Vol. 824 No. 1
71. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he has considered establishing a special commission of investigation in relation to the Fr. Molloy case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52661/13]
99. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans for an independent review of all of the files held by the State into the circumstances surrounding the death of Fr. Niall Molloy in Clara, County Offaly, in July 1985; if he will accede to the request by the family for a meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52548/13]
380. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will establish a special commission of investigation into the death of Fr. Niall Molloy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53021/13]
381. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will clarify the remit and objectives of the senior counsel appointed to review the Fr. Niall Molloy case; if the senior counsel will have full access to all files; if the final report will be made publically available; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53022/13]
The Minister is well aware of this case. It is a long-running cause of concern to the extended family of the late Fr. Niall Molloy who was killed in 1985. Will there be a commission of investigation? I understand that the Minister has briefed a senior counsel to examine the case. I am trying to elicit some more information about that from the Minister.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 71, 99, 380 and 381 together.
I refer the Deputies to my reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 75 and 81 of 5 November 2013 wherein I indicated that in the interests of transparency, I was consulting with the Attorney General with a view to the appointment of a senior counsel to conduct an independent examination of the report of the serious crime review team on this case. I also indicated that the senior counsel will be asked to do two things, namely, first, to prepare a report which can be put into the public domain on any issues of public interest which may arise from the report, having regard to the rights of all those involved; and second, taking into account existing mechanisms for the investigation of offences, to identify matters, if any, of significant public concern arising from this examination and in respect of which such further inquiry would have a reasonable prospect of establishing the truth.
I am pleased to inform the Deputies that following consultation with the Attorney General, the specific terms of reference for this process have been finalised and arrangements are also now being put in train for the appointment of the senior counsel to carry out this task . I should also say that An Garda Síochána will be asked to cooperate fully with the person appointed.
I have recently written to a representative of the family to update them on progress and to provide them with the finalised terms of reference, which I will also make available on the Department's website. As soon as a person is appointed I will be in touch with the family again but I do not think that a meeting would advance matters at this point.
My priority at this stage is to allow the senior counsel to carry out the examination so that the maximum amount of information can be put into the public domain at the earliest possible date, at which point I will also of course fully consider the outcome of the examination concerning any further inquiry.
I thank the Minister. What will be the timeline given within the terms of reference for the senior counsel? Will it be open-ended or guillotined at a point so that the family will not feel that it will go on in perpetuity?
Is this a precursor to the establishment of a commission of investigation? Will the Minister tell us that he is not ruling out a commission of investigation into the whole matter?
To use that awful phrase, "I am not ruling anything out or anything in". I do not want to prejudge what has been requested to be undertaken in this context. I did not envisage a timeline because there is a very detailed document for the senior counsel to read, consider, make recommendations on and to address according to the terms of reference. I do not envisage it being unduly long but I do not want to tie the hands of the individual who will be asked to undertake this task.
I am not tending to suggest it must be done within a certain number of number of months. If I could put it in general terms, it may take a few months but I would not expect it to take more than that, and it is not something I envisage going on, for example, from 2014 into 2015. I could not fathom that would happen but there may be a few months in it. I believe we would all be concerned if some reasonable time was not spent on it because it requires very careful consideration and, under the terms of reference, a very careful report will have to be prepared that can allow for what is appropriate to go into the public domain and also to respond to the other issue to which the Deputy makes reference.
I thank the Minister for his announcement, which I acknowledge is a step forward. We would all agree we need to have clarity regarding the concerns that have been expressed over a long number of years about the death of Fr. Molloy.
Why is the senior counsel who is being appointed not being given access to all of the files and is only being given access to the cold case file? The last time we had a similar inquiry, Mr. George Birmingham SC was appointed in regard to the issue in Ferns. On that occasion, all of the Garda files and all of the HSE files were given to Mr. Birmingham but that is not the intention here. Why is this the case and will the Minister reconsider it?
First, the counsel appointed will be able to raise any questions or queries that arise with An Garda Síochána. I am presuming this will occur and that gardaí will fully co-operate with that. I am sure the Deputies will be interested to know I have received a detailed report which addresses all of the different issues that have been in the public domain and issues raised in the context of the Fr. Molloy case by a number of individuals, including issues that have been the subject of media reports. These issues have been dealt with in great detail. I would be anxious that we can put as much of that as possible into the public domain but there are certain legal issues around that.
