Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 1 Dec 2015

Vol. 898 No. 4

Priority Questions

International Terrorism

Niall Collins

Ceist:

47. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will be introducing new measures to tackle terrorism, given the recent attacks in Paris, France; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [42646/15]

I have tabled this question in the light of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris where a large number of people were killed. Given the fact that terrorism is global, that, whether we like it or not, Irish people have been caught up in terrorist attacks such as the one on the beach in Tunisia and that an Irish person was shot at the Bataclan theatre, does the Minister intend to introduce new measures to tackle terrorism as it impacts on us here?

As I said in the House last week, like other open and democratic states, Ireland cannot consider itself immune from the threat posed by international terrorism. As the Deputy said, sadly, Irish people have been caught up in international terrorist attacks. The current assessment of the threat to Ireland from this source is that while an attack here is possible, it is unlikely, nor is there any specific information that an attack on Ireland is planned. The level of threat from this source is kept under constant review by An Garda Síochána. Given that the threat is evolving, the Garda Commissioner is carrying out a review and will let me know what additional requirements may arise.

European Union Justice Ministers held an emergency meeting in the week following the attacks in Paris on 13 November. Ministers were at one in seeking to progress all reasonable measures to counteract the terrorist threat. In this regard, the Council focused on several key issues, including the EU passenger name records, PNR, directive, supported by Deputies across the House, firearms, control of external borders and information-sharing of intelligence.

Co-operation between the police and intelligence services is essential. Enhanced access for EU police and security services to data and intelligence-sharing has a critical role in the fight against terrorism. Our involvement with Europol and Interpol is critical in that regard. That said, opportunities which could further enhance that co-operation must be pursued. In this regard, I am determined that An Garda Síochána will have access to the Schengen information system for terrorism and criminal purposes. I have secured additional funding of €4 million for this purpose. The necessary steps in this regard will now be taken as quickly as possible by An Garda Síochána.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

I also emphasised that early agreement on the EU passenger name records directive will be important to ensure law enforcement services can have access to these data, supported by a robust framework of privacy and data protection safeguards. The Council also welcomed new common European standards for deactivating firearms and enhanced efforts to tackle the smuggling of illegal weapons.

The Deputy will be aware that I am rolling out a very significant programme of investment in An Garda Síochána. In terms of recruitment, I announced recently that 600 new gardaí would be recruited in 2016, bringing to a total of 1,150 the number of new gardaí to be recruited since the Garda training college was reopened in September 2014.

Very significant investment has been made in the Garda fleet. At the end of October I announced a further €5.3 million for the purchase of an additional 260 Garda vehicles before the end of the year. This will bring to a total of €34 million the money that will have been invested in the Garda fleet since 2012. I have also secured very significant investment in Garda information and communications technology resources. Over the lifetime of the Government's capital investment programme, investment in Garda ICT will total €330 million. This will be essential to enhance and develop An Garda Síochána's capabilities into the future.

The Garda authorities have been taking all necessary security measures and the relevant agencies here co-operate closely on any threats identified. Robust emergency planning arrangements are in place to address a large range of emergencies, from flooding to national security incidents. There is an Office of Emergency Planning situated in the Department of Defence and the Minister for Defence chairs the Government’s task force on emergency planning which meets regularly. Planning arrangements for a range of emergencies are co-ordinated in this framework.

I thank the Minister for her reply. In the past two weeks some people have expressed surprise that the Minister has not attended meetings of the National Security Committee. I appreciate that political attendance at these meetings has not been a feature until this point. However, some people have expressed surprise that neither the Minister nor the Taoiseach has attended these meetings or even insisted on attending them.

I tabled a number of parliamentary questions about the capacity of An Garda Síochána in this regard. One of the replies threw up the information that An Garda Síochána did not keep a record of the number of officers in the force who could speak languages that might be useful in monitoring the overseas terrorist threat. Will the Minister comment on that issue?

