Dáil debates
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Morris Tribunal: Statements (Resumed)
3:00 pm
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As I am directly party to the matters under discussion, I do not deem it appropriate for me to be in the Chair.
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I heard with a mixture of interest and dismay the speech delivered earlier today by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, on this important issue. My only conclusion is that the Minister is a political gurrier unfit to hold ministerial office. He used an important report, the final report published by Mr. Justice Morris——
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, Deputy Shatter has referred to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as a "gurrier". Does the Acting Chairman consider this in order? Will he give the Deputy an opportunity to withdraw the remark?
Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will Deputy Shatter withdraw his remark?
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will not. The speech delivered by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the House this morning and the attack by him on a Member of this House and a former Member was a disgrace——
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have made a point of order.
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To make that his main offering on the Morris report——
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, is there to be any sanction for a Deputy who refuses to obey a request from the Chair?
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——shows the level of political stupidity to which the Minister can descend. It was an outrageous misuse of this House to attack, in particular, someone who is no longer a Member, which is, so far as I am aware, contrary to the rules of the House.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Shatter should show some respect for the Chair.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is abusing the House. A request was made to him by the Chair.
Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have made a request to which Deputy Shatter has not acceded. I propose to proceed.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will see about this.
4:00 pm
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In addressing the issues arising from the Morris tribunal report and in referring to earlier reports, the Minister made the centrepiece of his presentation an attack on my colleague, Mr. Jim Higgins, MEP, who was formerly a Member of this House and was not here to answer for himself, and on Deputy Howlin, who is well able to speak for himself but who deserves also to be defended. It was Mr. Higgins and Deputy Howlin who, for a period of five years, sought to bring about a public inquiry into the events taking place in Donegal. It was they who brought information before this House and to the attention of successive Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the basis that these were matters of grave public concern into which inquiries should be made and which were ignored for far too long.
I was the Fine Gael spokesperson on justice in the 12-month period leading in to the formation of the Morris tribunal. I became privy to all the information of which Mr. Higgins and Deputy Howlin were aware and formed my own view that there was a need for a public inquiry. On 23 May 2001, in a parliamentary question to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, I asked whether he accepted, in the public interest, that a public inquiry should be conducted into the alleged events in Donegal. I emphasised on that occasion the importance of such an inquiry both in the interest of the many fine members of the Garda Síochána who wished to see the allegations addressed and in the public interest in order to restore confidence in the force. I said at the time that these matters should not have been left festering. On that occasion, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform kicked essentially to touch. I then made the point in this House that a banana republic would not deal with an issue as serious as this in such a manner.
Fianna Fáil was in government for most of the period during which events took place in Donegal that gave rise to concerns that had to be considered by the Morris tribunal. It was Fianna Fáil who in government took five years to reach the conclusion that a public inquiry was necessary. On 20 November 2001, I tabled a motion in the House regarding the holding of the required public inquiry. I was supported in that motion through the contributions of former Deputy Jim Higgins, who had a different portfolio in the Fine Gael Party, and by Deputy Brendan Howlin. We made the case in respect of why an inquiry was required and why issues should not be left unattended to. The response we got from the then Minister was that he was going to appoint an eminent lawyer to examine all the relevant papers and the progress of various investigations into the allegations made. It took from 1998 to November 2001 for the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to take these steps.
In March 2002, the Morris tribunal was established. Had these matters not been raised in this House and responsibly in discussions quietly held with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform by former Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Howlin, there would have been no Morris tribunal inquiry. Without the motion that I brought before this House, which was supported by the Fine Gael and Labour Parties, no eminent lawyer would have been employed to consider the papers then in existence. It is true that if this had not happened the Morris tribunal would not have been established. Also, the initial draft terms of reference for the Morris tribunal, produced by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy John O'Donoghue, were the subject of discussions between the Minister, myself and Deputy Howlin and without those discussions the terms of reference, as ultimately adopted by this House, would have been deficient and issues that required investigation and on which important findings have been made would never have been addressed.
This House and the State owes a debate of gratitude to former Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Howlin for the work they did on this issue. A whole succession of Morris tribunal reports have resulted in revelations of improper Garda conduct that should never have occurred, of individuals being wrongly targeted and persecuted and of individuals' lives being destroyed. The conduct of a small number of gardaí in Donegal affected the morale of the vast majority of the force who do their duty by this State and on occasion put their lives at risk in the interests of the public. If there is a criticism of a political nature to be made, that criticism is that the Morris tribunal inquiry, only initiated in March 2002, should in fact have been initiated three years earlier.
It is farcical for, of all people, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to come into this House and launch a political attack on the people who primarily put pressure on the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government to hold such an inquiry. The Minister attempted, in a moment of artifice, to suggest that the €50 million incurred by way of public expense in respect of the Morris tribunal derived from one particular issue raised by former Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Howlin, on which the Morris tribunal determined there was not a cause of complaint. However, complaints on all other issues were upheld.
This is the Minister who was appointed to check out the corrupt activities of former Minister and Deputy Ray Burke of Fianna Fáil and who, by way of his own investigation, looked up every tree in north Dublin and reported to the then Taoiseach that there were no issues about which he should be concerned, a former Minister and Deputy attached to the Fianna Fáil Party who has been disgraced as a consequence of taking money in circumstances where no Minister should have been taking money or have succumbed to temptation.
If there is a complaint to be made in this House about taxpayers' money being wasted in tribunals, it derives from the manner in which members of the Fianna Fáil Party going back to the late Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, the late former Deputy Liam Lawlor and former Minister and Deputy Ray Burke and others have tried to lead another tribunal a merry dance to avoid making appropriate disclosures and have regularly litigated in a manner that delayed that tribunal doing its work and completing reports.
I would much prefer to deal in this debate with the specifics of the Morris tribunal reports. It was some of the earlier reports produced by Mr. Justice Morris that forced the Government to recognise the inadequacies of the Garda Complaints Board, a body long known to be incapable of fulfilling its statutory functions, as stated by Mr. Justice Morris. It was as a result of these reports that we now have a Garda Ombudsman and new statutory provisions dealing with disciplinary issues in the interests of gardaí and the public with regard to the Garda Síochána.
The role of the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform today was to apologise to the public for the manner in which a small number of gardaí behaved in Donegal. Instead, he sought to deflect public attention from the shambles and incompetence of the Government by launching an unwarranted attack on a former Member of this House who could not answer for himself and on a current Member. The Minister should at least have had the humility to acknowledge that he, as part of a Fianna Fáil Government, delayed this inquiry and contributed personally to the damage done to the reputation of the Garda Síochána, to the public perception of that force and to the difficulties that continue to be experienced by individuals to whom this State has already had to pay compensation and to some of whom compensation payments remain to be made.
Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy must conclude as he has gone well over time.
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In my view, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is not only unfit to hold the office he holds, but he should resign.
Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not intend to follow the road of that type of grossly politically partisan contribution.
Up to 20 years ago conventional political wisdom had it that the two groups in the South we should never publicly criticise, even where some criticism might by justified, was the Garda Síochána and the church. Today, there are no institutions beyond criticism, scrutiny and accountability and it is healthy that this is so.
When I was a senior adviser, I became aware, albeit second-hand, of serious problems among the Garda in Donegal through proximity to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy John O'Donoghue, and his senior officials with whom I was in close contact during various stages of the peace process. Unlike the previous speaker, I regard it as greatly to the credit of this State and to then Minister, Deputy John O'Donoghue, that we resisted the temptation to brush matters under the carpet.
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Matters were brushed under the carpet for five years so the Minister of State should not try to recreate——
Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I listened to the Deputy. Why does he not listen to me?
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The reasonable side of Fianna Fáil is suddenly exposed.
Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There should be no more interruptions.
Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy should listen to me, please.
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Arrogance is extraordinary.
Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So is ignorance. There should be no more interruptions.
Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The temptation was resisted to brush matters under the carpet.
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Where did the temptation originate?
Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I contrast that with what happened with certain security scandals of a similar or even greater gravity, as people died as a result of them. Examples include the cases of Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, where a similar awareness that a can of worms could be opened became evident and the sort of action we took here was not taken.
