Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank colleagues for their contributions and for bringing this to the House. I will start with what I said in the Dáil previously because it is important and I think it is why we and the O’Farrell family are here. First, it is to make sure that all the facts and information are laid bare and that all the information surrounding the death of Shane is known and understood but, above all, that we can have and use that information to make sure that no family goes through what the O’Farrell family has gone through. We as lawmakers, legislators and people, as the Senator rightly said, in the positions we are in change and improve the laws and make sure they are as strong as possible. We should call out things that are not working and where there needs to be change. That is why we are all here. That is our overall goal and objective.

Our discussion tonight revolves around a report that was agreed by the Government. The scoping report was clear in what it set out. A requirement for a further inquiry was not precluded in this scoping exercise. The Government has been clear on that. The judge was free to suggest any form of investigation or inquiry, or to provide the draft terms of reference - whatever he saw fit in that regard. This decision was to be taken having looked at a number of things. The terms of reference required Judge Haughton to advise the Minister and, in turn, the Government whether there were any circumstances surrounding the death of Shane that warranted further investigation or inquiry beyond those already carried out, such as the criminal trial, the coroner’s court, the independent review mechanism and the GSOC investigation. As well as that, he was asked to look at whether an inquiry was necessary into the systems and the procedures for sharing information between An Garda Síochána, the Courts Service and other relevant State bodies operating at the time of Shane’s death.

Again, as I mentioned, the judge found there are no circumstances around the granting, objecting and revoking of bail or the monitoring of compliance within conditions of bail that would warrant further inquiry beyond what has already happened and what was highlighted already, where there are deficiencies and where changes in the system were and still are needed. The judge made clear recommendations around bail, the suspended sentences legislation, the Road Traffic Act – which I mentioned we made a decision on only today – and notices of appeals administered by the Courts Service. The report, which I have read and is very detailed, looks at where there are and have been failures in the system and where changes need to be made. Judge Haughton made clear recommendations in that regard. Regarding the terms of reference, he made clear – again, I stressed this earlier – he would not restrict the submissions that were brought to him by any party involved in this in the context of this overall exercise. That is why we have this extent and scope of the report.

The report was presented to me and I appreciate that it took much longer than people anticipated for many different reasons. It was considered by me, the Department and the Attorney General. Based on that consideration and those recommendations, the Government noted the report and noted clearly what Judge Haughton stated in the report, which is that no further inquiry is necessary. We are here clearly discussing the report that was decided upon by the Government.The report itself is very clear that no further inquiry is necessary, based on what the judge has been asked to do here, on the terms of reference, the outcome and the facts he has laid out in this report. Again, I appreciate that this is not what anybody here wants to hear but these are the facts I have before me and this is the report that has been laid before me. I do not think any Minister for Justice, either myself or the previous Minister, or anybody in this House would ignore what has been presented here, namely, a report that has been worked on for more than three years. That report very clearly outlines the reasons for the decision that has been taken by the particular judge in question. That is what I, as Minister, and the Government have to take on board. We have considered and not disputed the report that was laid before the Government and before these Houses in recent months.