The Minister said she believed a threat was possible but unlikely. We have no reason to disbelieve her. However, there is no way of corroborating, examining or informing ourselves more on the level of threat. What is the position of the Minister and the Government on having the matter of security examined by the Oireachtas or one of its committees? In the United Kingdom Parliament the Intelligence and Security Committee was established under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 to examine policy, administration and expenditure on the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and Government Communications Headquarters. It was reformed and amended by an Act of the UK Parliament in 2013. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, comment on the capacity of the Oireachtas to examine security related issues? As she is aware, we do not have and have not had an opportunity heretofore to question, for example, the Garda Commissioner about them. There has been no political oversight or input.

An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces have long experience of dealing with dissident activity in this country and, unfortunately, continue to have to use that expertise. For decades they have had to develop a level of expertise in explosives which continue to be placed by dissidents under cars in this jurisdiction. The Deputy will have seen arrests in recent months. He will also have seen cases before the Special Criminal Court. He will understand there is ongoing contact with the PSNI where the level of threat remains severe. The professionals in both An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces have built up considerable experience in dealing with terrorism. The new feature is its international dimension and the willingness of those involved to act as suicide bombers. This is extremely challenging internationally, as is the phenomenon of returned fighters.

When the Paris attacks happened, the strategic command and control centre of An Garda Síochána swung into action immediately. On the Friday evening An Garda Síochána was in touch with its international counterparts. I spent a number of hours being briefed on the Saturday afternoon. The National Security Committee has been operated between officials. The Taoiseach calls his own meetings of Ministers to discuss the information coming from that committee and to bring Ministers together to examine these important issues.

On access to language skills, the Garda Commissioner has informed me that gardaí have access to all of the language skills and resources they require to enable them to support their operational activities in dealing with persons who may be a cause of concern here.

There has been recent reportage on the number of people who may have travelled to parts of Syria or elsewhere in the Middle East to engage, potentially, in training or acts of terrorism. It has been reported that up to 30 people may have travelled. They may have been residing in Ireland and may not necessarily have been Irish nationals or citizens. Will the Minister give us an overview of this issue? Does she know the number involved? How big a complement are we talking about who are potentially engaged in these activities?

The figure in the public arena is that approximately 30 to 40 people are known to have travelled to an area generally described as a conflict theatre which includes Syria and Iraq. On their exact behaviour once they leave the country, it is known across Europe that many travel to Syria and Iraq by way of Turkey and other countries. As the Deputy knows, there is engagement with Turkey on the security issues that arise.

An Garda Síochána would point out that people travel for a variety of reasons. Some travel for humanitarian reasons, others go to see family while a small number travel to engage more directly in the conflict. A number of people who were previously resident here, although not necessarily Irish citizens, have died abroad. Furthermore, a number of people have travelled to the conflict zone and have returned to Ireland. An Garda Síochána is very alert to any security concerns that might arise and is carefully monitoring all situations that might give rise to a threat to this country.

UN Conventions Ratification

Pádraig MacLochlainn

Ceist:

48. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her plans to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities; the reason for the lack of progress on disability rights throughout this Government's term in office; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [42496/15]

My question asks why, over the course of its lifetime, the Government has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Government, as the Deputy knows, published a roadmap to Ireland’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 21 October 2015. The roadmap details the legislative changes to be undertaken to enable Ireland to ratify the convention, along with the estimated timeframe involved and a clear and unambiguous deadline for ratification by the end of 2016. As announced, the Government has inter alia approved the drafting of the equality/disability (miscellaneous provisions) Bill to make a range of miscellaneous amendments to statute law necessary to enable ratification. Work on the general scheme of this Bill is underway, with a view to submission to Government very soon.

The Deputy will also be aware that we recently published a comprehensive employment strategy for people with disabilities and that we are at phase 2 of a three phase consultation process that will lead early in the New Year to the adoption of a new disability inclusion strategy. I am committed to continuous improvement where equality and human rights are concerned and the development of this new strategy is an opportunity to bring about real improvements for people with disabilities.

