Vol. 863 No. 2
1. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will provide an update on the independent review mechanism; when the independent review will be completed; the actions that will be taken as a result of the independent review; if cases from the independent review may form part of the commission of investigation following the Guerin report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1488/15]
The question asks the Minister to provide an update on the independent review mechanism which was established last July; to inform us when this review will be completed and what actions are likely to follow as a result of the review; and to explain if any cases which are part of the review could form part of the commission of investigation established following the Guerin report.
The Government, as part of its response to the report by Seán Guerin SC, took the initiative to have an independent review carried out of the allegations of Garda misconduct which had been submitted to my Department, to An Taoiseach and to a number of other public representatives. This unprecedented decision was taken with a view to getting an objective and independent legal view on whether further action might be warranted in any case.
As the Deputy is aware, a panel consisting of two senior and five junior counsel was established for that purpose. This independent review panel has been examining 311 cases referred to it and is now nearing completion of its work. This is a significant number of cases, and somewhat higher than originally estimated, but I thought it was important to refer all of the allegations and cases that have been made to me as Minister, or to the Taoiseach or other representatives in the House, whether they came directly from complainants or through representative groups such as Justice4All, with, I would highlight, only the most minimal filtering out of cases which did not actually relate to the Garda Síochána. This means that counsel are examining a very wide range of cases, some of which deal directly with the Garda Síochána but others of which extend to other aspects of the criminal justice system beyond my remit, such as the prosecution and trial of offences. It is also worth noting that the cases contain a very wide variety of allegations in terms of seriousness.
I assure the Deputy that where further investigation is recommended by the review, that will occur. However, I would also make the point again that, in many cases, counsel may recommend that no further action can reasonably be taken. This might be, for example, because a case has already been through due process, such as a full investigation by GSOC or a court hearing, even though the complainant remains unhappy with the outcome. The crucial point, however, is that every case will have been reviewed by independent counsel, who will have made an objective recommendation.
The panel has made significant progress at this point and the submission of recommendations to me is being prepared by officials in the Department. Every recommendation will be very carefully considered but, as a matter of general principle, let me say clearly that, in coming to a decision in each case, I will be very strongly guided by the independent advice that is being given to me. Quite clearly, as we have engaged counsel for this review, it would be entirely appropriate to be guided by their advice. There will be no undue delay in the process of notifying complainants of the outcome of the review, a process that I expect will start shortly.
Where counsel do recommend further investigations, I will be guided by that. There are a number of possible options - for example, referral to GSOC - but any recommendation for referral of a case to a commission of investigation will be very carefully considered, including whether this could be achieved by way of amending the terms of reference of the Guerin commission or the establishment of a separate commission.
At an opportunity like this, we have to take stock of where we are with regard to a number of commissions. The House was told the Fennelly commission would report before Christmas, and that has not happened. The commission concerning Ronan McLoughlin was established last July, as the Minister is aware, given that we discussed it at the justice committee and here in the House. It has not got off the ground yet, and concern has been raised about that. We now have the commission following the Guerin report, which seems to be restricted to Garda practices in the Cavan-Monaghan district.
There is concern out there that the families whose cases are subject to the independent review have not been kept informed as to the progression and the likely outcomes. Concern has been expressed to me and other public representatives about why the terms of reference of the commission following Guerin do not provide for any cases which fall out of the independent review and which merit further independent scrutiny. We already have three commissions of inquiry either established or in the process of being established, and there are questions over their functioning and whether they are doing the job they are supposed to be doing. For example, I am being lobbied by people connected to the Cynthia Owen case, the Shane O'Farrell case and the Sarah Bland case. They want independent commissions of investigation into their circumstances. The commission which was established post-Guerin should provide for cases which fall out of the independent review mechanism rather than leaving people in limbo or thinking there will not be any follow-up after the independent review by the barristers. Will the Minister consider amending the terms of reference which were published prior to Christmas to include cases that flow from the independent review mechanism?
As I said, the number of cases I referred to the independent review is quite large, and there is a wide variety of cases. I did originally say that the investigation would, I hoped, take a number of months, but in fact it is taking longer. One of the reasons it is taking longer, of course, is the complexity of some of the cases, the working through of the material and the amount of written material that has been supplied by individual complainants.