Given the length of time tribunals take and their cost, it is perfectly legitimate for a Government not to rush into one. It can be stated absolutely and without contradiction that in a similar situation today, any Government or Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would take their time before going down that road. It is naturally legitimate for both parties of the Opposition to claim their share of credit for bringing about the tribunal but they should not deny the credit which also belongs to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the time for bringing it into effect.
One of the drawbacks covering several walks of life, including targets, benchmarks, output statements and performance targets, is the temptation to cheat by manufacturing evidence. We saw that recently with banks and financial institutions. Occasionally it happens in academic research and unfortunately some gardaí in Donegal did it. In an age where we have more of these targets, output statements and performance criteria, we must be conscious of that danger. The planting of false evidence on people or setting them up was and is a reprehensible practice.
There is a problem in any organisation with what one might call esprit de corps. It is particularly serious in a body specifically designated to uphold the rule of law. Garda Síochána regulations have been introduced in the past year to protect and provide a procedure for whistleblowers to pass information to a designated confidential recipient independent of the force with the Garda Ombudsman Commission, which is to be welcomed.
I do not propose to go into the rights and wrongs of the actions in this regard of two Deputies of this House but wish to consider the general issue, as I have been in that position, and the dilemmas facing somebody who receives confidential information. One must consider whether to take such information at face value, the motive behind the person passing on the information, whom to communicate it to and who might be in a better position to evaluate it. Few of us would necessarily be expert in the field in which an allegation is made. This issue also cropped up some years ago with regard to the beef tribunal.
To look through the other end of the telescope, I have been on the receiving end of a whistleblowing exercise which, in my opinion, was not bona fide. It emerged from one of the principals, whom I do not propose to name in the House, appearing before the Morris tribunal who went outside this jurisdiction to the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, Ms Nuala O'Loan. I have enormous respect for her services and contribution, although I disagree with her actions in this respect.
Very serious allegations were made regarding the Omagh bomb and these were made public to the effect that people in the Garda knew in advance from an informer of an attack, although not the extent of its consequences. It was separately alleged there was political interference, principally by me as an adviser, in the pursuit of those responsible with a view to obtaining a ceasefire deal. As a high level service group established, with full co-operation from me and others, there was no truth in either allegation. These allegations were made on the premise that the best form of defence is attack and the Government could be intimidated into dropping its pursuit of Garda officers who may have misbehaved.
These allegations caused a considerable amount of grief and pain to the families of the Omagh bomb victims, who are still pursuing justice. Many of the leaders of the organisation deemed responsible are in jail, albeit for other reasons. A separate issue regarding British intelligence has arisen recently and was a subject of debate in the British-Irish assembly in the past two days, which was formerly an interparliamentary body. I am glad Unionists were present there for the first time.
Whistleblowers must be protected but the dangers of false witness are real and must be guarded against. I have the height of respect for Mr. Justice Morris and the manner in which he conducted the tribunal. It is unfortunately very easy for various parties to frustrate or delay tribunals and it is particularly difficult to understand people who make complaints that they would not co-operate with the persons and bodies established to investigate them. The tribunal was undoubtedly very expensive, with the €50 million expended demonstrating there are no short cuts to achieving justice. As I stated, long and careful thought is needed before initiating tribunals.
A final point is whether we need a police authority. I do not believe so and in the case of justice and security, it is proper for the Government to be directly accountable to the House rather than invoke some intermediary.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I propose to give two minutes of my time to the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, with the agreement of the House.
The final reports of the Morris tribunal are at last before the House and I regret the time is so short for me to contribute to this debate. It seems to have been an extraordinarily long and painful process for many people, not least myself. Six and a half years of hearings and examinations have led to eight reports and a catalogue of abuses outlined in most of the thousands of pages in those reports. The abuses by some gardaí are unprecedented in the history of the State.
Many will no doubt feel this is ancient history but for the families centrally involved, it was a long, ongoing and living nightmare.
I refer to the McBrearty, McConnell, Peoples, Gallagher, Brolly and Shortt families, as well as many other individuals who have been in touch with me over the years. They have suffered grievously at the hands of agents of this State. That these shocking events could have gone on so long, been so widespread and involved so many individual gardaí is both shocking and frightening for any democracy, let alone a democracy as mature as ours.
I had intended to contribute during my few minutes today on their shocking suffering and how we should map a way into the future. Unfortunately, the opening speech of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, requires me not to do that. I resent this because neither former Deputy Jim Higgins nor I wish to be the centre of this debate. We were mere agents in trying to discern the truth. We are no heroes. We did not, as one backbench Fianna Fáil Deputy suggested today, parade ourselves around looking for great accolades for doing this. It was our duty to do it, nothing less and nothing more. The statement of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform today was spiteful, partisan, petty, unfair, selective, mean-spirited and self-serving. I greatly regret that, unfortunately, it was characteristic.
I now am required to comment on a selective series of quotations from Mr. Justice Morris. The Minister stated this morning that the accusations brought by Jim Higgins and me to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform against "two Assistant Garda Commissioners were of the gravest kind". That is true and I deeply regret the hurt that was caused to those two fine people. However, I did not know them from Adam, any more than I knew any of the other serving gardaí against whom accusations were brought which, if one reads the eight volumes, unfortunately proved to be true. Were these allegations so grievous that they outweighed the others? The other accusations that proved to be true were of framing innocent people for murder, manufacturing and planting bombs, perjury and suborning justice. We did not know what would be the outcome of any of the allegations. Consequently, it is extraordinary that, because it has been determined that Jim and I did not know the outcome in these two instances, in essence, we needed to know the outcome of the inquiry for us to cause an inquiry or seek an inquiry to examine all these matters. That is an extraordinary view to take.
The Minister quoted Mr. Justice Hardiman selectively. The essence of the quotation was that the inquiry had an obligation to find out the source of the information. This constituted selective quoting. The Minister could as easily have read the High Court judgment of the current member of the Supreme Court who found that the action in protecting those sources was absolutely constitutionally right. However, the Minister did not dream of making that choice.
He went on to state the net effect of our actions was the establishment of "a tribunal of inquiry that lasted six years at a cost to the taxpayer of some €50 million". Does the Minister regret the establishment of the tribunal? Does he regret the uncovering of this awfulness? Some people do and they have worked to resist the outpouring of the truth for a long time. Unfortunately, the Minister made this appalling speech today. On the day the tribunal report was published, the Minister issued his own press release, more than an hour before I had sight of it, to put a political spin on it. While I do not normally divulge conversations, the Minister told me this item was a creation of his Department, not of his, and that he had only changed one word of it.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In the conversation, I stated I had changed it.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister stated he had changed one word of it but other than that, it was a creation of his Department.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In essence, the Minister has compounded everything he has done because the criticism of Jim Higgins and me, of all the issues that were investigated, was that in this narrow instance, we should have caused "inquiries, interviews, correspondence or meetings in relation to the allegations before taking them further". In other words, we should have done so before taking them to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. How in God's name were we going to conduct——
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is a direct quote from the tribunal.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister left some of that out this morning when he misquoted and twisted it. That will be in the Official Report.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That was the only substantial criticism of us. However, the Minister twisted that on the day of the report's publication to seek some political cover on it.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am a politician and can take the brickbats in this regard. However, this is a much more fundamental issue. While I am conscious of the time, I beg indulgence of the Chair as my character has been assassinated by one Deputy this morning, who clearly was given a script. While he withdrew it, the more I read this egregious assault on my character——
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——that was given to a poor new Deputy, I wonder who scripted it.
Although I wish I had more time, I must conclude on the profound point in this regard, which is that the attitude and role of Jim Higgins and me was supported throughout on a cross-party basis by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which sent a legal team to support us, because the outing of wrong is the collective responsibility of all Members. My great concern in respect of today's response by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is that he wishes to wind back the clock, as though there never was a Morris tribunal, these truths had never been uncovered and this would be a happier place had none of this awfulness ever come to light. I greatly resent this and Members must fight tooth and nail to ensure that the outing of truth is their priority in this regard.
Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to use the brief time available to me to put on record as leader of the Labour Party that it stands foursquare behind Deputy Howlin in what he did and in the way he handled this matter from beginning to end. Moreover, I believe the public owes Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Jim Higgins a debt of gratitude for what they did. They behaved responsibly. They were provided with information and instead of going to the press or coming before the House, they went responsibly and appropriately to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to put him in possession of that information. On foot of this, I acknowledge the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy John O'Donoghue, behaved appropriately by agreeing to establish the tribunal.
What was discovered and unearthed by that tribunal is shocking.
Michael D HigginsEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is shocking for the country that such a level of corruption and behaviour should have been taking place in County Donegal and that members of our police force should have behaved like backwoodsmen in the deep south in the worst kind of nightmare movie. It was shocking and the degree to which such behaviour serves to undermine the Garda force itself and public confidence in it, as well as the rights of citizens, are the issues that must be addressed in this House today. I am appalled that instead of addressing those issues and the serious content of those reports, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform came into the House and in an exercise of the worst kind of gurrier politics, decided to have a political thump at Deputy Howlin and the former Deputy, Jim Higgins. He spent more time in his speech dealing with Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Jim Higgins than he did with the serious facts and findings that were uncovered by the Morris tribunal.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I await an apology for the victims of the affair.
Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On behalf of the people of this country and the Government through which the Garda reports and is accountable to the public, I expected the Minister to outline how he intends to avoid a recurrence of these events in order to restore a public confidence ruptured by what was discovered in Donegal and defend the vast majority of gardaí who are equally appalled by what happened.
Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was wrong to use this opportunity to engage in partisan, cheap and nasty politics. It is unbecoming of the Minister and, before the debate concludes, he should at least have the grace to withdraw his comments.
Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is unfortunate that so much of today's debate has been consumed in dealing with the Minister's comments on Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Jim Higgins, MEP. This should have been a serious debate on the recommendations of Mr. Justice Morris and the huge amount of work done by the tribunal with 680 days of oral evidence and 812 witnesses. Unfortunately, because of the manner in which the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, made his opening contribution, we find ourselves focused on the propriety or otherwise of the actions of Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Jim Higgins.
I disagree with the views expressed by Mr. Justice Morris in regard to our colleagues. I think he was wrong and I will explain my reasons for so thinking presently. I disagree even more strongly with the views expressed by the Minister and the unfortunate manner in which he expressed them. It should have been acknowledged by all sides of the House that Deputy Howlin and Mr. Higgins have done the State an outstanding service.
I acknowledge that Mr. Justice Morris raised the issue of what Members should do when they receive allegations. It is an issue which has confronted all of us at one time or another and I would like it to be addressed by the House in an objective manner. As Deputy Howlin has defended his position with great vigour, I will not attempt to better him on the detail. However, having personally faced that dilemma, it appears to me that he and Mr. Higgins had two options. They could have used or abused parliamentary privilege to make open allegations in the House or they could have dealt with the issue privately with the then Minister for Justice, which is what they did. I am glad they did not abuse parliamentary privilege in any way. They did the right thing by privately presenting whatever information they possessed to the then Minister.
Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Three years ago, I received serious allegations regarding a State agency and enormous sums of money. After raising the matter in general terms, I was invited by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, former Deputy Michael McDowell, to bring to him any information I possessed. Mr. McDowell was reviled by many but in that instance the invitation he extended to me was reasonable and I acted properly by passing on the information I possessed and agreeing to co-operate with the subsequent Garda inquiry. That was the proper course of action.
The question that arises in the aftermath of the present Minister's performance is whether I would feel comfortable approaching him in a similar situation. He heavily castigated my colleagues for taking what appears to have been a sensible course of action. He seemed to imply that by handing over this information, Deputy Howlin and Mr. Higgins cost the taxpayer €50 million and they were the reason the inquiry lasted six years. Prior to this information coming to light, ample evidence had been submitted to support the need for an inquiry. Is the Minister saying the inquiry was a waste of time and money? Does he not accept that, with the full co-operation of this House, new legislation was introduced and new bodies established, including the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and the Garda Inspectorate? These ensued from the revelations that emerged in the course of the tribunal and the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Morris.
What emerged from the inquiries of the tribunal can only be described as the greatest series of scandals involving members of the Garda Síochána since the foundation of the State. Was it not important to expose and deal with these scandals? The 99.5% of the Garda who are fine and upstanding members were happy that the few who let down the force in such a serious manner were exposed. The cancer was treated and new processes were put in place to ensure, as far as possible, that such events would never recur.
It is unfortunate that the Minister's approach to these issues has led to a singular focus on Deputy Howlin and Mr. Higgins. In respect of the arms trial, Liam Cosgrave went to the then Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, when information came into his possession. Clearly that was the right thing for him to do. Deputy Howlin and Mr. Higgins were the Opposition spokespersons on justice. Information came into their possession, the veracity of which they could not know. In one instance in particular, the information appeared to come from a highly reputable source. They did not have the resources to investigate the allegations and would have had some cheek if they had attempted to do so. The proper approach was to bring the allegations to the attention of the Minister and leave them with him. The role of the Minister was to ensure a proper investigation.
In regard to the serious allegations I received three years ago, at the invitation of the then Minister I handed to him the information with which I had been furnished. As responsible Members of this House, we attempted to do the right thing at the right time. Members may in future receive legitimate and credible complaints. What will they do? Certainly, the Minister owes the House an explanation, if only from the point of view of what he says to Members who receive serious allegations. Does he say that his door is shut and that this is not a matter for him? He should clear up this matter and then we can focus on the serious, outstanding recommendations of the Morris report and on the need for Members to examine Article 15.10 of the Constitution. Perhaps this is a matter dealt with in the Supreme Court that should be referred to the all-party committee on the Constitution with a view to a recommendation for clarification and change.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I, like others, listened with interest to the Minister's speech and I was astounded that he made references of a personal nature against the character of two people, both of whom were Members of this House at the time. The Minister would be better advised to examine the report, be objective about it and recognise the need to act on its recommendations and take them on board rather than using such an occasion to target people who were then Members of this House. There is a serious responsibility on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to do so at any time in the public interest, in the interests of the Garda Síochána and in the interests and integrity of this House in respect of an attempt by an officeholder to use a report to pass judgment on the methodology used by any Member as to their right to proceed in whatever fashion they see fit.
During my time as Chief Whip I was called upon to examine all the implications regarding these matters. Instead of attempting to have a cheap shot at the Opposition and off-load some of the blame and responsibility, and in fairness to gardaí who discharge their duties with honour and integrity on a nightly basis, the Minister would be better served to protect that integrity by referring to the issues that needed to be referred to, in the way in which they were referred to in the report, and to follow on accordingly.
The Minister did not do so but sought to denigrate the way in which Members went about their business and sit in judgment on it. That is not the duty of the Minister. His duty, as an officeholder, is to be accountable to the House and not to attempt to smear other Members of the House to which he is elected. I was disappointed in the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform because he also has a duty to ensure that the good reputation of the Garda Síochána is upheld and adhered to at every juncture but that any wrongdoing is clearly and unambiguously stamped out. If any time was to be used to address this issue, the Minister should have used it this morning. I was disappointed in the attitude of the Minister, who sought to politicise this matter for his political advantage or for what other purpose I do not know. He brought ignominy on himself and the office he holds by virtue of the cheap shots he attempted and the way in which he did it.
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am delighted to speak on the Morris tribunal reports after six and a half years and eight reports. At last, we have an opportunity to look at them in their entirety. Mr. Justice Frederick Morris has done the State a service with his investigation into the activities of certain gardaí in the Donegal division and his detailed reports. However, his criticism of Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Higgins is unwarranted and wrong. It amazes me how he could say that the Deputies should have conducted a searching inquiry themselves before going to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform with the information. How were they supposed to do that? It would be impossible for them to carry that out.
I was the recipient of information from the whistleblower and I contacted the then spokesperson on justice, Deputy Howlin, who took the matter from there. To my mind he has carried out the work in an admirable fashion. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform owes him an apology, as he owes an apology, on behalf of the State, to all those who were wronged by the agents of the State who were supposed to be protecting them.
