Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 2016

Vol. 914 No. 2

Priority Questions

Garda Remuneration

Jim O'Callaghan

Question:

10. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the measures she is taking to improve the working conditions of rank and file members of An Garda Síochána; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17508/16]

The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality will be aware that there is considerable disquiet among the public and in An Garda Síochána regarding the pay and conditions of younger and newer members of the Garda. In that context does the Minister or the Government intend to introduce any measures to improve the working conditions of rank and file members of An Garda Síochána and, if so, when is it intended to introduce them?

I assure the Deputy that the Government is fully committed to ensuring that members of An Garda Síochána enjoy a high standard of working conditions and that they are properly resourced and equipped to carry out their duties. Even during the difficult economic period, every effort was made to protect the Garda budget. In line with the recent economic improvement, the 2016 Garda budget allocation of €1.5 billion, for example, includes over €67 million in additional funding from the previous year. In addition, the Government has recently approved €55 million to maintain the necessary policing response to tackle gangland and associated crime. This will allow for concentrated policing targeting gang related crime, the continued intensive and strategic targeting of burglaries and related crime through ongoing support for Operation Thor and continued support for measures against terrorism.

In respect of the Lansdowne Road agreement, my officials are in discussions with the GRA and the AGSI as we speak with the objective of creating a pathway to their re-engagement with that process. I have met representatives of both associations in recent weeks to convey my support for such re-engagement and that of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and to encourage the associations to continue to actively engage in the process, which I very much hope they will.

In the programme for a partnership Government, we have committed to ensuring a strong and visible police presence throughout the country in order to maintain and strengthen community engagement and provide reassurance to citizens. Key to achieving that goal is the commitment in the programme for a partnership Government to continue to accelerate the Garda recruitment programme with a view to increasing Garda numbers to 15,000.

In accelerating recruitment we want to ensure - this is linked to the point made by Deputy O'Callaghan about working conditions - that there is proper supervision and training for recruits when they come and leave. This point was picked up on by Garda Inspectorate report No. 11 in respect to criminal investigations. When there were large numbers going through Templemore at a particular period, the inspectorate was concerned that the arrangements made for supervision for recruits having left Templemore were not adequate and that people did not get the kind of supervision that is necessary. It is important that we keep that in mind in terms of working conditions.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

In accelerating recruitment it is, of course, essential to ensure that An Garda Síochána has the capacity to train larger numbers without any diminution in the quality of its excellent BA programme in applied policing and to provide appropriate supervision and support to newly qualified gardaí to ensure that victims, and the public generally, are well served by their policing service. My officials are engaging with Garda management as a matter of priority in respect of the preparation of a recruitment plan for the next five years that will deliver increased numbers of gardaí without any compromise on the quality of those recruited or the training programme.

The programme also commits the Government to doubling the Garda Reserve to act in a supportive role, undertaking local patrols and crime reduction measures and to increase further civilianisation to free up gardaí for front-line policing duties. The civilian staff of An Garda Síochána make up approximately 14% of the organisation and fulfil a huge range of critical support roles. Further opportunities to increase the use of suitably qualified civilians and release gardaí to front-line roles will be explored in the context of the ongoing consideration of the report of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate "Changing Policing in Ireland - Delivering a Visible, Accessible and Responsive Service", which makes a range of recommendations on this matter. I expect to bring proposals for the implementation of that report to Government before the summer.

Of course, gardaí must have the modern technology and resources necessary to detect and investigate crimes and to prevent loss and harm to citizens and their property on a 24-7 basis. Some €330 million, including €205 million under the capital plan, is being invested in Garda ICT infrastructure between 2016 and 2021 to enable An Garda Síochána to deploy the latest cutting-edge technologies in the fight against crime.

High-visibility policing requires high-powered vehicles, marked and unmarked patrol cars, and motorcycles. Investment in a modern, effective and fit-for-purpose Garda fleet will continue under the Government's capital plan 2016-2021, which provides €46 million for new Garda vehicles, ensuring that gardaí can be mobile, visible and responsive on the roads and in the community to prevent and tackle crime. This is in addition to the €34 million that has been invested in the fleet since 2012, with more than 720 new vehicles coming on stream since the start of 2015.

Our gardaí should have proper modern accommodation. The Garda station building and refurbishment programme 2016-2021 entails an investment of some €60 million in direct Exchequer funding and a public private partnership. Works under the plan include building of new Garda stations and property exhibit management stores. In addition, the plan provides for redevelopment, refurbishment and upgrading of Garda stations at some 30 locations around the country, including custody management facilities. There will also be cell refurbishment at some 15 Garda stations. These projects are in addition to the investment of some €100 million for the construction of three new state-of-the-art divisional and regional headquarters in Kevin Street, Dublin, Wexford and Galway.