As I said, the counsel are working their way through the various cases and making recommendations. I will have a summary of those recommendations in the near future. It would have been anticipating the outcome of those cases if I had included them in the Guerin commission.
The legal advice when I was establishing the Guerin commission was that I would be unable to do that in advance of the outcome of the recommendations, because we would not quite know what was being referred if we did not have the outcome of the independent review of those cases. In that context, I was unable to include them in the terms of reference of the Guerin commission when I published it and I did not want to delay that further. However, as I have said, if a commission is recommended as a way forward for any of the cases referred to and being examined by the review commission, that is certainly a possibility.
I mentioned three individual cases and there are other cases for which people are seeking a commission of investigation. I appreciate that some 311 cases are being reviewed. In terms of the possible outcome of these reviews, the Minister has indicated that if a commission of investigation is warranted, she will pursue that. I welcome that, as will the people involved in the 311 cases. Has the Minister considered what might follow on this in terms of redress? Has she or the Department considered that issue?
The Deputy has already pointed out that a number of commissions are operating. This is due to the response of the Government to legitimate public concerns and concerns of Members. The Deputy has picked out three particular cases. However, it would not be right for me to pick out particular cases. In each case, the same approach is being taken, but I cannot anticipate any outcome. It is a serious matter to refer a case to a commission or to establish a commission. I cannot anticipate whether any case or how many cases will be referred as suitable for a commission of investigation.
The Deputy has mentioned three cases and obviously I am familiar with cases where people have serious concerns. For cases like this, it is unprecedented for a Government to set up an independent legal assessment. I will be guided by the outcome of that assessment and will examine the outcome for each of the cases. I will also consider whether any theme emerges from that work that might recommend other actions I may need to take as Minister for Justice and Equality.
2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her views on the progression of the work of the independent panel of counsel tasked with reviewing hundreds of allegations of Garda malpractice; and if she will address the concerns of many of the complainants at this stage; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1490/15]
This question raises the same concerns as the previous question. There are growing concerns among the families who have submitted their allegations about this process to either the Minister or the Taoiseach. For example, in the context of the Guerin report, the delay in announcing the commission recommended by Seán Guerin was attributed to the fact that the Minister is awaiting the recommendations. This issue has dragged on and many of the families involved are e-mailing Oireachtas Members saying they want their case included in the terms and conditions of the commission of investigation recommended by Guerin. I am concerned at the way this is developing and I want serious assurances from the Minister on the matter today.
The Deputy has spoken about the length of time involved. In regard to the cases that have been referred to the review mechanism, many of them have been on people's desks and in various places in the system over the past decade and some cases go back much further. Many of these cases have been through a variety of processes, including independent investigations or the courts, while no action has been taken on some, other than that a person has made a complaint expressing a concern about how he or she was dealt with either in the criminal justice system or by gardaí. It is clear there is a wide variety of cases. These cases have been in the system for some time, some of them for ten years or longer. It is important, therefore, that we take the time to examine them in detail, that we give the counsel the time to do that and to review all of the paperwork that has come in, and then make a decision. I have allowed the time for this.
In regard to the delay in implementing the Guerin commission recommendations, before we saw the scale of the number of cases referred to the review mechanism, I hoped initially that the Guerin commission would be able to encompass them. However, due to the number of cases referred, it soon became clear that in the context of the terms of reference of the Guerin commission, we would not be able to make a decision about what precisely should be referred. Therefore, it would have been inappropriate to include these cases at that time. I was keen also to move ahead with the Guerin commission. The Government took a decision that we would follow precisely what Seán Guerin had recommended in his report for the commission. Most Deputies appreciate that Mr. Guerin made a series of recommendations. We followed those recommendations precisely and left nothing out. The approach we took was to make a comprehensive examination of what was recommended.
When I first heard about the independent panel, I welcomed it because of the unprecedented number of cases. Not all of these cases will be valid, but some will and I believe some are strong cases and are definitely eligible for an independent commission of investigation. However, the difficulty is that these cases have all been lumped together and I understand that until they have all been reviewed, we will not have an assessment. Can interim recommendations be made along the way? For example, can the counsel say, for example, that they have looked at 20 cases and make recommendations in regard to those cases, rather than make people wait for a long time until all the cases have been reviewed, thereby increasing people's anxiety?