The first job is for the appointed senior counsel to make decisions about the report and to allow it to be published. At the same time, however, there is the key issue, which I referenced, of "taking into account existing mechanisms for the investigation of offences, to identify matters, if any, of significant public concern arising from this examination and in respect of which such further inquiry would have a reasonable prospect of establishing the truth". I am assuming that on reading what will be furnished to the senior counsel, questions or queries may arise and they will be dealt with appropriately by An Garda Síochána.
On the same point as that raised by Deputy Naughten, if it is the case that either the family or the senior counsel who is to undertake the role feel they are being inhibited in their work by not having access to the entire range of files, where do we stand then? How much restriction will be placed on the senior counsel in terms of access to files? For example, will all the Garda files be available to him or her? The Minister mentioned that whoever is appointed, he or she may raise queries and they will be dealt with? Is that adequate?
I have two questions. First, I question why a different approach seems to be taken than was taken in regard to the Ferns inquiry. The Minister might clarify this point. Second, there have been media reports that there are two separate drafts of the cold case file that was presented by the Garda, in that there was an original draft and there was then a request for a redrafting of some elements in that, particularly, I understand, in regard to a recommendation for a public inquiry. If it is the case that there are a number of drafts of this report, will all of the drafts be given to the senior counsel?
There have been all kinds of media reports around this case.
I ask the Deputy to withhold judgment on all that until a document is published. The job of the senior counsel is not to re-investigate what An Garda Síochána has investigated. The job of the senior counsel is to look at what is a very detailed report that for all sorts of legal reasons cannot be put into the public domain in its current form and address how the necessary and important - I do not want to use the word "appropriate" because it will be misunderstood - information in it that answers and addresses the myriad questions that have arisen around this case can be put into the public domain without creating a legal difficulty. That is the first issue. In the context of having read this report, the second issue relates to doing the second job and, to put it in simplistic terms, to do the second job in the context of ascertaining whether a further inquiry would have a reasonable prospect of establishing the truth, taking into account the existing mechanisms for the investigation of offences. They are the two key issues.
The Ferns report was different. I am speaking from memory. Mr. Justice George Birmingham was then a senior counsel. He went to Ferns to examine files and circumstances where there was no report and he produced a report which contained a very important body of work. Here we have a report which answers and addresses a range of questions which, because of the nature of the way it is constructed, cannot be put into the public domain for legal reasons. I want to put what is possible into the public domain to see where we go from there.
The Fr. Niall Molloy case was one of the more high profile murders which have gone unresolved over decades but, sadly, it is not the only one. Access to information is important, particularly because these cases have allegedly been investigated internally by An Garda Síochána. With reference to the points made by the Minister concerning access of information, I am curious as to who will decide about how that access is granted. The Minister is aware there are other cases such as that of Shane Tuohey whose family is looking for answers. The Minister is similarly aware that access to information has been in the public domain recently. I know he is aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions refused to give information on foot of a court order in the case of Ian Bailey. In response to a question I tabled which did not get on the agenda today, I believe the Minister would appear to have no responsibility for the DPP. Information, access to information and the public having a right to scrutinise it are becoming increasingly important. Could the Minister enlighten us on that?
The Minister says he is interested in transparency and accountability in respect of how our police force operates. Given that, is he concerned about the fact the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission special report this summer pointed out that many of the recommendations of the Morris tribunal have still not been implemented? Is the Minister also concerned about the criticism by Judge Frank O'Donnell and Mr. Justice Barry White? Last week, the report of the Smithwick tribunal pointed out that reputation was put before honesty. Does the Minister not agree that the blue wall of silence is alive and well and that we are a long way away from transparency and accountability in the top echelons of An Garda Síochána?
It is a great honour to be in the company of such important people, particularly the Minister. He has been in office for nearly three years and for three years, the word on the street where I live and in the midlands is that one can actually get away with murdering someone. If people actually believe that, how does it help confidence in An Garda Síochána? Why does it take three years to deal with this? Is it the case that it will be dealt with when hell freezes over because that is not going to happen very soon, is it?
The Deputy said that the word on the street, at least in his constituency, is a person can get away with murder. I presume the Deputy is oblivious to the number of individuals An Garda Síochána has arrested in circumstances where homicides are alleged. He has not noticed the number of trials that have taken place. He has not noticed the number of convictions that have been obtained for murder or manslaughter.
The Minister is not one for changing. I will give him that.
He is oblivious to the number of individuals currently in prison, sentenced to life terms for committing murder. The Deputy lives in some extraordinary world that is separated from the world inhabited by the rest of us. I know of the Deputy's affection for certain substances-----
Are they Rolex watches?