While clearly there is a substantial legislative agenda across a number of Departments to get through, as set out in the roadmap, and a lot of work to be done to prepare a new inclusion strategy that can have a real and measurable impact, I can assure Deputy Mac Lochlainn and the House that we have the drive and enthusiasm to get it done. I am glad that ratification of the convention is a common goal. All political parties support ratification and I am pleased that the Deputy put this issue on the agenda for discussion today.

Civil society groups and stakeholders are also keen to see the convention ratified. Equality is about creating the circumstances that ensure that every individual has equal access to the enjoyment of their rights, with employment playing a central role in that regard. We will maintain the momentum on ratification of the convention, as set out in the roadmap, to make sure that the rights of all persons with disabilities will be protected in our laws.

Prior to the last election five years ago, the then leaders of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, Deputies Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore were asked what their priority issue was and both said it was rights for people with disabilities, particularly the rights of families of children with special needs. This Government has repeatedly introduced legislation in a matter of weeks, with some Bills going through all Stages in a single day, but legislation that would empower and protect people with disabilities and give them tangible and clearly defined rights has not been enacted.

I note what the Minister of State said about enthusiasm and energy. In fairness, the current Minister and Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality have been in office for just over a year and a half. However, collectively, this Government has failed to address this issue. There are only a few months left in this Government's term and I do not understand why we cannot proceed to ratify the aforementioned convention. What is objectionable within the convention? Why can we not ratify it? Is it a case of civil servants, yet again, in the ear of the Minister of State saying that there may be unknown or unforeseen consequences and urging caution instead of proceeding and doing what is right? This should have been done many years ago.

I assure the Deputy that nobody is having a word in anyone's ear urging caution. The reality is that Ireland takes a different approach to these matters. There are many countries around the world which will ratify this convention but it will have no meaningful effect. Ireland does these things differently.

This means that effectively when Ireland ratifies a convention it has material effect. Other countries can ratify it but it is a meaningless statement. Ireland signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007 and is one of three EU member states yet to ratify. I agree it has taken too long and have no difficulty in accepting that, but different countries take different approaches. We take our international obligations very seriously and we do not ratify until we can guarantee compliance. We sign conventions as a declaration of our commitment that we want to apply the convention concerned in Ireland but we ratify when we can guarantee to our international partners that we are meeting our commitments. We could ratify in the morning, but we still have a number of steps yet to take.

Under the Constitution, the conduct of international affairs is the responsibility of Government, and this includes ratification of international conventions. However, the sole prerogative of legislating for the State is vested in the Oireachtas. This is also reflected in Article 29.6 of the Constitution, which states that no international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State, save as may be determined by the Oireachtas. That is how we do things in Ireland. When we ratify, it has meaningful import.

My core criticism still stands. The five-year term of this Government is now almost complete. A range of legislation has been drafted, identified as a Government priority and pushed through ahead of recesses and, sometimes, pushed through all Stages on the one day. We are not going to resolve this by arguing here today. What needs to be agreed by all parties, on all sides of these Houses, is that in the term of the next Government, whatever its make-up, we collectively commit to ratification of this convention and to addressing the legislative issues, and that we give that commitment to people with disabilities and their families, as well as the disability NGOs. As the Minister of State can probably guess, it is the disability NGOs that are demanding the meetings with the political parties. They are saying that we in these Houses have failed to address these matters and, ultimately, this Government has failed.

I am not saying the Minister of State or his senior colleague care less about people with disabilities than I do. However, we have to accept there has been a failure in this Government term and it cannot happen again in the term of the next Government. We cannot make people with disabilities a second, third or fourth priority. They need to go to the top of the priority list the next time.