The work conducted by Mr. Justice Frederick Morris was not easy and as he said on page 41 of his first tribunal report:
The Tribunal was fed lie after lie. The spirit wearies at the lies, obfuscation, concealments and conspiracies to destroy the truth.
Amazingly this obstruction came from the gardaí involved who were "consumed" with the belief that Frank McBrearty, Mark McConnell and others were the culprits in an investigation into the "murder" of Richie Barren where no murder had actually occurred. Innocent citizens in Donegal have been harassed, intimidated, threatened, bullied, blackmailed, assaulted and framed by gardaí who were there to protect them from wrongdoing. That is why the Minister should apologise on behalf of the State as well as withdrawing his remarks about Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Higgins.
The second tribunal report had equally bizarre findings. In that report, gardaí, together with their pet informer, were found to have traversed the country from end to end and ventured into Northern Ireland planting home-made bombs, contacting the Garda authorities and the RUC as to the whereabouts of these devices and then taking credit for good detective work in finding them. At one time, indeed, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was moved to congratulate the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the valuable work of the Donegal gardaí in thwarting IRA bombers. If he only knew the half of what was going on. The unthinkable had happened in that rogue gardaí were perverting the course of justice for their own ends and particularly to further their own careers. The judge concluded that there were no adequate oversight mechanisms in place to prevent similar behaviour taking place in other Garda divisions.
The Donegal saga was a watershed for the Garda Síochána. It was similar to the corrupt payments for politicians, the DIRT inquiry for the banks and the cases of institutional abuse for the church. The Garda Síochána was the latest pillar of society that was found wanting. The time was ripe for a root and branch review of the role, structures and operation of the Garda Síochána in the 21st century.
As well as the Donegal fiasco and scandal, there were and still are serious concerns about the operation of the Garda Síochána. There has been abject failure to tackle the spread of drugs nationwide and the accompanying gangland feuding; crime prevention and crime detection have declined; anti-social behaviour is rampant and despite the substantial increase in new recruits there are growing concerns regarding Garda professionalism, efficiency and commitment.
However, the independent Garda commission which the Labour Party sought to have established to conduct a thorough examination of policing in Ireland never materialised because the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would not have it. Nevertheless, the Garda Síochána Act 2005 did incorporate some of Justice Morris's recommendations such as the inspectorate and the ombudsman commission, though Justice Morris was strongly critical of the bureaucratic and convoluted manner in which his recommendations were being transposed into law.
One important series of recommendations which were not included in the Act, but were accepted by the Government and the Garda Commissioner, were the recommendations regarding the handling of informants, on pages 651-654 of the second tribunal report. The Donegal gardaí had been allowed to wallow unhindered in the illegal production of informants and in using them to further their careers. The key requirement of the new informant system that was recommended and was supposedly in place was that all informants would have to be registered compulsorily and that a full assessment of the suitability of the informant would be undertaken by the crime and security branch. Oversight was to be conducted by senior officers and there would be periodic independent audits of the operation of the informant handling procedure. Despite the importance attached to a modern informant handling system by Mr. Justice Morris, it appears that the system put in place by the Garda Commissioner has never got off the ground.
The case of Kieran Boylan raises the most serious questions for the Garda Síochána since the Donegal scandal and reflects many of the same failings in terms of structures and oversight. Last week the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission finally agreed to conduct a full scale investigation, "in the public interest", into the case. This followed three related investigations by the Garda Commissioner and a further related investigation by the GSOC.
Mr. Boylan is a major drug dealer who has operated in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Continent. He was convicted and imprisoned in Ireland and the UK for serious drug offences. He is a major importer of drugs into this country. In 2006 he was sentenced to a five-year sentence with two years suspended for possession of €800,000 worth of heroin and cocaine at Dublin Port in 2003. This sentence was ridiculously lenient considering the mandatory sentence in law of ten years and his previous convictions for drug dealing. The issue was raised in this House. To compound matters, while on bail in October 2005 he was caught red-handed in Ardee, County Louth, with cocaine and heroin valued at €1.7 million. Incredibly, the charges relating to this seizure were struck out but were re-entered after Members of this House, including Deputy Howlin, the Labour Party spokesperson on justice, asked parliamentary questions in the Dáil in February 2007.
An incredible event happened again on 31 July 2008, the last sitting day of the courts session before the summer recess. The Boylan case was not listed for mention or hearing on that day nor was Mr. Boylan in court. Nevertheless the case came up out of the blue and the charges were dropped again. When the judge questioned the reason for entering a nolle prosequi , senior counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions stated: "it is a matter for very, very careful consideration at a high level."
I wrote to the DPP requesting him to explain his reasons for withdrawing the charges in the circumstances but he declined to do so. In the light of the DPP's announcement today concerning his willingness to provide public information in certain cases where he declined to prosecute, I now ask him to reconsider his decision and to extend his public explanation to cases of this nature, particularly with regard to decisions of nolle prosequi in cases of drugs.
I wrote to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to request the GSOC to conduct an inquiry in the public interest, as is his specific entitlement, and he replied in a positive fashion. I subsequently wrote to the GSOC requesting that it undertake the inquiry. I believe that the inquiry which is now under way will reveal an appalling vista, not dissimilar to what has been happening in County Donegal. A Garda informer was not registered officially, as required by regulation. He was allegedly used by certain gardaí who colluded with him in illegal entrapment operations involving drug seizures. In this way a blind eye was largely turned towards his illegal drug activities. His threats to disclose details of his relationship with members of the force made him virtually immune from prosecution.
In the first place, questions must be asked how such a state of affairs could operate for years after Mr. Justice Morris's demands for strict criteria for the management of informants. Second, how many offenders were convicted on the strength of drugs and information supplied by Kieran Boylan? Third, this appalling vista is the one faced by Mr. Justice Morris when he was unable to conclude that the Donegal scandal was not being replicated elsewhere within the Garda force.
If gardaí in County Louth were turning a blind eye to Kieran Boylan's importation and distribution of hard drugs as long as they obtained convictions against smaller fry who were also involved in the illegal drug business, might the same thing not be happening in other Garda divisions? Might members of the Garda — this is the appalling vista — have contributed significantly to the explosion in the spread of drugs the length and breadth of Ireland in recent years by shielding pet informers to further their own careers?
This is the litmus test case for the new Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, to show that it is capable of carrying out hard investigations into Garda conduct without fear or favour. Likewise it is a test for the Garda Síochána which was supposed to have put its house in order after the Donegal debacle.
Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
While no one is claiming that the sort of behaviour engaged in by some gardaí in County Donegal is par for the course or endemic throughout the force and throughout the country, we should be aware that there are similar allegations in other counties and that these have not been satisfactorily addressed. More importantly, the mechanisms for properly investigating serious complaints of wrongdoing and corruption by the Garda are still not in place.
Establishing such a proper and independent complaints procedure is the only way to ensure that there is adequate investigation and that matters are not allowed to fester, as they were in County Donegal, to the stage where a public tribunal is necessary to get at the truth. Such an independent complaints body would act as a deterrent to any gardaí tempted to abuse their power in the manner witnessed in County Donegal and would be a reassurance to the majority of decent gardaí, as well as to the public.
There have been other cases in different parts of the country, some of which have been referred to during this debate. In my County Kerry there are several which have not so far been adequately dealt with and in which major doubts have been raised in relation to the conduct of certain gardaí. One case that illustrates the inadequacy of the current complaints system is that of James Sheehan of Ardfert who was arrested in August 1989. Gardaí claimed to have found a loaded Webley revolver in his car with five rounds of ammunition. They claimed that the revolver and ammunition were found in an open dash in the front seat of his car and in a follow-up search they claimed that a further 12 rounds of ammunition were found on a mantelpiece during a search of his home.