Taken together, this step change in investment in policing demonstrates this Government's commitment to investing in 21st-century policing and will ensure that the gardaí can be mobile, visible and responsive on the roads and in the community to prevent and tackle crime. It will also serve to provide better facilities and ensure a high quality standard of working conditions for members of An Garda Síochána.

The position of whistleblowers in An Garda Síochána is topical. It is important to acknowledge that members of An Garda Síochána may now communicate their concerns to the Garda Commissioner, as their employer, or to GSOC, as a prescribed body, under the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and are entitled to the protections provided by the Act.

In addition, the recently launched modernisation and renewal programme for An Garda Síochána contains a number of initiatives aimed at improving the working environment of members, including, for example, the development and implementation of a new HR strategy, better workforce planning and engagement with members, the development of a continuous training and development strategy, a renewed employee assistance programme and the introduction of a performance management framework.

Obviously, we welcome the further investment of €55 million in respect of targeting and dealing with organised crime. The question I am seeking to address is the issue of pay for new recruits in An Garda Síochána. The Tánaiste will recall that the agreement between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael contained an agreement to establish a public service pay commission. The agreement also contained a recognition that the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts would be gradually and by negotiation repealed.

Obviously, the Tánaiste cannot determine when the public sector pay commission will commence, but has she had discussions with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform? Has he given her an indication as to when that commission will be up and running? Without it, we will have great difficulty in recruiting the 2,000 or so extra gardaí we require.

I can confirm to the House that there is no shortage of people applying to become members of An Garda Síochána. Very high numbers continue to apply to enter training and I welcome that. Clearly, we want to see everybody within the Lansdowne Road pay agreement. Gardaí were subject to the same pay reductions as all other public servants over the course of the financial crisis and, similarly, have benefited from the partial restoration of pay commenced on foot of the Lansdowne Road agreement, notwithstanding the fact that both the GRA and the AGSI have rejected that agreement. I am very aware that both bodies feel very frustrated at the pace of pay restoration, but the Government must take a very sustainable and prudent approach to public sector pay, so I restate the commitment to the Lansdowne Road agreement. We are involved in discussions with both bodies and are having very positive and constructive discussions. I am sure the Deputy will join me in hoping that these can be brought to a fruitful conclusion.

We hope those talks do progress, but that will not disguise the fact that there is frustration among rank and file gardaí about the Garda pay review. I think it was due to finish in June 2014 but, regrettably, we have lost the Chair of that review body. In the context of negotiations and discussions with the Garda representative associations, does the Tánaiste anticipate that the Government will cease paying increments to gardaí from the beginning of July because the GRA rejected the Lansdowne Road agreement in November 2015? Will any provision be made to allow any member of An Garda Síochána who does not wish to be part of the rejection of the Lansdowne Road agreement to enter into an agreement on an individualised basis? What is the Tánaiste's view on the decision by the Garda representative bodies not to work additional hours agreed under the Haddington Road agreement?

I very much hope that the situation relating to increments described by the Deputy does not arise. Clearly, the discussions and negotiations in which we are involved are aimed at ensuring this situation does not occur on 1 July 2016. Detailed discussions and negotiations are ongoing and various options are being put on the table. I believe both bodies have entered into the discussions in a very constructive manner and I hope they come to a positive conclusion, but they are not concluded.

The programme commits to the establishment of a commission for public sector pay to examine pay levels across the public service, including entry levels of pay. I realise that this is an issue, notwithstanding the fact that pay increases somewhat shortly after graduation because of rosters. I know this issue is of huge concern to both organisations in respect of younger members.

Garda Misconduct Allegations

Jonathan O'Brien

Question:

11. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if she has made a report to Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, as requested by the Garda Commissioner, concerning a meeting of gardaí in Mullingar with a person (details supplied); the date on which she made the report; the reason for the delay; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17634/16]

My question concerns the request from the Garda Commissioner in respect of formally asking GSOC to investigate the claims around two members of the force and a meeting in Mullingar. Has this matter been referred to GSOC and, if so, what was the reason for the delay in making that referral?

As the Deputy is aware, I published the report of the O'Higgins Commission of Investigation (Certain Matters relative to the Cavan-Monaghan Division of An Garda Síochána) on 11 May. As I have previously stated, it deserves the most careful consideration so that we can do everything possible to avoid a repeat of the issues which gave rise to the commission in the first place.

