Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt that the events of the past few weeks have damaged confidence in the Government. They have probably damaged confidence in politics generally and certainly have inflicted further damage on the administration of justice. Last night the Taoiseach referred to the Department of Justice and Equality as dysfunctional. This is a damning criticism of any Department, doubly so coming from the head of the Government. Followed by the immediate resignation of the Secretary General, I am sure it has not done much for morale in the Department. In the past fortnight we have seen evidence of maladministration in the Department. The silo-driven culture of secrecy referenced in the Toland report has once more been on display. Reasonable questions should receive reasonable answers. Instead, what we had was obfuscation, records being forgotten and then belatedly found and a remarkably casual attitude towards briefing people who were expected to answer questions before the House fully and truthfully.

There has been much talk about the Department, but it has always been the case that the Minister is the political head and responsible for it. There was the old idiom that the Minister was the corporation sole. Also in the old days every item of correspondence sent from the Department began with the phrase "I am directed by the Minister". It always caused me concern as Minister that thousands of letters were being sent every day stating "I am directed by the Minister". It was to underscore political oversight of the Department by the Minister. It is an important point, of which we should not lose sight in this House.

Last night I spoke about my scepticism of the independence of the review of these events being carried out by the Secretary General of the Taoiseach's Department. I still have these concerns. I welcome the immediate response of the Minister that he is open to others being involved, perhaps in tandem, because we need somebody with inside knowledge of how a Department works. I might perhaps come back to the Minister with a suggestion in that regard.

I am also sceptical about the stated commitment to implement the Toland report of 2014. The point was that implementation of its recommendations was to be immediate. All of the recommendations made were to have been worked into place within two years, but we now know that this did not happen. A failure to administer justice adequately has seen a remarkable number of resignations in recent years, up until yesterday. We have seen all of them mentioned in the newspapers and they include the resignations of two Garda Commissioners, yet none of us can contribute to this debate with confidence that deep and lasting change has occurred as a result of all of this, dating back to the Morris review.

I had occasion to speak to Mr. Frank McBrearty Jr. this morning and it was almost like revisiting all of the issues again. We have to be real about the changes we want to bring about. In particular, the attitude to whistleblowers of those involved in the justice sector has really been deplorable. The revelation that when Sergeant McCabe was being lauded publicly, a strategy was being deployed behind closed dooors to do him real harm speaks volumes. In recent days we have been discussing the failure to stop this from happening and it brings us to the core of the motion in front of us. It goes without saying the Labour Party will support anything that will ensure a full and comprehensive explanation of what happened to Sergeant McCabe is fully ventilated and exposed. In general terms, I certainly support the intent of the motion. My only question is whether a revision of the terms of reference is actually necessary. It appears that the Department has - we hope - provided all relevant material for the tribunal and I know that the Minister hopes it is now finally comprehensive. We can, therefore, safely assume that the Department at least regards this matter as being fully encompassed by the terms of reference already passed by thee Houses, as confirmed by the Minister today.

From Mr. Justice Charleton's response to the Minister's submission, we can also assume that he regards this issue as being within his ambit, but it is worth confirming that this is actually the case. In the first instance, it is appropriate for the Minister and the Government to engage with Mr. Justice Charleton. His views should be sought on the scope of his existing terms of reference and whether he regards them as sufficiently robust and broad to encompass all recent events. The Government might then return and explain this to the House and explain the views of the inquiry on these matters and whether there is, therefore, a need for the House to revise the terms of reference. If that suggestion is accepted, it could be done speedily in the matter of a day or two. Then, at least, we would not waste the valuable time of this House in debating changes to terms of reference that were not needed or unnecessary if the judge himself, the sole member of the tribunal, regards such changes as unnecessary.

I am mindful of the comments of Deputy Jim O’Callaghan. I always regard his contributions as worth listening to because he has great experience of legal matters, although I thought his reasoning was a little odd in that he said no changes were necessary because they were already encompassed but that if we did make a change, the people already encompassed might object to the new terms. That does not seem to be consistent logic. If what the Sinn Féin Deputies want to achieve has already been achieved in the terms of reference, nobody will have any difficulty in underscoring it for certainty, ar eagla na heagla, as one might say.

I thank Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire for tabling the motion because it gives us an opportunity to focus once more on the substance of the matter rather than on much of the political debate that surrounded it in recent days. On behalf of the Labour Party, I am happy to support the motion, but I genuinely ask the Minister at the end of the debate to take as an interim step the suggestion I posit that he simply asks the tribunal whether there is a necessity to change the terms of reference or, as many believe, are they sufficiently broad to do all that is desired?

See this speech in context