In March 1990 it was decided to charge him but the charges were mysteriously dropped a number of months later. James Sheehan was unaware of any of this and was never charged. It is extremely unusual for anyone caught in possession of a weapon not be charged. James Sheehan was adamant that neither the gun nor the ammunition had anything to do with him. From that day to this week he has been trying to ascertain the facts of this case. He filed a complaint to the Garda Complaints Board alleging that he had been subjected not only to false arrest but that he had been physically and verbally abused while in custody. The complaint was heard by Garda Superintendent Wall in 1991 who completely exonerated the gardaí involved in Mr. Sheehan's arrest. The State, which continues to defend itself in an ongoing action by James Sheehan, still bases its case on that report.
Reliance on that procedure continues even though the seventh Morris report cast serious doubts on the Garda Complaints Board with regard to its role in the Donegal cases. It based that criticism on the procedures followed and the fact that the situation was basically one in which the Garda was investigating itself.
Even more extraordinary than the fact that James Sheehan was not charged is that the weapon and the ammunition alleged to have been found, in his car and at his home, were later destroyed during a period when his case against the Garda was still in progress. Finding out exactly what has happened has been a prolonged process, some of it discovered through parliamentary questions that I and other Deputies asked in this Chamber. Replies to parliamentary questions paint a rather strange picture of what has taken place in the case over the years. In an effort to pin down the truth of what had happened to Mr. Sheehan, in 2000 his solicitor requested that the weapon in question be produced. He was told the weapon had been destroyed on 19 July 2000, apparently four weeks before the request was made. It is extraordinary, to say the least, that weapons and ammunition discovered by the Garda were destroyed before legal proceedings had taken place.
In reply to a further parliamentary question tabled on the issue, the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Michael McDowell, stated the gun and ammunition had been destroyed with a large number of other weapons because the barracks where they were being held had been sold.
Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
While I am reluctant to interrupt, the Deputy's contribution is straying slightly from the subject matter.
Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The issues I raise are connected to the subject under debate.
Replies to parliamentary questions provided by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea, demonstrated that the sale of the barracks in question was not even put to tender until months after the gun and ammunition were destroyed. As in the cases investigated by the Morris tribunal, questions need to be answered in the Sheehan case as clearly something is not right. The State continues to drag its feet. Ironically, it is attempting to have the case thrown out on the basis of delay when it, rather than James Sheehan, has been responsible for the delay and prevarication and produced the contradictory replies to questions.
A further case to have arisen in County Kerry is that of Mr. John O'Shea of Castlemaine who was found dead outside his house in October 2001. Mr. O'Shea had been arrested earlier on the evening of his death. Questions arise regarding his treatment while in custody and the manner in which his death was investigated, specifically the possible influence of the Garda on the initial report written by the then State Pathologist, Dr. Harbison.
Following pressure from the O'Shea family's legal representatives and a motion passed by Kerry County Council, in 2003 the former Minister, Mr. Michael McDowell, requested the Garda to provide him with a report. I understand this process has come to a standstill for a variety of reasons. Irrespective of the unique circumstances involved in the O'Shea case, the facts of the case make an argument for establishing an independent body which can investigate such issues as soon as they become a source of controversy.
To go further back, the infamous Kerry babies scandal also ended in a tribunal. If, at that time, a different investigative procedure into the Garda had been in place, the subsequent controversy may have been avoided.
What became evident in the Kerry cases, which were echoed in County Donegal, is that when a group of gardaí — members of the special branch or other detective units are almost invariably involved in cases of controversy — becomes accustomed to believing it is virtually beyond scrutiny, its members are more likely to engage in improper practices. Not only does this lead to the abuse of suspects or even the complete invention of cases against the innocent, it also hampers detection of serious crime. I refer here to a small number of gardaí, especially members of the special branch, in various areas. Almost 30 years after the case of the Kerry babies, we are no wiser regarding the death of the baby found on a beach in the county.
In 1976, in what became known as the Sallins case, a prominent member of the Labour Party, Mr. Nicky Kelly, was subjected to abuse. I was present on the night the men involved in the case were brought to Portlaoise Prison after 48 hours in custody and witnessed how they were unable to walk up the stairs of the prison as a result of the brutality they had suffered in Garda custody. Statements extracted from the men during brutalisation by certain members of the Garda were used as evidence against them.
Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask the Deputy to confine his remarks to the discussion of the Morris tribunal.
Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, by its own admission, is inadequately resourced to deal with the volume of complaints it receives and, consequently, the level of work it is required to do in response. In addition, the office is excessively dependent on the Garda to investigate complaints and does not have sufficient independent staff at its disposal to carry out its work. Sinn Féin argued strongly during the debate on the legislation establishing the Garda Ombudsman Commission that the new body should be independent and properly funded.
The change in policing as part of the peace process in the Six Counties is almost universally praised and many positive developments have taken place, including the establishment of an ombudsman to oversee the PSNI. The State would do well to emulate many of the practices operating in the Six Counties. We should ensure the Garda ombudsman has similar powers, is independent of the body it is tasked with investigating and has sufficient resources to carry out its work.
The events in County Donegal investigated by the Morris tribunal were wrong, as every Member who believes in upholding the integrity of the Garda will agree. The events I refer to in County Kerry were also wrong. Last Saturday, at a public Sinn Féin convention in the Earl of Desmond hotel in Tralee attended by 390 people, two members of the special branch videoed and photographed everyone entering and leaving the event. It is unacceptable that a public assembly of a legal, registered political party should be subject to this type of political intimidation. Unfortunately, it was done in the name of the Minister and it is his responsibility to address the matter. The events which took place in County Donegal and other areas must not be repeated.
5:00 pm
Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In describing the strong action taken on this matter, the Minister referred to significant recent reforms of the Garda Síochána, including the establishment of the Garda Ombudsman Commission. He stated: "Thanks in large measure to the findings and recommendations of the Morris tribunal, we now have a system of oversight in place to ensure, as far as humanly possible, that the abuses uncovered by the tribunal do not recur."
In that context, I will expand on an issue highlighted this morning by my colleague, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, namely, a complaint made to the Garda Ombudsman Commission concerning the tragic death of Mr. Derek O'Toole who was fatally injured when a car driven by an off-duty garda drove over him in Lucan on 5 March 2007. Subsequent to this tragic incident, I and Mr. O'Toole's parents, Christine and Derek O'Toole, made a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman Commission. The commission's report on Derek's death was published on Monday evening and is significant in that it is the first and only report into a complaint or investigation to be published by the Garda Ombudsman Commission. On the substantive complaint, the report states:
The Commission considered a number of other aspects of the incident that caused the death of Mr. Derek O'Toole and the handling of that incident by the gardaí.... The Commission is satisfied that these other matters complained of did not constitute allegations of any conduct by gardaí that might be an offence or a breach of discipline. Accordingly, these complaints were determined not to be admissible.
Essentially, the commission found that the incident which resulted in the death of Derek O'Toole did not meet the bar of seriousness, as provided for in the relevant legislation, and was not, therefore, admissible. As to the handling of the case by the Garda, I was verbally informed that the commission's view was that as an operational matter the issue could not be investigated by the commission.
The Garda Ombudsman Commission found it was in a position to investigate the alleged leaking to the media of information indicating that Derek O'Toole was known to the Garda. This matter forms the substance of the report, which has been published on the commission's website. While the investigation has some value, it found that the journalist in question, who is employed by the Irish Independent, would not reveal his source. Although the Garda Ombudsman Commission formed the view that it was most likely that this information emanated from a Garda source, it could not link a specific member of the Garda to the subsequent passing on of this information to the journalist concerned. The problem is that the investigation came to nothing and a very minor recommendation was made by the Garda Ombudsman as regards that particular aspect.
Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am reminded that the Deputy really has to deal with the Morris tribunal and matters relevant to that.
Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is relevant in that it relates to the Garda Ombudsman's office, which was set up by the Minister because of the Morris tribunal — and this relates to that.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Who is reminding the Acting Chairman?
Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My guardian angel.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Just as long as it is not the Minister.
Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is an issue concerning the Garda Ombudsman's office and how it operates now. The issue of concern to the parents of Derek O'Toole was the incident that led to the death of their son and the handling by the Garda of the subsequent investigation. The parents are motivated because they would like to know what happened on the night in question and whether the incident was properly dealt with by the Garda. He was their eldest child and an exemplary character. They believe he deserved at least that, and this is what motivates them. It is a matter of public interest because I believe what they want investigated by the Garda Ombudsman is exactly what that office was set up to deal with.
If the Garda Ombudsman cannot investigate this type of incident, where can one go? There was never any transparent investigation of the incident and its subsequent handling by the Garda. Even if the family were to look to the inquest, no statement was proffered there by the arresting garda, for example. Therefore there was no transparency at the inquest as regards what happened that night. A case was taken in relation to an aspect of the incident against the garda concerned. However, that was thrown out on a technicality. The parents were brought into a room by senior gardaí and allowed to ask questions verbally, but they were never given anything in writing. There was no proper report that could be transparently considered by them. They have many legitimate questions to ask about the incident. Many of these have been aired in media coverage. There were unusual aspects to the case that demand answers. In so far as we could we set those questions out in the complaint and there has never been an attempt to answer them, so that the answers, regardless of whether they were satisfactory, could be subjected to scrutiny.
As regards the issue of operational matters, surely the way the Garda Síochána carries out an investigation into an incident that involves one of its members must be considered an operational matter. That is my understanding of it. Surely that is the very type of thing that needs scrutiny. We want assurance that a member of the Garda will be treated in an investigation in the same manner as a member of the public. Surely, there is some way a member of the public who has an interest in an incident which involves a member of the Garda Síochána can resolve the question whether the investigation carried out by the Garda was of the same standard as that applying to any member of the public. If the Garda Ombudsman cannot investigate that, where or to whom does a member of the public go?
I shall conclude on that. As Deputy Pat Rabbitte said this morning, it is too early to judge the Garda Ombudsman on the outcome of this complaint, but it is very disappointing for the family concerned. It is very disappointing, too, as a matter of public interest, that the Garda Ombudsman decided he could not investigate the incident or its subsequent handling. It gives rise to very important questions in the context of the future — and that relates to the Morris tribunal findings and the whole issue of transparency concerning the Garda. The questions that arise include whether the Garda Ombudsman has correctly interpreted the legislation as regards this particular complaint. Is the legislation strong enough or is there a loophole? Should a gap be filled so that the public and families such as the O'Tooles have somewhere to go where they may get clarity as regards such a tragic incident relating to their son? They need to be able to put their questions and have them answered, so that the replies may be subjected to public scrutiny. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will answer these questions because it is important in terms of the operation of the Garda Ombudsman Commission and in terms of how the Garda Síochána operates in the future.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister will now take questions for 30 minutes. I call Deputy Charles Flanagan.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In the light of the Minister's opening address and having regard to the fact that he has had the opportunity to hear most of the debate and commentary during the day, is he prepared to revise his earlier assessment? In view of the fact that he has engaged in the most blatant act of party political partisanship of the most narrow kind and the most base type this House has seen for many years, will he not accept that in doing so, he has undermined and belittled the role of Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the Constitution?
I do not believe his comments today on this issue can be equalled in terms of the damage he has done to the office. He might look, in particular, at what his penultimate predecessor, former Deputy Michael McDowell, has done in the context of these reports, a man who was justifiably criticised by Deputies on this side of the House, and indeed by some on the Government side, for many of his actions as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform at times, for his hasty reactions and statements. However, nothing any Minister has said can equal what this Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has done today in terms of the blatant attack on a Member of the House who is present and more than capable of defending his interest and also on former Deputy Jim Higgins, who is not even in the country to defend his good name following what was a most vicious political smear from a man whose trademark and stock in trade appears to be narrow partisan political point scoring on every possible occasion.
What type of investigation does the Minister believe the Deputies might have engaged in, having regard to the fact that he probably has an advantage of understanding that Mr. Justice Morris does not have, in the context of his position as a Member of the House of many years standing, engaged in the parliamentary role, function and duties of a public representative, particularly at constituency level? If he reflects on the many representations he has received over the years, surely the Minister realises the position. Has he become so far removed from reality, in the ivory tower of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and before that the Department of Foreign Affairs — where he may have seen a greater level of detachment from other Departments — that he does not realise Deputies do not have the type of resources envisaged by Mr. Justice Morris when he stated they should have conducted an investigation, a review, meetings etc.? This was a reference which, in a deceitful manner, was twisted by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in his selective quotation of Mr. Justice Morris.
If, as they did, the Deputies came into possession of some information, what better course of action could they have taken than to report the matter privately and in confidence to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, rather than speaking publicly in the House under the cloak of absolute privilege? Perhaps, on reflection, the Minister might consider revising his view. I ask that Deputies deal with this fundamental issue in the first instance before embarking on other questions, having regard to the very serious and deliberate slur on Members of the House that were cast in a most deliberate way by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This was not just in passing; it was the main body of his contribution. As Deputies said, it took up more time in the debate than comment on the 680 days of sittings and the 840 or so witnesses. The Minister chose the narrow political route and, as such, has damaged considerably the Office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have been asked to revise my assessment. The more I listen, the more I confirm what I said earlier. I very much regret the name calling embarked upon by Deputy Shatter in particular. I did not hear any other Deputy, although I heard one Deputy referring to gurrier politics. The name calling is not untypical of Deputy Shatter. It is obviously the last refuge of somebody who has no good argument to make when he starts to delve into name calling.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister might just deal with the question.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It has never been my style in this House.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, by order of this House——
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will come to the question.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Flanagan, on a point of order.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will come to the question.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government, through the Minister, curtailed this debate to a 15 minute contribution by Members.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, this is the order of the House.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——that the debate has been curtailed.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is the order of the House.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I very much regret that there are people——
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister should allow me to address the Chair as a Member of this House. I ask the Chair to confirm that the order of this House today curtailed Members to a 15 minute contribution, in spite of a request to the Office of the Government Chief Whip to allow for further consideration.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is not a point of order.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, will the Chair confirm——
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Chair has control over questions and answers. Will the Chair allow——
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask that the Ceann Comhairle be brought in.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Chair has no control over answers.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If the Acting Chairman is unable to handle the Chair, I ask that he bring in the Ceann Comhairle.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Chair has no control over answers.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are 30 minutes for questions.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I asked questions and I would like the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to answer them.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I call on the Minister.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Acting Chairman should have control over the House when he is in the Chair.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I felt it was necessary to refer to the name calling. The more I listened to the debate——
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister is not replying to the debate.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——the more the old phrase "shooting the messenger" came to mind. The reality is that what I said in my contribution is no more and no less than what was in the conclusions of the eighth report of Mr. Justice Morris. Mr. Justice Morris is not able to answer. The Government absolutely abhors what went on among members of the Garda Síochána in Donegal and, indeed, elsewhere, if it happens elsewhere, and anyone who suggests that I do not is incorrect.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the first time the Minister said that.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We gave Mr. Justice Morris a job and asked him to report. I read the reports in the run-up to their publication — I had them for a week prior to publication — and I heard what was said subsequently by some of the main players in regard to the eighth report. We are often accused of spinning. I challenge anyone who doubts what I said, which was relatively mild in comparison with what was in Mr. Justice Morris's conclusions on page 156 and beyond.
Deputy Rabbitte referred to Mr. Justice Morris——
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister should answer Deputy Flanagan. He can deal with me in a minute.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not in any way unhappy with what I said and I will not withdraw anything I said because there are people whose careers have been blighted as a result of the base allegations that were made. I welcome the fact that Deputy Howlin regretted what happened, particularly to Assistant Commissioner Carty, who has not been able to defend himself in regard to this, and to Tony Hickey, who was brought into this. I regret that other people who were involved in this were not able to come in to give their views.
I have been accused of being in denial. I am not in denial. Deputies should read my contribution. As was acknowledged, I was a member of a Government which made immense changes to the way in which the Garda is overseen.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I said it was partisan, narrow and petty.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was not partisan. All the Deputy has to do is read what is in the report. The tribunal was satisfied that when two Deputies received the facsimile, they owed it to themselves, the Minister and those who were the subject of the allegations to explore further the information furnished to them.