-----but it is unfortunate if that affects the Deputy's judgment when it comes to addressing issues of public importance. No Member of this House with any sense of responsibility should give out a message from this House that, in this State, one can get away with murder. The reality is, if someone commits a homicide, the Garda investigates that rigorously.
The Minister obviously has not read the files that were given to him a couple of weeks ago.
Where there is evidence, individuals are brought before the courts and prosecuted. Then there are two things, that are independent, of importance, something that the other Deputy mentioned that she does not seem to approve of.
She does not have a name anymore.
We have a Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, who is rightly independent of political interference by Government and we have an independent courts system that, when people are prosecuted, as Deputy Wallace will be familiar with, determines their guilt or innocence. That is the legal system that we have. No Deputy, whatever constituency he or she represents-----
The Minister is not answering the question.
-----should give out from this House a message that-----
Just answer the questions that were asked.
-----people are free to murder, that justice will not be done and that the Garda will not properly investigate it.
The Minister is not answering the question.
It is a disgraceful message for any Deputy to give out.
Talk to the families involved.
Does the Minister have predictions for next Saturday's soccer as well as fully irrelevant rubbish? Will Spurs win next week?
72. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the steps he has taken to address concerns regarding the ongoing legal cases in view of the resignation of the Deputy State Pathologist; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52659/13]
Arising from the recent departure of the Deputy State Pathologist, there has been some commentary to the effect that a number of cases before the courts that might rely on his evidence may be in jeopardy.
The Deputy will appreciate that the prosecution of offences is a function which is reserved to the DPP who is fully independent in that area and it is up to her to determine how a particular prosecution should be dealt with. That being said, I have been advised generally that the resignation of Dr. Khalid Jaber from the post of Deputy State Pathologist should not prevent the prosecution of cases where he has carried out medical examinations. In this context, Dr. Jaber can be called as a witness for the prosecution to give evidence before the relevant court and I understand that he has indicated a willingness to make himself available for court proceedings. If, however, Dr. Jaber is not available, the file will, in accordance with the established practice in such matters, I am advised, be dealt with by another pathologist who will give evidence to the court.
I have also been informed that the State Pathologist, Professor Cassidy, has put the necessary operational arrangements in place to take account of the resignation of Dr. Jaber. In addition, the question of finding a replacement for him is being actively pursued by my Department and the filling of the post has been approved by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
I wish to tease out a point. Did I hear the Minister correctly, in that Dr. Jaber has made himself available to give evidence if so required? I am unsure as to whether he is still in the jurisdiction. Should he be unavailable by virtue of nothing being in the jurisdiction, is it the case that Professor Cassidy can take the files on which he worked and present it as evidence in criminal trials?
Firstly, the Deputy is right, in that I am advised that he will make himself available to give evidence. Also as I have explained, my overall understanding is that the resignation of Dr. Jaber should not prevent the prosecution of criminal cases where medical examinations have been carried out by him. There have been similar circumstances in the past. The Deputy will recall how Dr. Harbison became unwell at a time when there were cases pending and was not in a position to give evidence.
I am advised that those matters were dealt with and addressed. Obviously, my response to the Deputy is based on the advice I received from inquiries made. I have no reason at present to believe the trials will not proceed appropriately, nor have I any reason to believe that Dr. Jabbar will fail to appear in cases to which he is relevant. However, that is an issue to be considered and addressed by Dr. Cassidy and the DPP, and I am advised that matters are in hand.
73. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Justice and Equality when he will establish, fund, staff and accommodate a small dedicated unit charged to provide the following services for eligible Magdalen women as recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke and if this unit will publish quarterly reports on its work: a help-line accessible daily by the women to assist them to obtain the health, monetary and other benefits to which they will now be entitled; investigative and other help and assistance in obtaining such sheltered or other housing as they may be entitled to; investigative and other help and assistance in obtaining such educational assistance as they may be entitled to; practical and, if necessary, professional assistance to enable those women who wish to do so to meet with those members of the religious orders who have similar wishes to meet and interact; similar practical assistance to meet and interact with other Magdalen women; and the acquisition, maintenance and administration of any garden, museum or other form of memorial which the scheme's administrator, after consultation with the advisory body or committee referred to, has decided to construct or establish. [52551/13]
On 7 November last, the Minister announced that the Cabinet had agreed details of the implementation of the Quirke scheme for women who had been in Magdalen laundries. However, the announcement at the time only dealt with monetary payments, which the women still await, with no mention of the other strands of Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations. My question asks about those other strands, including a help-line that is accessible to survivors to assist them in achieving and maintaining health monitoring and the other benefits to which they are entitled.
