Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The controversies of recent months have been challenging for the Garda, the legal system and the Government. Many of the issues which have caused this controversy have their roots in the events and practices of the past, long before this Government came to power. None the less, it has fallen to this Government, of which the Labour Party is part, to deal with these issues. My priority as leader of the Labour Party has been and remains to ensure we get to the facts as quickly as possible; that the parties involved, including the whistleblowers, are dealt with fairly; that we rectify the injustices of the past; and that we put in place structures which will serve well our citizens and the Garda into the future.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I am pleased to support the resolution before the House, which sets out the terms of reference for the investigation to be carried out by Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly. There are three principal elements in the terms of reference. If the terms are agreed by this House and the Seanad, the commission will be asked to investigate and report on the operation of telephone recording systems by the Garda and the Prison Service; the specific implications of the tapings related to the Garda investigation into the death of Ms Sophie Toscan du Plantier in west Cork in December 1996 and related matters; and the sequence of events leading up to the retirement of the former Garda Commissioner, Mr. Martin Callinan.

I first became aware of the widespread recording of telephone calls to and from Garda stations on the morning of Tuesday, 25 March last when the Taoiseach made me aware of information which had come into his possession. I was shocked by what I was told. I had no hesitation in agreeing with the Taoiseach to recommend to colleagues that a commission of investigation be established to establish what happened and why it happened. Many more facts have come to light since the Cabinet made its decision. We now know something of the scale of the recordings and the Garda stations in which they occurred. We know something of the circumstances in which new equipment was purchased a few years ago to continue and update the practice. We have heard from some of those who were involved in operating the system.

There is still a great deal we do not know. We do not know for sure what the intended purposed of the recording system was. We do not know if recordings were used during the course of criminal investigations. In fact, we know very little about the use, if any, which was made of the recordings. We also know little or nothing about the content of the tapes. These are just some of the questions we are asking the commission to investigate. They are important questions. It is important from a historical perspective that we know what happened in the past. I refer, for example, to the timeline and the sequence of events. It is also important to get an assessment of the implications for the operation of the criminal justice system. We need a dispassionate assessment of prosecutions taken or not taken.

The terms of reference invite the commission to express a view on whether the recordings were authorised and whether the making of recordings in these circumstances is lawful. It may be that the facts disclosed to the commission will allow the judge to come to a clear decision on whether the recordings were lawful. It would be wrong for me to express an opinion on that matter and I will not do so. Having said that, it is clear that this is an area where there is a great deal of grey and not so much black and white.

We live at a time when many organisations and individuals create, capture and store a great deal of information about the everyday lives of almost everyone. Banks, supermarkets online retailers, travel companies and many other bodies can create an accurate picture of our lifestyle with minimal effort. It is a stark fact that Internet providers and telecommunications companies have assembled more information about each of us as individuals than is known to our closest friends. Does the accumulation of this information amount to surveillance or bugging? Is it merely part of the provision of a service to customers? Much of this information is doubtless of no consequence. On the other hand, some information might be useful in determining whether criminal proceedings should be taken and later in proving or disproving guilt.

The use of electronic records in the legal system and in crime prevention is laced with difficulty and dilemma. To what extent is the State - in most cases, this means the Garda - entitled to infringe on an individual's right to privacy to prevent or prosecute crime? When is the accumulation of personal information lawful and when is it unlawful? Is it reasonable to seek to distinguish between the two? These are big questions. They are infinitely more pertinent now, in this age of information, than they have ever been before. The Oireachtas most recently sought to grapple with these issues when the Criminal Law (Surveillance) Act 2009 was passed five years ago. A great deal has happened since then, not least in the development of technology. In my view, it would be timely to review the operation of the 2009 Act and other relevant legislation and practice.

The second issue dealt with in the terms of reference is the investigation into the tragic death of Sophie Toscan du Plantier. The House will be aware that no prosecution has been taken in respect of the death of Ms du Plantier. However, some ancillary matters have been dealt with before the courts, including an application for extradition by the French authorities and civil cases currently in hand. At various intervals, we have seen press reports which allege activity on the part of the Garda which, if true, would be very disturbing. As a result of discovery made during the course of civil proceedings, we know that recordings were made in Bandon Garda station which are relevant to the investigation of the death of Ms du Plantier. On foot of such information as is already in the public domain, the Government has decided that further investigation is needed. Specifically, the commission will be asked to establish whether those recorded phone calls, and any other acts or events in the course of the Garda investigation, disclose any evidence of unlawful or improper conduct on the part of the force.