Also, currently the panel is looking through the documentary evidence provided to it. Some families have the capacity to explain the case in great detail, but others may not have that capacity. A face-to-face interview to clarify some of the matters raised might be helpful. Will the Minister permit the independent counsel to meet some of the complainants face to face to clarify any matters of which they are unsure?
The decision was taken that there would be a review of all of the written material, and that decision stands. Many of these families have lived with their concerns over a long period. It is important we take adequate time to examine the complaints and that we give the counsel the time to come to a decision on what recommendation they should make. It would be counterproductive to start dealing with the cases in the manner the Deputy suggests. I want to deal with them comprehensively because I want to see the trends and themes that emerge as well as the recommendations for each case.
The counsel want to progress and finish the work and I am confident that will be completed in the near future. This issue will not drag on for many more months. I am confident that at that point I will be able to respond to the complainants individually. In the normal course of events, many people have concerns about how they have been dealt with by a justice system, and approximately 5% of complaints internationally are held up when complaints are made against a body such as the Garda Síochána. There will be many cases on which no further action will be taken, but obviously there will be cases where further action is recommended by counsel. I will have the overview of that in the near future and will publish as much information as I can when I get to that point.
The Minister is saying that she does not believe this review will take much longer than another few months. My understanding is that she continues to refer allegations to this panel which means that if she is ready to publish in two months time, a new case may be referred to it all of a sudden. I would like an assurance from her that by March or some time in the next couple of months this will be ready so that families can be assured they will have a decision.
My question concerns Garda malpractice, but some of the concerns relate to the wider criminal justice system. The independent panel may decide there are issues regarding Garda malpractice, but this issue may need a wider commission of investigation. Take for example the Shane O'Farrell case in Monaghan where the concerns of the family are wider than that of Garda malpractice. I believe that case will require a commission of investigation when the time comes.
It is precisely that question the counsel are addressing. They are examining whether there are cases that will require further action, such as a commission. It is a serious matter to refer an individual case or to set up a commission of inquiry. Therefore, we must be sure this is the best way forward for those families for whom this is recommended.
I think the Deputy will agree that it is a very serious action to take, so we want to be absolutely sure that if there are cases in which a commission is recommended, significant thought has been given to that. I have said to the panel that this is an option for its consideration if it believes a commission of inquiry would be valuable and would help the families, and if there are issues of such concern that they warrant a commission of investigation. Again, I make the point that in respect of the cases that have been referred to - and the Deputy knows this because some of them have been on his desk - there is a very wide variety of complaints about the criminal justice system. When I have the complete overview, I will be in a position to say which ones relate to people's experiences in court, decisions of the DPP, GSOC and how complaints have been handled. It will then become clear whether further action can be taken, and I will be guided by what the council has to say about that.
3. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if the British intelligence body GCHQ's tapping of the underground cable between Ireland and Britain was authorised by her; if so, the legislation under which it was authorised; if not, the action she will take regarding same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1415/15]
I have raised this issue twice on Leaders' Questions but got no answers. I heard back from the Taoiseach this morning but there were still no answers. What I want to know relates to the information leaked by Edward Snowden that communications cables between Ireland and the UK have been tapped. The Taoiseach said in the House that any tapping or interception of these communications would likely have occurred within the jurisdiction of the UK and would presumably be covered by EU law. There is no EU law to cover mass surveillance. Will the Minister answer the three questions I have asked on the issue?
I am aware of the media reports alleging that GCHQ in the UK has tapped undersea communications cables. The media reports also suggest that this may have been linked to surveillance being carried out within the UK's own jurisdiction. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, has already been in contact with the British Embassy on this issue. It has been conveyed that it is generally understood that friendly relationships between states include acceptance of the principle that the privacy of communications must be respected. I agree with the Deputy that protection of data and the privacy of communication are not matters that should be taken lightly, and it is right that communications are safeguarded and protected against unlawful intrusion and interception.