The Government's first priority is to facilitate the processing of applications under the scheme and to implement those measures necessary to provide the individual benefits recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke to the women who were admitted to and worked in the institutions in question. To this end, on 5 November 2013 the Government agreed to the payments and services to be provided on an individual basis to women who come within the scope of the scheme.
Within my Department a unit of nine officials is working full-time on engaging with the women and processing applications. They are available to answer a range of questions. Decisions on establishing a permanent and separate dedicated unit, its role and method of operation have not been finalised and will not be finalised until more progress has been made on processing applications and on the provision of payments and benefits. While some preliminary work has been done by my Department on exploring the question of a memorial, again priority is being given to processing applications and the provision of payments and benefits.
I thought the Minister might give that answer. Obviously, the applications must be processed, but it is now ten months since the Taoiseach made the apology to the survivors of these laundries. Many of the survivors are asking whether they will ever see their redress. Two of the women concerned have died, sadly, without seeing a red cent, much less the support services promised under the scheme. Will the Minister be a little more precise? When can survivors expect to receive not only their monetary payments but also to have access to the services?
I have a related question with regard to disputes in respect of a woman's length of stay in one of these laundries. Where does the balance of proof lie? I have a letter from a woman who spent a considerable length of time in the Good Shepherd laundry in Limerick. She is in dispute over the length of stay. The records in these laundries were vastly incomplete and women should not be penalised for the fact that these institutions did not keep, and cannot produce, full records.
To date, 636 applications have been received and these are being processed as quickly as possible by the Department. A total of 270 provisional letters were issued to applicants that are at an advanced stage of processing requesting them to agree or disagree with the provisional assessment made by my officials on the length of time they were in a relevant institution. Some 145 applicants advised that they agree with the provisional decision and formal letters of offer will issue to these women shortly. The Attorney General's office is also finalising a waiver document which will be sent with the letter of formal offer. I have referred to that document previously.
The Deputy's timeline is somewhat skewed. My recollection is that Mr. Justice Quirke's report was published in June this year, not nine months ago. It recommended that as a precondition of receiving benefits under the scheme the women concerned should sign a waiver not to take proceedings against the State. Before signing the waiver the women will be encouraged to take independent legal advice and financial provision is made to facilitate them doing so. I expect some payments might be made before the end of the year.
Given the length of time involved in processing these requests and applications, will the Minister consider increasing the number of staff in his Department dealing with these matters? As the Minister is well aware, because it has been reiterated repeatedly in this Chamber, the survivors are elderly and in many cases they are in ill health. In fact, two of them are now deceased not having seen a cent. Let us hope we do not see any more victims going to their Maker without the satisfaction of redress from the State.
When there is a dispute between a woman and the institution in question over the length of her stay, will the Minister clarify how that matter is mediated upon and decided? The records in these institutions were incomplete, as recognised by the McAleese report and, more importantly, by the UN Committee Against Torture.
I find it difficult to take the Deputy lecturing me on this issue when I compare it to the callousness of her and her colleagues' response to the Smithwick report.
Give over. Answer the question.
It is amazing how members of one party are sensitive to some issues, but lack the sensitivity to appropriately address or to recognise their responsibility for other issues. As the Deputy should know, matters relating to the scheme were finalised only on 5 November because of the complexity of the Quirke recommendations. My Department has done extraordinarily well since 5 November in sending out 270 provisional letters, 145 of which have been already accepted. Only two applicants have advised that they disagree with the provisional assessment. These cases will be reviewed by an officer of a higher grade and if the applicant still disagrees, we provide a procedure whereby the matter can be dealt with by the Ombudsman's office.
Another cover-up.
The Deputy is focusing on one or two applicants who have run into a difficulty, out of 270 odd. I particularly welcome the fact that we have this scheme in place and are processing it. Former residents of the Magdalen laundries have furnished us with their applications and are engaging with us. So far, there has been substantial acceptance of offers made in the context of timelines. I look forward to the reality that in the not too distant future, residents of the Magdalen laundries will receive the funds to which they are entitled. The Government made important decisions to have this issue comprehensively addressed for the sake of residents in Magdalen homes who worked there for no reward. Without the necessity of any prodding from the Deputy, this Government will implement the commitment that was made to the women concerned.
The Minister is waffling again.
Apparently not, but the Minister is just the sensitive soul of this Chamber.