On 19 May 2016 the Garda Commissioner wrote to me asking that I use the legal powers available to me to ask the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to investigate matters alleged to have occurred in respect of a meeting in Mullingar involving certain officers. Section 102 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 permits me to do so if I consider it desirable. I informed the House during the debate that took place on the O'Higgins report that I was consulting with the Attorney General about the precise nature of such a request.

On the basis of the advice provided by the Attorney General, I sought additional information from the Garda Commissioner. The Garda Commissioner provided me with more detailed information on 3 June 2016. Having considered the Commissioner's detailed request, and satisfying myself that it was desirable in the public interest that this matter be investigated, as to leave it unaddessed could undermine confidence in An Garda Síochána, I made a request to GSOC on 16 June 2016. My powers under section 102 are not to be exercised lightly and, in all the circumstances, I do not believe that there was any undue delay in making this request.

What was the additional information sought by the Tánaiste? Was it new information or information that was available to the O'Higgins inquiry, particularly in respect of this issue? It was my understanding that all matters relating to this would have been discussed before the inquiry so I am curious as to what the additional information sought by the Tánaiste was. The Garda Commissioner made a request on 19 May 2016 and the first time we were aware of it was the following week at the beginning of the Dáil debate, which was held on 25 May 2016. As of 8 June 2016, in a reply to a parliamentary question, it was stated that there was no referral, but the Tánaiste is now saying that this referral was made to GSOC on 16 June. I take it that GSOC is now investigating this complaint.

These are very significant powers in respect of investigation. I must consider every investigation very carefully in terms of whether it is the right thing to do. I had to consider the commission of investigation and the context and I had to get the advice of the Attorney General as to whether she considered it appropriate given the various issues involved. The information relating to the Garda Commissioner was more general. She had given me a detailed request and I felt it was in the public interest and went ahead.

It was a number of weeks but there were various pieces of work that needed to be done before I requested GSOC to do this investigation and it is now in a position to do that independent investigation.

One of the statements coming from the O'Higgins report was that the gardaí will work with Transparency International Ireland on a new disclosures policy. Can the Tánaiste give us any update on that? It is my understanding that the disclosure policy has not yet been presented to Transparency International Ireland. Does the Tánaiste have any comment to make on that?

I do not know the details of the interaction between Transparency International Ireland and the Garda Commissioner. The Garda Commissioner has said she wants to make every effort to ensure that whistleblowers are dealt with appropriately in the Garda Síochána and that the culture of whistleblowing changes so that it is a safe place if members of the force wish to report issues of concern to them and want to make protected disclosures within the force. As part of that, she has said she will work with an outside body, namely, Transparency International Ireland, to do that work. I assume the work has started but I can ask the Commissioner for an update on that and communicate with the Deputy.

Judicial Appointments

Jim O'Callaghan

Question:

12. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality when the proposed new Judicial Appointments Commission will be in place; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17509/16]

Since December 2015, there has been a vacancy on the Court of Appeal. The Courts Act 2015 was enacted in December 2015 which increased the number of High Court judges by two, so there are vacancies for two more High Court judges. There are also vacancies in the Circuit Court and the District Court. When does the Government intend to nominate appropriately qualified individuals to fill those positions? Is it the case that the Government is awaiting the establishment of the judicial appointments commission? If so, when will that happen?

In the programme for Government, there are some very significant commitments on change in the area of judicial appointments. I will be bringing proposals to Government for a general scheme of a judicial appointments Bill as soon as I am in a position to. The new judicial appointments commission is an important element of the policy framework agreement between our parties. The commitment in the new programme for Government will be reflected in the provisions of the general scheme, including the composition and chairing of the new authority.

There was a public consultation process held on this issue. Consultations indicate it is important to ensure the Judiciary retains the independence that is critical for the discharge of its constitutional function; that it reflects, as far as possible, the diverse nature of the society from which it is drawn; that it enjoys the confidence and trust of society; and that the Judiciary is appointed on merit. There are approximately eight vacancies across the courts at present which the Government will be considering in due course.