The lawful interception of communications is sometimes a necessary tool for law enforcement authorities in order to protect citizens against terrorism and other serious criminal threats, as I am sure the Deputy will agree. The majority of citizens would accept that there should be a balance between personal privacy and public safety once the mechanisms by which such data is accessed are both legal and proportionate. There is no question of mass surveillance. If we needed reminding of the threat posed by international terrorism then we need only look to the horrific events in Paris last week. Criminals and terrorists have not been slow to take advantage of the various technological advances in communications in recent years. It is essential that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the necessary resources to address this dimension of the threat.
The interception of an individual's communications in this State can only occur in the very specific circumstances laid down in the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993. This Act permits me to authorise an interception but only for the purposes of criminal investigation into serious offences or in the interests of the security of the State. The operation of the Act is overseen by a designated judge of the High Court who reports annually to the Taoiseach on his or her examination of its operation. In addition, a complaints referee, who is normally a serving judge of the Circuit Court, is appointed to receive and investigate complaints from persons who believe that their communications have been unlawfully intercepted. It should be clear from the above that there is no question of me as Minister having authorised or having the authority to authorise the kind of activity alluded to in the Deputy's question. As far as the UK is concerned, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has taken up that issue with the British authorities.
It would be good if we got some feedback if the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is talking to the British authorities about the fact that this is unlawful and that it is not good enough. If GCHQ is allowed to work in this area without getting approval from Ireland, it is very worrying. It would be interesting to see what the British might have to say about it, but that information should be relayed to the public. There is huge public concern about the fact that many communications seem to be under surveillance. The legislation signed by the Minister for Justice and Equality on 26 November 2014 has caused much worry for people in Ireland. Digital Rights Ireland won a case in Europe last year against the existing legislation. The case showed that the storage of much of this information on people was illegal and in breach of their privacy rights.
I will let the Deputy back in.
Would the Minister agree that under the powers she now has, she can force telecommunications companies to give her data that infringes people's privacy rights?
There is no question of the Irish Government agreeing to the situation outlined by the Deputy. The UK legislation is for the UK to decide. I have made it very clear that we have a very serious approach to any interception of telecommunications in this country. We have very clear laws about it. It is only used where there is a question of criminal activity or where the security of the State is considered to be at risk. There is a very serious approach to it overseen by a High Court judge and a Circuit Court judge.
Most citizens would agree that there needs to be a balance between the privacy rights of individuals and the protection of the interests and security of the State and dealing with criminal activity. They would understand that some action would have to be taken on very specific occasions and with a very specific approach under regulation to deal with that and to allow for that interception. I am aware of the ECJ case and we will examine the outcome of it. Even in that case, the ECJ made it very clear that in terms of criminal activity, the interception of communications was a legitimate action for a State to take.
I again refer the Minister to the concerns of the chairman of Digital Rights Ireland, Dr. T. J. McIntyre, who is a lecturer in UCD. He says: "It's worrying because it means telecommunications companies might be pressured into doing things that aren't entirely legal." He said that the companies would be prosecuted in secret and would be unable to disclose their objections publicly or even the fact that they were being prosecuted. He said he was very reluctant to allow that it was a good idea for the Minister to have the power to force companies to comply with secret orders.
The Minister is saying that the people are concerned about terrorist activities. Yes, they are concerned, but the balance appears to be going very much the other way. The principle of State security is being abused in order to impinge on the rights of ordinary people. Mass surveillance is becoming more common, there is far more interruption of communications and the private citizen is very concerned about it. We are heading down the wrong path on this.
I do not accept the premise of quite a number of points made by the Deputy. For a start, I absolutely believe that most right-thinking citizens would welcome the State's taking action to protect its citizens. Certainly, that is very much on people's minds following the Paris attacks in particular. My belief is that citizens want to be protected.
I have already told the Deputy that there is no question of mass surveillance. Neither do I accept the premise that companies involved in the communications industry will break the law. They will follow the law that is there.
Vodafone did.
I believe they will follow the law that is there and my experience suggests that is the situation. We want strong law that protects the rights of citizens but when appropriate and in the interests of dealing with criminality, particularly international criminal activity which we know is increasingly carried out via the Internet, it is important that our laws are strong enough to deal with it.
