Dáil Éireann Debate, Friday - 16 December 2016
5. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if she still has full confidence in the Garda Commissioner, with particular reference to the manner in which Garda personnel making protected disclosures are dealt with in view of the fact that the Garda Commissioner is now in position for over two years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40597/16]
View answerThe Tánaiste is responsible for overseeing An Garda Síochána and setting its priorities. She has an obligation to ensure that the force is managed in an appropriate fashion. Given that she is the only one who has authority over the Garda Commissioner, is she still 100% confident in how the Commissioner has been functioning, especially in light of how the latter has handled protected disclosures among other matters?
I want to make it absolutely clear that no finding of wrongdoing of any kind has been made against the Garda Commissioner. In those circumstances, she is entitled to our full confidence and support.
It is right to recognise that the Garda has done some excellent policing operations and continues to work keeping our communities safe. We have just talked about the threats from paramilitary organisations. It is critical the policing necessary to interrupt those activities continues.
I hope the Deputy will appreciate that, like any other public servant and in line with any concept of fairness, the Garda Commissioner is entitled to her good name - as, indeed, are people making allegations entitled to theirs - unless facts properly established prove otherwise. One of the lessons of the past couple of years is the danger of treating allegations as fact and rushing to judgment before the actual facts are determined.
The House will be aware that I asked Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill to review two protected disclosures which I received from members of An Garda Síochána last October. I received his report last week and am grateful for his work in this regard. I am still in consultation with the Attorney General about this matter and I hope the House will understand that I am not in a position to say any more about it at this stage. However, I will take all steps necessary to ensure the disclosures in question are properly and fairly addressed.
On cases of whistleblowing generally, the reality is that neither the Deputy nor I, as Minister, are in a position to determine facts in individual cases without having processes in place to deal properly with allegations of wrongdoing by members of An Garda Síochána. The veracity or otherwise of allegations cannot be established across the floor of this House. That is why we have put proper processes in place to examine these cases. They will involve an impartial examination of the case made by people making allegations and those against whom such allegations are made.
It is unfair of the Tánaiste to say that we are rushing to judgment. This has been going on for over two years. If O'Neill recommends an inquiry, and if one is established, will the Tánaiste include other protected disclosures in it rather than the two in question? She will be familiar with Keith Harrison's case. His legal team said that, in a repeat of Sergeant McCabe's experience, it could confirm that An Garda Síochána contacted politicians and members of the media to undermine Garda Harrison's credibility and destroy his reputation by spreading false and malicious rumours in a bid to undermine his disclosures and dissuade him from pursuing this matter.
If there is an inquiry into all of this, can the Tánaiste leave the Garda Commissioner in situ in view of the fact that she will be the subject of inquiry? It was bad enough she was in situ during the O'Higgins investigation and report. I am sure the Tánaiste has seen the transcript herself. It was pretty damning about what went on. We are not rushing to judgment. Is the Tánaiste going to include other protected disclosures in the case of an inquiry which may be recommended by O'Neill? Will she leave the Commissioner in situ if that is the case?
It would be wrong for me, as Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, to step across the procedures put in place to deal with the range of issues he has raised. That is the reality. We have processes in place. People spent years in the House talking about having objective processes in place so that, for example, whistleblowing could be dealt with properly in various organisations where it arose. That is why we brought in protected disclosure legislation and set up GSOC for An Garda Síochána. We have those mechanisms in place.
On the particular points the Deputy raised, I am sure the House will recognise I have particular difficulties talking about the O'Neill review. It was established to look at two particular disclosures. While there has been widespread public speculation about those who made the disclosures and what they contained, I cannot comment on them. The Deputy can speculate on them but I cannot comment at present. I understand that might be frustrating for the House at this point. However, I have to be scrupulous in honouring my own legal obligations in this regard. I have the report but I cannot comment on its contents at this point. I cannot comment in any meaningful way at this point on what might or might not be included in it or in any other further inquiries. I have to be scrupulous about protecting the names of whistleblowers.
Some of those whistleblowers have already waived confidentiality.
Not to me.
At this stage, we know of ten protected disclosures, and if a quarter of what they allege is true, then we have a serious problem. When will we find out what is happening with the O'Neill report? Will an inquiry be set up or not? The Minister has the power to remove the Commissioner while the inquiry is ongoing. There will be information required and the Commissioner has control over much of it. The Minister spoke about doing things properly and fairly. In the interest of fairness, I do not see how the Minister could possibly leave the Commissioner in place if she is the subject of an inquiry in any form. Will the Minister explain that to me?
The Deputy is making points about protected disclosures which I cannot possibly comment on. I am not in a position to comment on what, if any, further inquiries might prove necessary. I have no reason to think that everyone involved will not co-operate fully. It would be a bizarre proposition to suggest that where no wrongdoing of any kind has been established against someone, they should be suspended from office. Clearly that is not natural justice.
Why is-----
The Minister, without interruption.
That proposition could not be sustained.
Everyone else was suspended.
It is very important that we deal properly with allegations of wrongdoing. We have to deal with them properly. We cannot anticipate and do what the Deputy has outlined. There is no concept of fairness or natural justice in what the Deputy is describing.
She suspended-----
There are no further supplementaries. We will move back to Question No. 4.