Sometimes people think that the filling of judicial vacancies is a matter to convenience judges or lawyers, which it is not. It is required in order to ensure that citizens who appear before our courts, who are anxious to secure and seek justice, have an opportunity to have their rights vindicated. When there is an absence or shortage of judges and vacancies that have not been filled, it interferes with the constitutional rights of those citizens and the families of victims of crime to have their cases heard promptly. We are now in a situation where we have waited for six months for the appointment of appropriately qualified persons to the Court of Appeal and the High Court. There needs to be some level of urgency to the Government's deliberations on this matter. Where the process has gone through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and we are just waiting for Government nominations, it is crucial that the Government proceeds to make nominations to fill vacancies in the Judiciary rather than waiting to find out what will happen with the judicial appointments commission.

I note what the Deputy says about the impact of vacancies on the court. We expect at least ten this year. The business of every court is affected to some degree and we do not want to see justice being delayed. I cannot be definitive on the matter today but the Government is likely to determine the approach to be taken on this matter in the coming weeks, taking all relevant matters into account. I note the point the Deputy makes about the impact of vacancies and I am very aware of that in the various courts. I would like to fill those vacancies as soon as possible.

If there is a desire within Government to try to delay the nomination of judges pending the establishment of the judicial appointments commission, I urge it to bring forward legislation promptly in respect of such a judicial appointments commission. That is something that Fianna Fáil intends to do. We believe the judicial appointments commission process should be amended so that the independent advisory body to Government will nominate a smaller number of individuals. At present under the Judicial Advisory Appointments Board, the number is seven and we think it should be reduced to three. We also think that individuals should be ranked on merit.

I am happy to work with the Tánaiste on the judicial appointments commission. Can she give an indication as to when she intends to bring that legislation before the House as it seems to be having an impact on the Government's decision to nominate individuals to fill vacancies?

I am sure the Deputy will agree that in advance of drafting that legislation, it is important to have consultation with all the relevant stakeholders. I welcome the Deputy's offer to work with the Government, particularly given that the policy he has outlined in terms of a smaller number is much in line with the changes we discussed during Government formation. The Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption, GRECO, conclusions in the fourth evaluation round in Ireland found the Judiciary to be among the most trusted public institutions in the country. We have been very well served by the judges in this country despite some of the critical comments one hears about the nomination and selection of judges. That has been found to be the case based on the independent evaluation carried out by the Council of Europe. It is very gratifying that the principle of judicial independence was recognised by an international evaluation team, such as GRECO, and that the independence and professionalism of our judges is undisputed. The legislation will be complex and will need consultation. It will take some time to get to that legislation but I accept the points the Deputy has made on judicial appointments.

Direct Provision System

Bríd Smith

Question:

13. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if she will bring forth proposals to end the inhuman conditions attached to the direct provision model operating under her control; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17151/16]

Will the Tánaiste make a statement on any proposals or plans she has to end the inhumane direct provision model that operates under her control? There are 4,000 to 5,000 people living under this system, 1,700 children growing up within it and more than 400 children already born in Ireland in the system. Will the Tánaiste make a statement on any plans to end direct provision?

Every effort is made on a continuous basis to provide a high level of service to persons in the direct provision system. The direct provision system comprises not just full board accommodation but a range of services including health, education and welfare supports. The principal issue identified in the McMahon report was the length of time people live in the system. Many of the applicants living in direct provision have multiple appeals under way at present which has contributed to the length of time.

We are committed to reforming the direct provision system, with particular focus on families and children. The previous Government established the working group chaired by Judge McMahon. Last week I held a meeting with all of the relevant stakeholders and discussed with them the implementation of that report and our progress on it. The McMahon report said we have to improve the application process and the quality of life in the accommodation through improvements in services. Of the 173 recommendations that were made, a total of 91 of them have been taken forward; 49 are partially implemented and in progress and the balance remain under consideration. When I met the various stakeholders working in this area we identified a number of areas where further improvements can be made.

I am meeting a group again in September to continue that work. I meet them on a regular basis so that we can progress the reforms.

The International Protection Act, which was enacted last year, takes forward 29 of the recommendations because we need a speedier and more effective system that ensures applications are dealt with quickly and appropriately and that people are not in the system. Many thousands of cases have been heard in the past year and the number of people who are in direct provision over five years has decreased significantly. In fact, the vast majority have now moved to being there for under three years. There has been a substantial change, particularly in terms of the main recommendation the McMahon report highlighted.

There are also initiatives on better standards of accommodation and cooking facilities for families. Those are moving ahead in quite a number of the direct provision centres.

I point out to the Tánaiste that last year the UN Human Rights Committee described it as a severe violation of human rights. That committee is very hard on the system of children living in what has been called "state-sanctioned poverty".