We know, for example, the role the Internet plays in the recruitment of foreign fighters internationally. I believe our laws protect the citizen but also ensure security and intelligence forces can work together to protect the citizen.
4. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will provide an update on the review of legislation for gun licensing; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1489/15]
Those in every parish and community who engage in lawful leisure activities which involve the use of legally held and licensed firearms are concerned there will be further restrictions placed on them in obtaining licences and permits to hold such firearms. I also tabled the question because the representative associations involved are hotly disputing the basis of the recommendations.
Following public safety concerns raised by An Garda Síochána about specific categories of firearms, a joint Department and Garda Síochána working group was established to examine this issue in October 2013. Its report was published on 13 November.
The report outlined the views expressed by An Garda Síochána that centre-fire handguns are primarily designed to kill human beings. Accordingly, they pose an unacceptable risk to society and should no longer be licensed in this jurisdiction. There are similar concerns about non-Olympic type .22 calibre handguns, centre-fire semi-automatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than three rounds. Many of these types of firearms have been used either in murders, attempted murders or gangland shootings in this jurisdiction, as well as in mass shootings in other jurisdictions. On this basis, the working group recommended the prohibition of these firearms.
These make up a very small proportion of all licensed firearms, however. It is important to note a wide range of firearms, making up at least 94% of all currently licensed firearms, will not be affected by the proposed change. Again, I must emphasise this is a report and no decision has been taken on its recommendations yet. The firearms not affected include shotguns holding not more than three rounds, hunting style rifles, Olympic standard handguns etc. This point will be of particular reassurance to many of those in agriculture and rural communities, as well as hunting and sporting interests.
The report also referred to difficulties in the interpretation of the legislation expressed by members of the Judiciary.
With respect to the report's recommendations on proposed changes and restrictions, I have not reached any final conclusions. I repeat my commitment that I will not make any final decisions until I have had the opportunity to consider all the submissions made and met the key stakeholders, including the organisations that represent those who use firearms for sporting purposes.
The Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality sought submissions on the report and will hold hearings on this. The deadline for receipt of submissions by my Department is 31 January 2015. I extended this when I was contacted by the stakeholders who expressed concerns about the report's recommendations. No decision has yet been made and a consultation process is under way.
My party supports the review of the legislation and believes updated legislation will lead to safer communities. We also believe the stakeholders who legally use these firearms need to be consulted properly, however. I welcome that the Minister stated this would happen in her reply. The review must distinguish between those who hold firearms legally and those who engage in criminality. That is an issue which the representative associations have raised.
We heard from the Garda Inspectorate yesterday on the PULSE system. The representative associations dispute the statistical information, or the lack of it, underlying the basis on which the recommendations flow. In a reply to several parliamentary questions, the Minister stated to me that An Garda Síochána advises it is not possible to identify accurately from a central database such as PULSE the number of occasions an unlicensed or licensed firearm was used in the committing of a crime. The reply also stated-----
Sorry, Deputy, but we are over time.
Okay, I am finishing.
The reply also stated it was not possible to extrapolate from PULSE the number of refusals which were appealed to the courts or the number of applications which were successful in the courts.
Sorry, Deputy, but we are over time. I will let you back in again. If Members go over time, it prevents others from reaching their questions. We must stick to the time.
I made the point that there will be full consultation. I have no doubt the justice committee, of which Deputy Niall Collins is a member and Deputy David Stanton is the Chairman, will do excellent work in getting to the bottom of these statistics and examining them in detail.
While it is a different issue, I have set up a working group to look at technology and An Garda Síochána. The Government has committed to upgrading the PULSE technology and I accept what the Garda Inspectorate said about it yesterday. The working group has already had several meetings to deal with the technological needs of An Garda Síochána which were clearly identified in the Garda Inspectorate report.
Up to 1,363 firearms applications were refused by An Garda Síochána between 2009 and 2014. The court hears the evidence upon which it makes a decision. The Deputy will have heard the figures for the number of cases where a refusal has been overturned by the courts. There will be full consultation on this.
Thank you, Minister. We are over time.
This is an issue of concern to the wider population as well.
I recognise that concern. However, it is also a concern for those who legally hold and use the firearms in question for recreational and sporting purposes.
