Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witness for their presentation. Undoubtedly, the special investigations unit has the role outlined by Mr. Carroll and it has an important function in that respect. We acknowledge that, particularly in the context of having an important, sustainable and vibrant agriculture industry and, obviously, the public funds involved. Nevertheless, the fact that the witnesses are here and that the presentation states, "We now have in place...", immediately invokes the fact that what was in place previously was not satisfactory. There is an implicit admission in that.

This new dispensation or new investigation group did not happen perchance or, indeed, of the Department's own volition. It was effectively prescribed by the strong admonition of a prominent Circuit Court judge in the course of a high-profile case. Is that not the reason it has reached this point? The Department's response was initially to carry out an internal review. There was a refusal to release that, and then it was released in redacted form. I understand why redaction takes place. Eventually, some form of it emerged. However, simply having an internal review would not inspire confidence. Surely there is a case for a focused external review to ensure that all rights are protected, given that people have rights as well.

If that were not the case someone could go in and do everything but people have rights, and they are laid down in the Constitution. They are important legal rights and in the context of the recent Supreme Court, European Court of Justice and so on people who are accused now have the right to have a solicitor present during the course of their investigation. Is it envisaged that that right would be extended to an investigation being carried out by the Department? Surely somebody in that situation is entitled to have legal advice when they have been taken in and not given any opportunity to respond. This investigation must carry with it the same obligations as any investigation. An investigation has now been launched by an Garda Síochána, and it may well be part of this unit as well. As I understand it, the Department may call in an Garda Síochána at various times. Surely the same procedures would be in place. Otherwise, they may be subject to judicial review where there is a failure to meet the threshold. Our citizens are entitled to expect that, and in that regard we are talking about members of the agricultural community.

I know the Department has a number of people involved in it but how will this work in that context, and will the same procedures apply? The Criminal Procedure Act 1967 has laid out a number of things. It has been amended. It is fair to say there is a significant burden on the State but the fact that there is a burden on the State or anybody else does not mean we can circumscribe people's rights. They are entitled to them. They are laid down in the Constitution, which is interpreted by the Supreme Court and, ultimately, by the European Court of Justice.

I am confused as to how this will work. I would like an outline of how it will work. I am a farmer. If I am on the farm and the Department official arrives because he or she has a suspicion, and the suspicion must be grounded on something, what happens after that? What procedures will be adopted along the line? There has been a good deal of disquiet, to put it mildly, among people about this issue. We all acknowledge that some of the work the investigation unit has to do is important but a balance must be struck because the way those investigations are conducted operationally is extremely important. We cannot throw rights out the window, so to speak. If we do that we might as well say that everybody is guilty but that is not the way life works. I would not like to subscribe to anything of that nature. People should have an opportunity to present their case and they are entitled to legal advice in that step because even in a simple matter people are entitled to legal advice.

The impact of what might ultimately emerge can be draconian. People's livelihoods can be washed down the drain, so to speak, as a result of an investigation and therefore every step along the way should be circumscribed with the usual rights attached to any investigation which has a criminal sanction of that severity.