The Tánaiste will be aware that there is an allowance of €19.10 a week for each adult in direct provision. That was set in 1999 and has not changed. According to my calculation of indexation for inflation, that allowance should be a meagre €27.50. Instead of looking after those in direct provision, the Government is paying out millions of euro to the companies which make vast profits in providing the accommodation. All of the evidence shows, as the Tánaiste must agree, that there are severe mental issues with thousands of adults and children living in an environment where they have no control, where adults are not allowed work or study and where children are not even allowed bring their classmates home to play with them. Could the Tánaiste please comment on those humane issues that are outstanding in dealing with this issue?

As Deputy Bríd Smith will be aware, a decision was taken by the previous Government not to increase the sum paid for adults but to increase the sum paid for children. In the Department of Education and Skills, the former Minister, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, made the decision about children moving on to third level. It is a small number, but that decision was taken to ensure that children in direct provision could access third level places as well. There were also the other changes which I have spoken about.

As I said at the beginning, we want to provide as high a level of service to persons who are awaiting assessment as we can. A number of centres have been closed. Every effort is being made to improve the standards of accommodation. It is a serious issue. We discussed it again with the NGOs, the representatives of which attended last week, as I stated.

There are child protection policies and child support policies in place. We clearly want to ensure that the centres meet international human rights standards. I certainly want to ensure that is the case. I recently agreed that the Ombudsman for Children would have a role in relation to direct provision and that has been widely welcomed. That ensures that there now is an independent person - there are also inspections - who can also make recommendations of changes he or she considers necessary.

I again ask the Tánaiste to comment on some of the reports. I refer to a confidential Government report in 2013 which stated that the system was not ideal but it saved us money, and we did not want to change it in case we attracted other asylum seekers from the United Kingdom. Would the Tánaiste agree that, in reality, we are reinforcing the fortress Europe idea that we want to keep them out as much as possible despite the fact that many of them are fleeing war, famine, dictatorships, etc., that even when they get here we treat them as less than human or second-class people, and that there is an outrageous amount of money being made by companies providing direct provision? It is not even State provision. We are handing over taxpayers' money to those making vast profits to keep people in conditions which can only be termed as inhumane and psychologically damaging, and very damaging to children who grow up in the system. We also have approximately 400 children born in this country in a complete limbo as to who and what they are because they are not entitled to citizenship and they cannot go back to where their parents came from.

Ireland was quick to respond. I was to the fore at the Justice and Home Affairs meeting when countries were asked to take refugees during the big crisis last year. We immediately agreed to take 4,000 refugees and that was a sign of our intentions in this area. Our full obligation under resettlement will be met by the end of September when over 500 refugees from camps in Lebanon will have arrived in Ireland.

The relocation programme is also accelerating, with 31 Syrians arriving last night.

I hope they are not put in direct provision.

The 31 Syrians are in the emergency centres that we have set up, according to the recommendation. The recommendation at European level is that refugees arriving in the first place should be in a centre where they get support services, which we have in place.

Every effort is being made to improve the standard of accommodation in our direct provision system. I assume Deputy Bríd Smith has visited some of those centres. I have been to various centres. As for the recommendations in the McMahon report on providing better accommodation for children and families where they have their own cooking facilities, we are trying to move to that as quickly as possible.

Commissions of Investigation

Clare Daly

Question:

14. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if she has examined the transcripts and documents submitted to the O'Higgins commission, which are held by her Department, in order to establish the facts around the evidence given, to impugn the motivation of a person (details supplied) which is a pressing issue of public concern; if not, why; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17507/16]

The Tánaiste will agree that confidence in the Garda Commissioner is a critical matter and it lies at the heart of the controversy around the transcripts in the O'Higgins commission because it leads the public to believe that what the Commissioner states in public and what she does in private are two entirely different matters. Leaving this matter open or sending it to Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, will not resolve the issues. The Tánaiste has the transcripts and the documentation in her possession. I want to know if the Tánaiste has read them. If not, why has she not read them, given their importance? Does the Tánaiste plan to do so? Can we end this matter and give confidence to members of the service and, indeed, the public at large?

Before its dissolution and, in accordance with section 43(2) of the Commission of Investigation Act 2004, the O'Higgins commission of investigation deposited its files with my Department.

The provision in question allows for the depositing of papers in circumstances where a commission is no longer in existence as papers belonging to a commission must be held somewhere. What is at issue here is the safe keeping of the files in terms of their ultimate depositing in the National Archives, their production before a tribunal if that becomes relevant or, similarly, on foot of a court order if one were made in the course of judicial proceedings.