It is time for the Garda investigation to be subjected to the light of public scrutiny. There are too many unanswered questions and too much innuendo. It is time for a full accounting in respect of the Garda investigation. I hope the commission can be of assistance in establishing the facts. I am conscious that the person who murdered Sophie Toscan du Plantier is, in all likelihood, still at liberty. I am also conscious that her friends and relatives, not least her parents, Georges and Marguerite Bouniol, continue to grieve for her and thirst for justice. This new investigation will not bring Sophie back. It will not bring the person who murdered her to book. I hope it will answer some of the questions her family and friends and others have been asking for many years.

The third issue to be dealt with by the commission is the events leading up to the retirement of the Garda Commissioner. I fully accept that the retirement of the Garda Commissioner was a matter of great consequence. It is clearly in the public interest that the matter be teased out in full. Many of the facts have been put into the public arena by the principals concerned or others acting on their behalf, either directly or indirectly. It is important for all those concerned to be given an opportunity to account in person for their actions. I would like to make it clear that this is an important issue, as the Garda Commissioner holds one of the most important positions in our democratic state.

The public is entitled to know why the Garda Commissioner left office earlier than he originally planned. The public is entitled to the full facts. As Deputies will know, members of the Government who were party to these events have given accounts of what they knew and did in the period leading up to the Commissioner's retirement. I have stated publicly that I accept what colleagues have said on these matters. I am happy to rely on the accounts given. I fully expect that, when he has heard from all the parties, Mr. Justice Fennelly will be able to set out the sequence of events in full in order that the public can make its own judgment.

Ireland has changed a great deal in recent years. For many decades, we lived in a society where the authority of people in certain positions was rarely questioned. The pillars of society commanded respect and obedience without debate. This is no longer the case. People no longer accept that the priest, the politician, the teacher or the Garda is entitled to tell them what to do purely by virtue of the position he or she holds. The garda of previous decades could expect that his or her authority would be accepted without question, that his or her instructions would be followed, that his or her judgment would be respected and that his or her way of doing things would be afforded a measure of latitude. The garda in today's Ireland inhabits a completely different environment where trust must be earned, tolerance and patience must be exercised, professionalism is expected at all times and mistakes must be accounted for. It is a much more hostile environment in many ways. It is an environment of competing criminal gangs that use violence without hesitation, in which the abuse of drugs eliminates all standards of decent behaviour, and in which a gang of robbers will kill a garda in the course of their criminal activity.

The changed nature of our society and the changing nature of crime have required a radical shift in policing. The Garda is now better trained and better resourced than ever before. The statutory underpinning of the force has also changed. When he introduced the Garda Síochána Act 2005, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, looked to put in place what he described as a template for policing in the 21st century. There is much that is good in the 2005 Act. The Labour Party supported many of its provisions. The Act put in place the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, the Garda Síochána Inspectorate and the local policing committees. All of these have contributed to making the Garda more open and accountable.

The then Minister failed to act in one important regard, however. He refused to put in place a mechanism for civilian oversight of the Garda. He refused to address what many of us see as a crucial weakness in our system, namely, the relationship between the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda Commissioner. Section 80 of the 2005 Act provides that "the Garda Commissioner shall account fully to the Government and the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for any aspect of his or her functions".

The result of this provision is that the Garda accounts to the Minister largely in private and in secret. The Minister represents the views of the Garda to the Dáil and the Commissioner defends the policies of the Government, including the Minister, in public. The closeness of this relationship is of a time when the security of the State was under threat. Those days are gone and the 21st century demands a wholly new model.

Since 2000, the Labour Party has argued the case for a Garda authority, or policing board, that would exercise many of the powers and carry many of the responsibilities currently vested in the Government. My colleagues, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, have both articulated the case for a Garda authority on innumerable occasions over the past decade and more. It is with some satisfaction that we welcome the decision of the Government to set up an authority. It is a pity it has taken so long and that it was resisted by others for so long. However, it is better late than not at all.

The new Garda authority should set priorities for the Garda and assist in drawing up plans for policing. It should hold senior gardaí to account for the implementation of policy and act as an interface for the community as a whole.

Let me be clear. I want to move to a position where the policies and priorities of the policing service are set by the representatives of the community as a whole and not just the Government. Of course, the view of the Government should weigh in the mix, but it is only one view. The service exists to serve the community as a whole and it should be accountable to the community as a whole.

I am very happy that Government has agreed to set up a Garda authority before the end of the year and I look forward to playing my part as a member of the Cabinet committee that has been put in place to oversee its introduction. There are open questions we will debate over the coming months and we should take the opportunity to engage in public debate on those. What role should the authority have in appointing the Commissioner and other senior gardaí? Who should sit on the authority? Should public representatives sit on the authority and, if so, how many? How should matters of national security be dealt with?

In all of this, I must emphasise the critical point that this is not change for the sake of change. It is not simply a question of adding one more institution to the several that already exist, but rather, it is a radical overhaul of our system of policing, a change that will be good for the Garda, politics and, above all, citizens.

See this speech in context