John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

At the end of September last year, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, received two protected disclosures and in early October she engaged the services of Mr. Justice O'Neill, who subsequently produced his report. The Tánaiste received that report on 7 December and, this week, two months later, she has published it. The first point I would make is that a period of four and a half months has elapsed. We need to be mindful that the careers of members of An Garda Síochána who are involved and affected by this matter are on hold and it is important that we deal with the issues in as timely a manner as possible. From that point of view, I was somewhat surprised to hear people referring to the fact that when the commission of investigation gets under way, it may well be nine months before it concludes its work. For those who are affected and who may well still be at work, this matter is having an adverse affect on their careers in all aspects and it needs to be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner.

I raised this issue with the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste responded to me. I welcome her reply. I will not read it all, but the Tánaiste wrote:

The Report, which I received on 7 December 2016, sets out in detail the allegations contained in the protected disclosures. In view of the nature of those allegations, and the fact that third parties are mentioned, the Report was referred to the Attorney General for her advice on how to proceed, including the question of what material might properly be put in the public domain, having regard to the rights of all concerned. Advices were received from the Attorney General's Office which raised further issues and which are the subject of ongoing consultation between my Department and the Office. This is with a view to bringing proposals to Government as quickly as possible. These proposals will obviously be guided by the conclusions and recommendations of Mr. Justice O'Neill as regards what further action might be necessary and appropriate.

What was made public this week was quite limited. It was the recommendations and the terms of reference for the commission of investigation which the Government is largely accepting subject to whatever amendments the Tánaiste might accept from the floor today from Members here. Then there is the document, "Statement of reasons for establishing a commission to investigate matters relating to two disclosures made by members of the Garda Síochána under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014". We thought we would see, as the Taoiseach described, a redacted report. We were expecting something more substantial than merely the terms of reference and the recommendations that accompany them, which are quite specific. We are used to reading executive summaries, bullet points, etc., but when trying to engage in such a process, it would have been useful to understand more of what Mr. Justice O'Neill had been reading and what his recommendations were based on. I say that because the document to which I referred states, "Finally, Mr Justice O'Neill indicated that he was aware of other disclosures made by other members of An Garda Síochána ...". We would like to know if he was aware of them in a general way or if he had the specifics and details of those disclosures. That is the type of information we are missing in making a determination on the appropriate terms of reference for this commission of investigation. It is quite difficult to be genuine and fair, having the report in its entirety redacted with only the recommendations available to us.

There is only one other issue that I will refer to because it has already been raised. I refer to the position taken by the Commissioner. The allegations, as the Tánaiste has indicated quite clearly, are very serious and it is not only one person who is affected. What is happening affects the morale of members of An Garda Síochána and public confidence in the force. When the Tánaiste was asked about her position on the Garda Commissioner earlier today, she quite rightly set out the position that the Garda Commissioner is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that she has not been found guilty. That was the manner in which the Tánaiste set it out in reply to Leaders' Questions earlier. In her opening statement on this debate, the Tánaiste said, "We should all be mindful of the dangers of disrupting the leadership of that organisation at a time of great risk to communities and for no established cause." I accept those points. On the other hand - and only the Tánaiste can make this decision because she has the report and we do not - there is a balance to be considered. One of the issues that the Tánaiste must consider in making that decision is whether, with the Commissioner in situ, the confidence and transparency of the commission of investigation being set up is in any way compromised and will stand up to the type of scrutiny that we all would like it to. I am not going to answer that. Nobody but the Tánaiste can do so. However, it is a question that needs to be addressed. The Tánaiste stated that she believes the Commissioner should remain in position and she indicated one set of reasons in this regard. There are, however, counterbalances that must be adjudicated upon and the Tánaiste is the only person who is in possession of the relevant facts.

The point the Tánaiste makes is, "We should all be mindful of the dangers of disrupting the leadership of that organisation ...". I would ask is the Garda Commissioner's position already endangering that organisation. Do the members of An Garda Síochána have absolute confidence in her while these investigations are going on? Those are some of the issues the Tánaiste must make a decision on. While Mr. Justice O'Neill was - as reported - quite clear in his findings to the effect that there was no guilt attached, suffice to say that he did not find that there was no reason for not proceeding with a commission of investigation. That is quite a serious matter. From our point of view, without being able to read the report, an element we would have liked to have seen is the basis of Mr. Justice O'Neill's decision that a commission of investigation is necessary.

My party supports, in full, the amendments that were put forward by my colleague, Deputy O'Callaghan.

See this speech in context