I do not believe it was ever envisaged that the act of depositing files with the sponsoring Minister was intended to allow that Minister access to the private proceedings of a commission of investigation. That would mean that after any commission of investigation had concluded its work in any area, despite the fact that evidence was given in private, the veil of confidentiality surrounding its proceedings could be lifted by any Minister who could then go through the evidence given in private by any party to the commission proceedings. That would be wholly inappropriate and, in any case, section 11(3) of the Commission of Investigation Act 2004 specifically provides, inter alia, that a person, including a member of the commission, shall not disclose or publish any evidence given in private except in certain restricted circumstances. The act of depositing those documents in my Department has to be seen as consistent with that obligation and, accordingly, it would not be proper for me, as Minister, to access commission papers except in accordance with the very specific exceptions set out in the Act. It is clear too from section 11 that it would be an offence for a Minister to disclose material covered by that section except in the limited circumstances set out in that section.

I am astounded by the Tánaiste's answer. It does not hold sway. The Tánaiste is the person to whom the Garda Commissioner is answerable. I did not ask the Tánaiste to publish or disclose the information that is in her possession and charge. I asked the Tánaiste if she had read it.

The Tánaiste seems to think it is sufficiently important to commission a section 102 investigation with GSOC into these matters which, the Tánaiste told us earlier, was critically important. What will GSOC find out or what will it look for? Was evidence given to the commission from two officers saying that at a meeting in Mullingar Sergeant Maurice McCabe gave evidence to indicate that his motivation was malicious? If they did say this, why was that not acted upon?

How will GSOC get access to that information if the Minister, as the person to whom the documentation is lawfully lodged, cannot get access to it? It is not really a major investigation and either they did or they did not. The Minister is on record as saying we cannot pass comment because we have only seen part of the story. There is an onus on the Minister, as the person responsible for the Garda Commissioner, to see the full story. She does not have to make it public. If she cannot see that, to be honest we have a much bigger problem with the justice portfolio than I thought.

I am equally astounded that the Deputy believes I should access papers belonging to a commission of investigation held in private, with people afforded confidentiality with respect to evidence. I am equally astounded the Deputy believes that should be done despite legislation and the detail of it. Mr. Justice O'Higgins was in a position to hear all the evidence presented to the commission and it was entirely a matter for the commission, having heard all the evidence, to reach its conclusions and deal with whatever matters it considered appropriate in its report.

With regard to how whistleblowing is dealt with inside An Garda Síochána, the Garda Commissioner has made absolutely clear her policy position on the support that the Garda should and is giving to whistleblowers. There is no question of my examining the papers given to me from the commission. As a result of the serious issues that arose and to avoid any lack of confidence or clarity with the issues identified by the O'Higgins commission, I have referred the matter to GSOC. The Deputy knows GSOC is an independent body and it will carry out an independent investigation, deciding on its methodology and how to approach the investigation. I certainly will not assume anything about the rights or wrongs of what happened because I do not have the facts. The O'Higgins commission had the facts and published its report. I have now referred the particular issue relating to Mullingar for independent investigation, which is important.

Let us be very clear. The Minister has the facts but she has stated that she has chosen not to look at them. That is a very serious issue as there is nothing in legislation preventing the Minister from doing that. She has told the House that testimony of which the dogs on the street have seen part is okay but the Minister, who is responsible for the Garda Commissioner, cannot gain access to it. Not only that but she told us she has referred the matter to GSOC. I presume the Minister believes GSOC will be able to examine material that she cannot examine; otherwise how could we get to the truth of the matter? It is not an insignificant matter.

The Minister has just indicated that the Garda Commissioner has made absolutely clear her commitment to whistleblowers but I dispute that commitment. I know what the Commissioner has said in public and what she does behind closed doors are different. That is what the evidence in the public domain is telling us with regard to Maurice McCabe. I know that to be the case with current whistleblowers. Unless this is answered, there will be a critical crisis of confidence in the service. The Minister cannot hide behind legislation and legal opinion that she has not sought on the matter.

It is not a question of hiding behind legislation but rather of following the law. It is absolutely clear. The fact that files are being deposited for safe-keeping certainly does not envisage anybody reading them outside of their disposal to the National Archives.

There is nothing preventing the reading of them.

That is the reality. The Deputy is assuming the outcome of an investigation and I will certainly not do that. I will await the outcome of the GSOC investigation. We have heard partial evidence and all the evidence has not been in the public arena. I asked GSOC to investigate the issue and I await the outcome of that investigation.

Top
Share