Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

256. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality his views on the operation of the Charleton liaison committee; his further views on whether it should continue to operate and that it is functioning in a fair manner for all; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51906/17]

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

257. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality his views on a matter relating to answers to parliamentary questions (details supplied); and if he plans to make changes to those replies. [51907/17]

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

258. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the date and the ways in which his attention was drawn to the concerns expressed regarding the operation of the Charleton liaison committee at the Committee of Public Accounts on 23 November 2017; the actions he took regarding these concerns as a result; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51908/17]

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

259. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if the Garda Commissioner communicated concerns regarding the operation of the Charleton liaison committee recently; if so, when he will act on such concerns; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51909/17]

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

284. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality his views on whether the manner in which the Charleton liaison committee was set up was appropriate; and if he will continue to fund its operations. [52053/17]

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 256 to 259, inclusive, and 284 together.

Firstly, I am aware that Deputy sought to raise this matter at the Committee of Public Account on Thursday 23 November last.  I understand that while there was some discussion at the Committee, this was relatively brief. I also understand that the Chair of the Committee concluded that the matter was not appropriate for discussion by the Committee at this time but could arise for discussion next year in the context of the 2017 Appropriations Account.

Subsequent to the Public Accounts Committee, the Garda Commissioner made a report to me under section 41(1) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 on Monday 27 November last. The report forwarded a document that detailed concerns in relation to the operation of the Tribunal Co-ordination Office. This is something I treat with the utmost seriousness and in that regard I instructed that the contents of the report be referred to the Disclosures Tribunal. That was done on Wednesday 29 November. The report was also referred to the Office of the Attorney General. The Taoiseach was made aware of the contents of the report by the Secretary to the Government.

Since its receipt my Department has been considering the contents of the report. On foot of that examination I intend to write to the Commissioner requesting a full report addressing each of the issues raised in the document.

In relation to the Deputy's previous parliamentary questions on this matter, the replies I have provided are available on the public record. I have answered all questions put to me fully and accurately based on the information available to me at the time.

It is the Commissioner who has statutory responsibility to carry on and manage and control generally the administration and business of An Garda Síochána. Accordingly, the putting in place of internal structures to service the Tribunal is a matter for the Commissioner and I, as Minister, have no direct role in the matter. I do not believe it would be proper for me as Minister to prescribe the approach which is taken by An Garda Síochána towards the Tribunal.  Indeed, I would be open to criticism if I were to seek to influence how An Garda Síochána fulfil their duties to the Tribunal. 

It is important to note that it is not in any way unreasonable that An Garda Síochána as an organisation should put in place a structure to help meet their obligations to cooperate with the Tribunal, particularly in respect of the discovery of relevant documentation. Mr Justice Charleton covered the arguments around this principle when he heard applications for representation last March.

It is important to keep in mind that there is nothing in the arrangements put in place by the Commissioner to deny, nor could they, the right of any individual member of An Garda Síochána to make any representations they see fit, relevant to its terms of reference, directly to the Tribunal.  This includes any complaint by any member of An Garda Síochána about the arrangements in place for their representation at the Tribunal.

On a general note I would reiterate that the Government has been anxious to ensure that the Tribunal receives the greatest degree of assistance possible from all parties, not least An Garda Síochána. To that end the Government was supportive of the former Commissioner, and continues to support the acting Commissioner, in ensuring that the required resources are at the disposal of An Garda Síochána to service the Tribunal in a timely and effective manner.  The then Commissioner identified that the requirements of the Tribunal could best be met by the re-engagement of a small number of retired persons and my Department approved this in February 2017, subject to formal sanction, which was conveyed by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on 5 May 2017. 

The formal sanction provided for the engagement of three persons (i.e. two retired members of An Garda Síochána and one civilian) for up to nine months for the purposes of servicing the Tribunal. I am advised that the services of two retired senior members of An Garda Síochána (one retired Assistant Commissioner and one retired Chief Superintendent) were engaged initially for a period of six months and then for a further period of three months to 30 November 2017 in accordance with the formal sanction. Their contracts fully complied with pension abatement regulations. Both former officers concerned have now left their posts in full compliance with the sanction.