer to my questions.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.