Deputy Rabbitte referred to the report as perverse.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Some Deputy on the other side——
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Some questioned whether Mr. Justice Morris understood the role of a Deputy.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Justice Morris fully understood the role of a Deputy, particularly when he referred to the information being brought to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He said the responsibility of public representatives cannot simply be to receive information and pass it on to the Minister and expect action. If the Minister were to take no action, the Deputy would undoubtedly subject him to criticism and if he took action, as he did, it would inevitably set in train an inquiry of a most sensational kind calculated to undermine the authority, standing and reputation of those against whom the allegations were made.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
He went on to state that the two Deputies were quick to crank up the political temperature in relation to those allegations by taking them immediately to the Minister.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is in the report. The Deputy is shooting the messenger.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is the Minister going to waffle on for the entire half an hour?
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are only 30 minutes. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Kathleen Lynch is shooting the messenger
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister is shooting the messenger.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I call Deputy Rabbitte.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is this not the first time the Dáil has discussed any of the eight reports of Mr. Justice Morris? Is it not the case that we are dealing with a confession of murder where no murder existed, orchestrated hoaxes in terms of explosive finds, cover-up and lies, unlawful arrest and detention, physical and verbal abuse of persons in custody, perjury, insubordination, breakdown of discipline, misuse of informants and attempts to pervert the course of justice? The Minister's response is to come into the House and devote half of his contribution, whoever gave it to him, to attack the two Deputies who caused all this to come to public light.
Ciarán LynchPat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I did not say that it was a perverse report, I said that the opinion on the very narrow area that related to Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Jim Higgins was perverse and I explained why it was a misunderstanding of the role of the Deputies to think that they have a chain of investigators who they can send out to uncover something which took six years to do with all the resources of the State behind it.
In this inadequate provision of time, will the Minister apologise to the victims of this Garda corruption in Donegal before he leaves the House? Will he also apologise to Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Jim Higgins, who cannot be here, for the way he misrepresented their role in this? To think that after eight reports what the Minister has singled out is the two Deputies who caused the inquiry.
What did the Minister cause? He caused a new Deputy wet behind the ears to come into the House and read out a slurry pit of allegations against two Deputies on an issue about which, I suggest, he knows little. The Minister caused that script to be produced for him. He must think we came down in the last shower.
The Minister said he read eight reports. He did not read eight pages because that is plain. When I told him today about the Garda sergeant who came to me with problems, he asked me why I did not tell him to go to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Minister not understand that gardaí may not go to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, that it is for the public? He would not tell me where the whistleblower was. I could not find out where he resides and what he does. The Minister said he is a confidential recipient. He is so confidential that the Minister will not tell me where he is.
The Minister has done a very bad day's work for the Ministry he holds. He ought to be ashamed of the contribution he made and of the denigration of his colleagues in this House. He ought to apologise to them and to the victims of this disgraceful episode in Donegal.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On behalf of the State, I apologise to those people who were adversely affected by the awful actions of some members of the Garda Síochána. However, I do not apologise for anything I have said with regard to the two Deputies, although that does cause me a problem in that I have to come in here to defend it.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is no problem at all for the Minister.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I could have glossed over this issue, but did not because the eighth report was very pertinent to the way in which we deal with our business. I am fully in favour of proper regulated whistleblowing. I was asked what I would do in that case. Over the course of my career I have been the recipient of anonymous allegations. I well recall one occasion when I was in opposition, just before an election and I was the Whip. The then party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, called me into his office because he had received a serious allegation about a member of the Labour Party. He was looking for my advice and wanted to know what he should do about it. I told him to throw it in the bin, because he could not get information on from where the allegation came.
This is the point I make with regard to what Mr. Justice Morris has to say about the Deputies' involvement in this, particularly that of former Deputy Jim Higgins. The fact is that he had a second fax which he did not produce for ten months. He held it back and that fact is in the report and cannot be denied. That fax would have completely exonerated Assistant Garda Commissioner Carty and that is the reason I felt it was my duty as Minister to say what I did.
I will not be lectured by Deputy Rabbitte on this and I will not allow him to denigrate any Deputy, regardless of whether they are new. I did not ask him to come in. I did not have a clue he was coming in.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Of course the Minister knew. Does he think we came down in the last shower?
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Rabbitte is a disgrace and it is he rather than I who has let himself down by his remark.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister has clearly misjudged not just the mood of the House, but the mood of the country with regard to these matters. The country is scandalised by the hurt caused to individuals. It is only through a cursory throwaway remark that the Minister finally gets around to apologising to them. He did not apologise in his main speech or contribution, which was reserved for his political bile.
The bulk of the Minister's speech was concerned with two criticisms of former Deputy Jim Higgins and me. First, he agreed with the tribunal that we should have carried out "inquiries, interviews, correspondence and meetings into the allegations before bringing them further". In his view, should we have done that just with regard to the allegations relating to the two assistant commissioners or should we have had the same investigations, correspondence and meetings on all the other issues we brought to the Minister, issues such as the planting of bombs, etc.? Is it his view that we should have set up parallel investigations into all of these?
Has the Minister read the Abbeylara judgment? It circumscribes in a clear way the role of parliamentarians in inquiring into the wrongdoing of any citizen. Has he read it? What sort of inquiry should we have been involved in that would be consistent with the determination of the Supreme Court in the Abbeylara case?
The second criticism the Minister makes is that we were wrong to protect our sources and he selectively quotes a Supreme Court judge in that regard. The judge basically said the tribunal had a right to look after that. Has the Minister read the entire judgment of Mr. Justice Kearns in the High Court, which quashed the order of discovery and laid out in clear legal terms a compelling legal basis as to why Members not only had the right, but an obligation to protect their sources? Former Chief Justice Hamilton found in a case in which my colleague was involved — in the beef tribunal — that Members not only had a right to protect their sources, but an obligation to do so.
Perhaps the Minister will soon finish discussing matters with his civil servants here. I am interested in discovering who provided his script and that of the other Member and no doubt we will find out because there is a mindset among circles in the country that does not want the light of day to shine on many of these matters.
Is the Minister aware of the role of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in this matter? It entirely supported my view that we needed to protect sources. It engaged counsel to argue that to the High and Supreme Courts. Subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment, a memo was prepared by the Chief Whip to see how we could go about the rights of Members to protect their sources. Is the Minister aware of any of that or has he just no regard for it? The memo was prepared so that in the future a Deputy placed in my position or that of former Deputy Jim Higgins — I did not want to be in that position — would be able to act in a way that was in the best public interest, but that would ensure the truth was outed.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I very much agree with Deputies and people in public life being able to make whistleblowing allegations. It is incumbent on us to provide both for how we do our business in the House and for how we give the Garda Síochána or other professional bodies the opportunity to make allegations in a way which is regulated and properly organised. That fact cannot be denied.
With regard to the issue pertinent to the eighth report and to how Deputies of this House dealt with allegations on the matter——
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Justice Morris did not understand the position, but the Minister did.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow the Minister to continue.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Justice Morris clearly understood the way political life happens when he said——
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, he did not even know the name of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. He called it the committee on practice and procedure and misunderstood the position.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is not a point of order.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am quoting from his report. He said the two Teachtaí Dála were quick——
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister is twisting and turning the facts for his own purposes. He has been doing it all day.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
He said the two Teachtaí Dála were quick to crank up the political temperature with regard to the allegations by taking them immediately to the Minister. Again, he refers to the fact that the Minister——
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
How else would we have investigated them? The Minister should stop hiding behind the book. How would we have investigated them?
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not hiding behind the book. We are discussing the Morris tribunal report.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Please allow the Minister answer the question.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are discussing the report, but because there is a criticism of the Deputy, he is shooting the messenger, and he shot the messenger when this report was published.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
How should we have inquired? Should we not have called in the Minister?
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Has the Minister finished?