I can confirm the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill will be enacted by the end of the year. While I take the Deputy's point about the ratification of the convention, I have stated the reasons that Ireland has a different approach to other countries. In terms of the equality agenda, in every area I and the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, deal with, from LGBT rights to people with disabilities, to Travellers and to migrant issues, employment always comes up as a central issue for all people on the edge of society who want to get involved in the mainstream. In particular, this includes dignity at work, access to the labour market and protection within work. That is why the comprehensive employment strategy was key to the Government's work in this area. If a person has a disability that does not restrict them from entering the workforce, or if a person is in the workforce and acquires a disability, the person can be a part of the workforce. We feel passionately about that, which is why we place so much emphasis on it. That is a key part of this Government's commitment to people with disabilities and will continue to be so.

Garda Operations

Paul Murphy

Ceist:

49. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if there was any investigation within her Department regarding a surveillance programme within An Garda Síochána named Operation Mizen; the approach taken by An Garda Síochána to surveillance of protesters; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [42694/15]

I ask the Minister to make a statement about Operation Mizen, which was reported in the Daily Mail as a surveillance operation against anti-water charges protesters. We have asked a number of questions about it and the answers we have received have been more interesting for what they have not said than what they have said. The Minister has denied this is a surveillance operation but she has never ruled out, and I would ask her to clearly rule out, that anti-water charges protesters have been or are currently under surveillance by Operation Mizen or another arm of the Garda.

As I have indicated to the House previously, and am happy to confirm again today, Operation Mizen is not a surveillance programme operated by An Garda Síochána, contrary to the assertions made by the Deputy or others in commentary on water protests. I have been informed by the Garda Commissioner that Operation Mizen was established by An Garda Síochána as a national co-ordination office to provide appropriate policing responses to maintain public order and to ensure the safety of all involved in protests against water charges. In this context, one approach which the Garda authorities adopt is to make use of open source information.

Open source information is generally and publicly available on the Internet and social media platforms, not just to the Garda but to anyone, anywhere.

I am further informed that Operation Mizen does not engage in technical surveillance or interception and I can confirm that no public representative or member of the public is subject to such surveillance by Operation Mizen.

That is pretty much word for word the answer the Minister gave my colleague, Deputy Joe Higgins, a few weeks ago and while it may be true, what is interesting is what has not been included in it. I seek clarification from the Minister. She said one of the approaches adopted involves making use of open source information. What other approaches are used by the Garda to monitor protesters? She also said that she was further informed that no public representative or member of the public is subject to such surveillance by Operation Mizen, which refers to technical or interception surveillance. Is any member of the public or any public representative subject to another form of surveillance? The only thing ruled out in the Minister's response is technical surveillance. Are there other forms of surveillance? For example, is there monitoring of people's whereabouts, etc., which people come under?

I emphasise for the Deputy that the characterisation of Operation Mizen as a surveillance operation is wrong. It was set up by the Garda to support national co-ordination of its management of water protests from a public order perspective. While there have been many lawful and peaceful protests against water charges, there have also been some very unfortunate examples of unacceptable and violent protests, including outside the gates of this House. The Garda must take whatever appropriate measures it considers necessary to facilitate those who want to protest peacefully and to ensure public safety where necessary.

The Garda Commissioner has made it clear to me that no public representative or member of the public is subject to technical or lawful interception by Operation Mizen. I am sure the Deputy would agree with me that it is essential that people obey the law and demonstrate peacefully, whatever the issue at hand. There is no question but that the right to protest is fundamental in any democracy and we must protect and facilitate it. However, that right must be exercised peacefully. The function of the Garda in respect of public protests and demonstrations is to facilitate them taking place in a peaceful and orderly way, without undue disruption to the daily life and business of others.

My questions were clear, so why is the Minister refusing to answer the simple questions that arise following the answers she has now given on three occasions? Are members of the public or public representatives subject to any form of surveillance by Operation Mizen or the Garda as a result of participating in anti-water charges protests? The Minister referred to one of the approaches involved, making use of open source information, but what other approaches are used by the Garda to gain information on anti-water charges protestors?