It is a fact that there is no record of any member of the Judiciary expressing difficulty in interpreting the legislation in question. That needs to be cleared up as it has been left hanging out there. I do not know who came up with that notion.
Is the Minister satisfied the information underpinning the report is accurate and correct, given the reply I received from the Minister this morning on foot of a written parliamentary question? Will she consider allowing the Garda Inspectorate to engage in a review and to make recommendations on the process and system of firearm licensing?
It would be premature to suggest that. A process has been set up and we have a report which will be examined by the justice committee. The Deputy will have the opportunity to make those points at the committee.
I welcome the Deputy’s support for the review. One of my predecessors in office, Dermot Ahern, stated in 2009 during the debate when the licensing system was last amended that he was determined to ensure a gun culture would not be allowed to form in this State. He also said he would, in consultation with the Garda Commissioner, keep the situation on firearms licensing under review in the interests of public safety. Obviously, I want the best outcome possible in the interests of public safety but also very much in the interests of those representative groups for shooting clubs and shooting sportsmen.
As I stated, 94% of licensed firearms are not included in the report’s recommendations. We are looking at the other 6% about which there are different views. An Garda Síochána has made presentations to the committee on this. The statistics the Garda used can be questioned, if the Deputy has concerns about the quality of research in the report. No decision has been taken yet. I want to ensure this gets a thorough airing.
We are over time.
However, I do not want representative groups to assume decisions have been made before they have been made.
I appeal again to Deputies and Ministers to watch the clocks, which are here for a reason. Otherwise, they will be unfair to other backbench Deputies whose questions will not be reached.
5. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding the establishment and date of commencement of the Guerin Commission of Investigation along with copy order and details regarding pricing and staffing appointments and relevant responsible Departments; the reason for their particular terms of reference and their publication on 19 December 2014 which was not a sitting day of Dáil Éireann; and the reason independent review mechanism cases have not been included but confined to a parallel legal process. [1553/15]
I ask the Minister to outline the details of the Guerin commission of investigation and explain the reason she provided it with such parochial terms of reference. The investigation will focus on the Cavan-Monaghan division. Given that the Garda Inspectorate report was the result of an investigation into serious crime, surely a root and branch review would have provided a template for reform of the entire force.
I established a commission of investigation on foot of the recommendations of the Guerin report. I laid before the House a draft of the order, which includes the terms of reference, proposing the establishment of the commission. I also laid before the House a statement of the reasons for establishing the commission. All of the matters recommended by Mr. Seán Guerin SC for inclusion in a commission of investigation are included in the terms of reference. The draft order specifies me, as the Minister for Justice and Equality, as the Minister responsible for overseeing the administrative matters relating to the establishment of the commission.
It is important to note that a resolution approving the draft order must be passed by each House. As such, the terms of reference will shortly come before the House for discussion and approval, possibly as early as next week. This will provide Deputies with an opportunity to discuss the terms of reference and work of the Guerin commission.
An estimate of the costs, including legal costs, to be incurred by the commission in conducting the investigation and preparing its reports, and the timeframe for the submission of the commission's final report, will be published in Iris Oifigiúil, as per normal procedure, as soon as possible after the terms of reference are set in accordance with the legislation. This will occur when the resolution has been passed by both Houses.
Deputy Wallace refers to the independent review by a panel of counsel of a wide range of cases, some of which deal directly with An Garda Síochána, while others extend to other aspects of the criminal justice system. As I have previously outlined the position in this regard, I do not propose to discuss the matter in detail at this point. As I indicated, there are a number of possible options for further investigation which I will consider when I have received recommendations on all of the relevant cases.
The Guerin commission examined a particular set of circumstances. When I decided to establish a commission of investigation I also took the initiative to refer the Guerin report to the Garda Inspectorate. The inspectorate's recent report included a chapter on the Guerin report which addressed many of the issues raised by Mr. Guerin. The inspectorate's report is to be implemented by me and An Garda Síochána and will not be the subject of a further commission.
On that issue, it was disappointing that the new Garda Commissioner did not welcome all the points raised in the Garda Inspectorate's report. She denied, for example, that crime figures were being massaged, which is completely at variance with the conclusions of the inspectorate's report.