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The full conclusions are in the report.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If that is the Minister's contribution, it is a disgrace.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister made no comment on Abbeylara nor did he give his view as asked.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will comment on Abbeylara. I am well aware of the ability or non-ability of the Oireachtas to inquire into issues. Deputy Howlin tried to suggest that Mr. Justice Morris wanted him to set up a full inquiry as to the source of his allegations.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What he said was that the Deputies should have returned to their sources and pressed them further for more information or evidence backing up the allegations. He said the tribunal was concerned that public representatives would receive and act upon such serious and sensational allegations without pressing their sources of information. That is all he was asking, not for a full inquiry as Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Jim Higgins suggested when the report was published.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Should we have done the same for all allegations? That is a twisted, mean view.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Imagine, we have spent the day discussing Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Jim Higgins. The Minister should be ashamed of that.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If I ignored that, it would have been a dereliction of my duty.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are a number of other issues in the report, but what has been discussed is important. In his reply the Minister appeared to suggest that if people made allegations of a crime, people should bin them. Does he seriously suggest that, given what has transpired and what is contained in the Morris report? My remaining questions relate to other aspects of the Morris tribunal report. Will the promised Garda Síochána amendment Bill introduce wider provision for retrospective inquiries given the Minister has heard in the Chamber today that abuse of power was not confined to the Donegal area? Will the Minister give a commitment not to use that legislation to allow the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to "lease" back some or many of its complaints to the Garda to investigate itself, which was found to be quite flawed by the Morris tribunal?
Will the covert surveillance Bill vest powers of authorisation in the Judiciary as suggested in the Morris tribunal report? What steps have been taken to address the cultural problems surrounding the member in charge, as mentioned in the Hartnett report and the Morris tribunal report, by introducing specific refresher training for members in charge to address the problems of additional work being put on a member in charge? Have steps been taken to make the procedures relating to the approval of applications for the extension of detention periods more robust and accountable? In my earlier contribution I gave examples in this regard.
Will section 6.37(4) of the Garda code, requiring a garda first to refute claims against the force, be replaced so that the garda has a duty to tell the truth first and foremost and that the courts will refute any charges?
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On the first issue the Deputy mentioned about allegations coming to my attention, it has always been my practice with anonymous allegations, of which I have received many in my 21-year career in this House, if I cannot in some way make inquiries as to their source, to bin them. I particularly instance the issue to which I referred earlier where it was clear that we were not able to stand it up in some shape or form and again that goes to the core of what Mr. Justice Morris stated regarding the issue he had to deal with. By and large I bin them because I cannot be satisfied — I am not even talking about evidence — through just my own feeling as a public representative as to whether they are legitimate allegations. If I were able to stand them up in some shape or form or be satisfied, it would be different. I do not in any way criticise Deputy Howlin or former Deputy, Jim Higgins MEP, for approaching the Minister at that time. I make the point mentioned by Mr. Justice Morris as to how he felt it was necessary for them to go back to their sources before bringing them forward.
Deputy Tuffy spoke about the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission in connection with the Derek O'Toole case. Obviously, I very much regret the death of Derek O'Toole. We are considering legislative proposals to make the running of the commission more efficient. It was accepted by the Government that we change the Garda Síochána Complaints Board. That aspect of the report has not got much mention. It has been replaced after the Government proceeded to introduce the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission which now has five times the staff the Garda Síochána Complaints Board had. We would consider suggestions from the House as to how we might make the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission better.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not much good to the O'Toole family that it is staffed better.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Regarding the covert surveillance Bill, we wanted an independent Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission so that it could investigate these.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Did anyone intend that a case like Derek O'Toole's could not be investigated?
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As far as I am concerned some problems with its modus operandi may need to be ironed out because it is in a learning process and not operational that long. The covert surveillance Bill is well advanced and I will shortly ask Government to allow publication of the scheme of the Bill. The general approach in the Bill will be that applications will be made on judicial authorisation although there are exceptions in very urgent circumstances. The overall situation will be subject to judicial oversight.
Regarding the members in charge and the issue of detention, I can confirm that there is an ongoing system of training of gardaí. There is an emphasis on the issue of detention. The tribunal recommended that the system whereby senior Garda officers approve an extension to the period of detention of a suspect should be improved by enhancing the decision-making process through better recording of the decisions. I believe the Garda Commissioner has already anticipated that in a directive that issued in 2005.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will take three brief questions starting with Deputy Joe McHugh, followed by Deputies Joe Costello and Charles Flanagan. We have only two minutes left.
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy McHugh was not in the House when the Chair agreed to call me.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I apologise. I call Deputy Costello first.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, the order of the House was that this debate could continue until 7 o'clock.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are 30 minutes for a Minister or Minister of State to take questions.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It did not specify they would be taken at the end.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Regardless of what was agreed before I came in, that is what I have in front of me.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Chair should read the Order Paper.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It did not state that questions were to be at the end.
Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister is agreeable to changes.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the agreement of the House and I must go with what is in front of me.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Acting Chairman has not even read it.
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome, for the first time in this House, a statement of apology by a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the victims of the Donegal scandal. While it came belatedly, it is good that it has come. I did not hear it before and it was not contained in his speech. I am delighted he has put it on the record of the House. It is the first time, but it is an appalling situation.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, it was contained in my speech this morning. To the best of my recollection it was in the press release I issued some time ago.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What did the Minister say this morning?
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I did not hear it. The Minister can reply later. I believe the Minister is wrong on the whistleblowing issue as was Mr. Justice Morris. I know the source of the material, which was very credible. Deputy Howlin and the former Deputy, Jim Higgins MEP, were quite right in approaching the line Minister and asking him to deal with it. That is responsibility. There was no template in place at the time. In fact there is still no template in place. However, as a result of Mr. Justice Morris's recommendations a template has been put in place in the 2007 regulations arising from the Garda Síochána Act 2005 for the gardaí and other employees to be whistleblowers. At that time they acted responsibly and were quite right to do as they did. The Minister should withdraw what is, in effect, a slur on their good names.
I ask the Minister to reconsider having a commission into policing in the 21st century in Ireland. Although it was rejected by his predecessor, it would be very welcome to deal with the situation. One serious issue to which Mr. Justice Morris repeatedly returned was the registration of informants and how there should be proper oversight of informers to ensure they would not operate out of control, furthering the careers of individual gardaí and that they would not be perpetrating crime with the collusion of gardaí who might turn a blind eye to it. This was precisely what happened in the Kieran Boylan case. The rules and regulations put in place by the Garda Síochána at the highest level have been breached atrociously in this case. One of the major drug dealers in the country is operating with impunity. This issue was supposed to have been dealt with effectively by the recommendations of the Morris tribunal.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy should ask his question.
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What will the Minister do about that?
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On what page of the Minister's speech is the apology?
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I said it goes without saying the Barron family were also victims of this misconduct and I extend my sympathies to them for the grievous loss they have suffered.
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is not an apology.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister would twist anything.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is semantics. I apologised on behalf of the State in the response.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is the Minister taking us for fools altogether?
Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A vote of sympathy is not an apology. This is not semantics. It is more twisting.
Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I refer to the Minister's comment about a mistake. He welcomed the approach of the two Deputies to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy John O'Donoghue, but he said their mistake was not to press for more information. Tomorrow morning if I am given sensitive information and a new Committee on Procedure and Privileges is in place, according to the Minister, I should press my sources before contacting the committee. How do I press them? What is his definition of "press"? Do I interrogate them? Should I obtain legal advice? As a new Member, will he explain how I go about this? After the Minister's shambolic performance, I have no confidence in approaching him or any committee with sensitive information.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
First, the Deputy should approach the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, which was set up to independently investigate allegations against the Garda.
Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister said I should press my sources.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If I was approached by the Deputy, I would say: "Go away from me and give those allegations to the GSOC". With regard to the specific issue the two Deputies had to deal with, Deputy McHugh only has to read the conclusions of Mr. Justice Morris as to how he felt. He suggests very strongly there was an issue regarding sensational allegations calculated to undermine the authority, standing and reputation of the people against whom they were made.
Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister has his own interpretation but he does not have an opinion. Mr. Justice Morris should be present.