This goes back to the story originally reported in the Daily Mail, which referred to six months of monitoring of protestors, the compilation of profiles and the gathering of intelligence on their whereabouts from sources. The simple question is: is this taking place? Are protestors subject to surveillance other than lawful interception, which is denied by the Minister, as a result of being protestors? Is that the case? If the Minister is refusing to answer that question, is it not extremely sinister that people would be targeted for surveillance by gardaí, through the use of taxpayers' resources, as a result of participating in protests?

The Garda is there to keep the peace. It carries out its normal activities as An Garda Síochána in this country in order to ensure that the protests are peaceful. A total of 188 arrests have been made since November 2014 in regard to water charge protests and within that number some individuals have been the subject of arrest on multiple occasions. The majority of arrests made relate to public order offences and breaches of section 12 of the Water Services Act, although there have been arrests for more serious offences. Obviously, in order to ensure people can participate in peaceful protests, gardaí go about their business as members of An Garda Síochána and deal with situations as they arise and take the appropriate action to deal with them. As I said, since November 2014, 188 arrests have had to be made in regard to peaceful protests.

An Garda Síochána goes about its normal business of keeping the peace, whether it be at a water protest or in another situation. Clearly, there have not been peaceful protests in certain areas because 188 arrests have been made.

Why not answer the question? In fairness, that is quite suspicious.

Crime Levels

Niall Collins

Ceist:

50. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality how she proposes to deal with crime levels, particularly in rural areas; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [42647/15]

Given the fact that we have a large dispersed rural population outside the large towns and cities, what plans does the Minister have to tackle the ongoing issue of rural crime? I ask this question in the light of the publication of the CSO crime statistics which we are now getting independently verified and on a quarterly basis and also against the backdrop of a number of high profile incidents which have been reported in the news, for example, the conviction of the gang in Clonmel recently and the death of a constituent of mine, Mr. John O'Donoghue, during a burglary on his own property in Doon, County Limerick.

One of the most significant initiatives taken is finishing the moratorium on Garda recruitment. The Deputy will have seen the advertisement this week for 600 new gardaí who will be recruited early next year. We have already received expressions of interest from thousands of people. I am looking forward to the initiative going ahead. It is very important that the moratorium on recruitment to the Garda training college in Templemore has ended. The Taoiseach and the Government have committed to ongoing continuous recruitment.

In terms of the Government's strategy to tackle this issue, we are getting tougher on serious and repeat offenders. Investing in the capacity of An Garda Síochána to enforce the law effectively is critical. The Deputy saw the launch yesterday of the JARC, the joint agency response to crime. The Criminal Justice (Burglary of Dwellings) Bill is before the House and provides tougher measures to target repeat burglary offenders. A further initiative has been taken by the Probation Service, the Irish Prison Service and An Garda Síochána.

Significant new resources in manpower, vehicles and surveillance activities were announced on budget day and the capital plan for the period 2016 to 2021. As we now have a more stable economy and the public finances are in better shape, we can begin to invest again and have done so in the past two years. There is a budget of €1.1 billion for An Garda Síochána which was increased last year for the first time in several years. All of this enhances capacity.

Operation Thor is also critical. Its five strands include intensive community involvement by way of Muintir na Tíre text alerts and whole-of-community engagement in responding to the challenging issues communities face.

It is welcome that the Minister has announced a recruitment campaign to commence next year and that she has taken on board something I have raised on a number of occasions, namely, that the Garda Reserve should be looked at as a separate entry stream into the main Garda force. Many of those involved in the Garda Reserve will welcome this and will be glad to see some progression.