I raised a point regarding the parochial nature of the terms of reference of the Guerin review. The Minister is correct that Mr. Guerin's investigation was confined to the Cavan-Monaghan area. Little progress has been made since the introduction by the then Minister, Mr. Michael McDowell, of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 in response to a case in County Donegal. The 2005 legislation was clearly not the answer to all of our problems. We know from what has occurred in recent years that serious problems persist in the Garda. We are receiving information from three new Garda whistleblowers and it is frightening to note what continues to take place. The things going on in the midlands, Cork and Limerick are every bit as bad, if not worse, than what went on in Cavan-Monaghan. The Minister has an opportunity to carry out a complete root and branch review of the Garda and how it operates. A failure to introduce root and branch reform will result in sticking plasters being used to tackle serious problems.
As the Deputy stated, a considerable amount of analysis has been done at this stage. It is important to act now to bring about change and the Government has taken action to address the issues the Deputy outlined. A commission of investigation was established on foot of the Guerin report and will be led by Mr. Justice Kevin O'Higgins. We have also established the Fennelly commission, which is examining aspects of the behaviour of members of An Garda Síochána. These commissions will provide further information. It is very important that we also get on with introducing change and reform. We have established an independent police authority and appointed a Garda Commissioner through a new and independent process. We are amending the legislation governing the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to give it greater powers to initiate investigations. I hope Second Stage of that Bill will conclude next week. The new Garda Commissioner is committed to change in the force.
The concerns have been well analysed, including in the Garda Inspectorate's report. The Deputy is correct that serious issues arise and the inspectorate's report is clear on that matter. A series of actions are being taken to address these issues. This process cannot be completed overnight but many processes are in place that are making a difference in respect of the points the Deputy outlined.
On that-----
We must move on to the next question. Deputy Wallace has asked two supplementary questions.
I spoke only once in response to the Minister.
My apologies, I am blinded by the clock. We have exceeded the time for Priority Questions by almost ten minutes, which is unfair to other Deputies waiting to speak.
I wish I could share the Minister's optimism that things will be different. To cite one example, on the watch of the Garda Commissioner, Ms Nóirín O'Sullivan, an assistant Garda Commissioner, Mr. Donal Ó Cualáin, is examining certain serious allegations made by serving Garda whistleblowers. The investigation, which has been ongoing for nine months, does not appear to be making any progress and no reports have been forthcoming. The handling of this matter is extremely worrying. I am not so sure things have changed much. As I have stated previously, we should have examined the approach taken to policing in Northern Ireland where an active effort was made to clean out the old hierarchy and start afresh. This has not been done here.
On the independent review mechanism, the Minister went to great pains in her previous replies to refer to the independence and objectivity of the mechanism. We must remember that the various positions were not advertised, the review's terms of reference were not published, the individuals who made the complaints have not been interviewed and have not received feedback and the mechanism does not have judicial status and, as such, is not subject to an appeal mechanism. As far as the individuals in question are concerned, it is akin to a kangaroo court. While I do not want to prejudge the final outcome, the way in which this matter has been handled is worrying.
I believe the range of initiatives we have taken will make a difference and begin to address many of the issues to which the Deputy refers. To go back to the case in County Donegal and a number of other reports, various actions have been taken to deal with the issues the Deputy outlined. I also believe the Garda Commissioner is committed to dealing with the points the Deputy makes. While I cannot comment on the individual case he raises, whistleblowers in the force must be treated with respect and their complaints addressed. I believe mechanisms are in place to do this and I want it to happen.
I do not accept the Deputy's description of the review mechanism, which was established by the Government in good faith as an independent process and with terms of reference for dealing with the cases that were being referred to it. Senior and junior counsel have been appointed to examine these cases and provide the best legal opinion possible, having regard to the facts and previous actions that were taken in the cases in question.
We have a number of commissions sitting at present, and comprehensive work has been done in this area by the Garda Inspectorate over a three-year period. I do not believe we need another assessment of an Garda Síochána. Rather, we need to get on with changing the culture as outlined in the Garda Inspectorate report by way of implementation of the changes recommended therein, including addressing the technology issues, which are very basic. That is what we are doing.