I mentioned the unfortunate passing of a man in Doon in my constituency, Mr. John O'Donoghue. With the Minister's colleague and a number of other public representatives, I attended the launch in Doon yesterday of the text alert scheme. Senior Garda personnel from the Limerick division were present. The message coming back to them was that people wanted to see more gardaí based in the community and backed up by resources. Everybody in this House subscribes to that view.

We know that there are about 1,500 gardaí who are eligible to retire today or any time soon and that the Minister is recruiting up to 600. It is my party's position that we would like to see the force being brought back up to a figure of 14,000 in the lifetime of the next Government. What is the Minister's view on that proposal? Will a vigorous recruitment campaign be undertaken for the 1,100 members of the Garda Reserve?

There are many people who are ready, willing and able to partake and give of their service to their own communities to address concerns like those we heard in Doon last night.

I have doubled the funding for the text alert scheme and I welcome the huge voluntary effort that is going into developing it. A figure of 14,000 should be arrived at in the lifetime of the next Government. Clearly, there is always a number of potential retirements in any given year but more people are being recruited than are retiring.

When one looks at crime trends and recorded crime figures from the CSO for quarter 2 of 2015, it is important to note that homicide offences are down by 35%; robbery, extortion and hijacking offences are down by 8%; and public order offences and other social code offences are down by 4%. I am glad to say that weapons and explosives offences are down by 3%. The decrease in controlled drug offences is not as great but it is a decrease of 1%.

We need to look at the successes of An Garda Síochána as well as the areas that are challenging. It is very important that we pay tribute to the work we hear about on a daily basis and that we now see being undertaken through Operation Thor where very effective policing is being carried out in the country. Sometimes the amount of arrests made by An Garda Síochána and the huge successes it is having in respect of some very serious crimes can be underestimated.

At the launch of Doon Community Alert in Limerick last night, there was also a lot of discussion about the fact that Doon Garda station had been closed as part of the closure of 139 Garda stations. Unfortunately, the Minister and I will not agree about the Government's policy of closing Garda stations and we have debated this issue on many occasions in this House and beyond. I will raise an issue I have raised previously. Given that An Garda Síochána was to have carried out a review after the closure of Garda stations, a review that has not taken place, does the Minister not consider it would be proper and appropriate for the Garda Síochána Inspectorate to examine the remaining Garda stations that have not been sold into private ownership to discover the impact of the closure of these stations on the communities like Doon that now find themselves without a Garda station? This issue was raised last night. Will the Minister agree to ask the Garda Síochána Inspectorate to do this?

Text alert is a huge success and it was great to see the launch last night in Doon. Does the Minister not think we should have a national directorate with the funding to co-ordinate organisations like Muintir na Tíre; the IFA, which now has a dedicated crime prevention officer; and the various community and text alert groups throughout the country to give them national co-ordination?

Could the Minister comment on a Bill I published last week? It would require the National Roads Authority, which is now known as Transport Ireland, to put cameras on exits and entries to motorways as an added facet in protecting communities from roving gangs who are using the motorway network.

There are four questions here so I will try to deal with each of them if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle allows it. In respect of Garda station closures, let me make the point that I understand the sense of security people get from having a Garda station in their area. Let us look at the crime figures. Garda analysts have done this work. A total of 41 Garda stations were closed in the west and the figures for the western region show an 8% reduction in burglaries. I am not correlating one with the other. I am just saying that this is a fact. Modern crime has a lot of different elements. Clearly, it involves local criminals and local knowledge is very important. However, very often, mobile gangs operate as well and they need to be dealt with through a different type of modern policing - one that is informed by number plate recognition, which is very important. The gardaí would tell me that it is more important than the information they would get immediately from CCTV on the motorways. This issue is being examined to see whether there are locations where it would be helpful to have extra CCTV. The vehicles that are coming on stream have number plate recognition and if the Deputy speaks to his local gardaí, I am sure they will tell him that it is hugely important in terms of dealing with criminal activity.

In respect of national co-ordination of the text alert scheme, I have doubled the funding to Muintir na Tíre this year and it is reverting to me in respect of how it believes this extra money should be used.

I take the Deputy's point, which is important, that support for the text alert schemes by way of national co-ordination is important and is probably one of the routes we need to go to develop the schemes and support those involved. Gardaí are doing excellent work on that.

Independent Review Mechanism

Pádraig MacLochlainn

Ceist:

51. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she is aware of the severe criticism of the resource and process limitations of the Independent Review Mechanism tasked with examining allegations of malpractice in An Garda Síochána; and if she is considering a new independent process or recourse for concerned citizens or families. [42497/15]

As the Minister knows there is severe criticism of the limitations, resourcing and so on of the Independent Review Mechanism. Is the Minister considering a new independent process that is much more rigorous and adequately resourced to deal with the very serious concerns and allegations of families across the State?

The Government decided to establish the Independent Review Mechanism, IRM, in order to bring an independent examination to bear on allegations of wrong-doing by gardaí. This initiative went far beyond anything which any previous Government has done and was a genuine effort to have an independent examination of many cases which Deputies had on their desks, were concerned about and which were brought to the attention of various people. It was not established as a commission of inquiry or investigation. Its purpose was to triage the allegations to see whether further action was needed and what that action would be. It was open to the IRM to suggest any form of statutory inquiry it thought might be necessary and the gardaí and others co-operated fully with it.

The panel has provided recommendations to me in all 320 cases submitted to it and has therefore largely concluded its work. I am sure I will receive several other cases shortly. I started sending out letters on 29 June. To date, 298 complainants have been notified of the outcome of the review of their cases. Letters will continue to issue.

I have accepted the recommendations of counsel in all cases and this outcome will be communicated to all complainants; and I have previously assured Deputies where further investigation is recommended by the review that will occur. There are quite a number of recommendations in the various cases.

Some complainants may not be satisfied with the outcome of the review of their complaint. The crucial point, however, is that every case has been reviewed by independent counsel, who will have made an objective recommendation to me and the letter I have sent out has been overseen by a judge. I did not summarise the advice, it came to me and a judge was satisfied with the way we were communicating with people.

The cases referred ranged considerably from tragic deaths to property disputes. There were many that did not fall within the criteria laid down; they were not particularly about Garda behaviour. With respect to the cases for which the panel has recommended no further action by the Minister, it should be noted that the reasons for this recommendation vary greatly but include the fact that the complaint disclosed no allegation of any wrongdoing by the gardaí; the case related to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is independent of the Minister in relation to decisions as to whether or not a prosecution is warranted; or the case related to the courts, which are also independent. There are many cases which have already been through the courts, up to the highest level of court, and have been through the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. Where the recommendation was for further action, I have acted in all instances on that. They vary quite considerably.

I have no doubt that many of the 320 complaints were not valid but a significant number are. I have met some of the families and the cases are appalling. I have five or six cases here but I was struck by a new one that came to me yesterday. Other Members would have received the letter too. The family's comment says it all. They were utterly dismayed at the review. No one spoke to them, no one asked them for any information and they know from a query to a named body that the files were not requested from the panel. How can the Minister stand over a review mechanism that does not even talk to the people concerned, does not ask for more clarification or documentation and does not go to the body concerned to read the original files and make a recommendation to her?

How can Members of these Houses stand over this process and call it an independent review to deal with the scale of concerns some of these families have about appalling experiences? I ask the Minister to stand over what the correspondent wrote, namely, that no one had spoken to the family and that no one had asked them for any information. Moreover, no one has approached the agency and looked for the case files, yet the panel made a recommendation to the Minister and she stands over it.

I do stand over this process because it is the first time any Government has taken a series of cases about which Deputies, Senators and others have concerns and brought them together. As I stated, it was never intended to be a commission of investigation. The Deputy may give the details of a particular case in the Chamber, but what the Government decided to do and what I did as Minister was to set up a completely independent process in which the cases were looked at independently by legal counsel, examined and triaged to ascertain whether there was further action one could appropriately recommend to me as Minister that should be taken on them. That is a completely independent process. I made it absolutely clear from the outset that it was a review of all the data available. If the panel had further questions or needed information from other bodies, it could ask them or get it. A huge number of individuals provided further information and that is one reason the process took longer than I thought it would take. It was then necessary to give that information to the panel which in quite a number of cases considered further information received. Moreover, in quite a number of cases, for example, a report under section 41(2) of the Garda Síochána Act has been requested. In many cases, there has been a referral to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, under section 102(5) of the Garda Síochána Act. There has also been a general review of Garda practice and procedures under the Garda Síochána Act. A series of recommendations have been made and acted on. While I cannot discuss individual cases, some of the cases the Deputy may be discussing may have been through a range of court processes-----

I must call Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn.

-----but the person concerned is not satisfied with the outcome. Unless one were to establish an altogether separate process for each of the cases, this is an independent process and it is the first time anyone has set up such a process.

When this process commenced, I had hopes for it, but I have no confidence in it now. I find it unbelievable Members of the Oireachtas are being asked to stand over an independent review mechanism that does not speak to the people who make allegations, does not seek further information and does not visit the bodies about which allegations sometimes are made to seek access to files. How can this be a review over which Members of these Houses can stand?

To be clear, I have stated many times that the vast majority of the men and women of An Garda Síochána during the years have been of the highest standing, that is, they have been wonderful people who have served the State. However, a tiny minority have been a disgrace to it and when people have and abuse power, the consequences can be devastating for families. It is alleged that members of An Garda Síochána colluded in the murder of people's loved ones, covered up and did not properly investigate, with devastating consequences for the families concerned. They had hope that, at last, the wall of bureaucracy would come down and that this process could start to get answers for them and put serious pressure on those who had abused their power. Instead, there was another layer of bricks on that wall of bureaucracy. They are devastated by their experience of the review panel which has been a failure for the cohort of cases that are genuine. The process might have cleared out a pile of cases that were not genuine; that is fine and let those cases be cleared out. However, there is a cohort of serious cases in which citizens of the State were abused and failed by some in power who were a disgrace to the uniform.

I am sorry, Deputy-----

I am asking the Minister to please look back again at some of these cases and offer those concerned a ray of hope because they are in despair.

I must state again to the Deputy that this was neither a commission of investigation nor a tribunal. It was a genuine attempt to look with a wide lens because all of the approximately 350 cases referred to the Department were taken into account.

I think the Deputy accepts they covered a very wide range of issues, including property disputes, probate issues, disputes between neighbours, dissatisfaction with the outcome of civil and criminal court actions, decisions of the DPP and outcomes of investigations by GSOC.

In the cases the Deputy is describing, he is talking about a particular cohort. All of the cases were looked at previously in detail. If there was evidence or a route forward in terms of further action that could be taken, it would be recommended to me by this panel. There were no limits in what it could recommend. It could and would have done that. The Deputy has said that some of the people who received the letters were dissatisfied. I understand what he is saying, but many of these cases go back to before 1969. Quite a large number of them are before 2000. There is a sort of historical dissatisfaction with particular cases. I completely understand how people who have lost a loved one in tragic circumstances continually try to get to the bottom of that, the reason it happened and who was involved.

In many of these cases they have been through the courts. That process has been carried out. If the people reviewing this wanted me to have a commission of inquiry, a further inquiry or a statutory inquiry, they could have recommended this. If they do in any of these cases, I will, of course, act on it because I have accepted every single recommendation. There has been no interference and in fact I have gone further than that. I have asked a judge to oversee the letters going out so that there is no dilution of the recommendation by me or my Department. Of course, there would be no intention to do that, but I introduced that separate safeguard when it was raised here in the House.

Barr
Roinn