Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the representative organisations and Fórsa for their contributions today, which I found very helpful. I want to raise a few points. The general point was made that the structure envisaged by this Bill is a little clumsy in terms of who is accountable to whom and precisely where the authority lies. As somebody who devised the previous Garda Síochána Bill, which is still in law, I am a bit uneasy with the use of the term "authority" for the new body to be established. It appears to be a super inspectorate rather than a policing authority that would be generally known internationally.

I want to pick up on some of the contributions made. On GSOC, it has to be accountable to somebody. If a particular matter is being investigated for three or four years, whether or not the garda is under suspension but even more so if he or she is, somebody has to be accountable for that delay. To whom is GSOC accountable? When I read through this general scheme of the Bill I do not see a mechanism whereby GSOC has to report. There are 35 members of the force under investigation. In one case Garda X has been under investigation for three years and in another case Garda Y has been under investigation for four years. Somebody needs to question why the investigations are taking so long and why the member is in limbo and facing this investigation for so long.

I am sure it is the case that GSOC is under-resourced and may have on occasions bitten off more than it can chew. I am sure there are two sides to the story. From the point of view of accountability, it seems there is a very serious hole in this legislation in that I do not see GSOC being accountable to anybody for the way in which it executes its powers and functions in a satisfactory way. To whom it might do it, I do not know. Would it be the Secretary General of the Department of Justice who should be au fait with what GSOC is doing and can demand of it that it do something, desist or whatever?

At some stage, though, surely there must be a degree of accountability.

Returning to the point Senator Ward and Deputy Costello were making about notifying people under investigation, it seems to me that if a serving member of An Garda Síochána is being investigated this afternoon by An Garda Síochána, say for corruption, for example, then that member of the force will not be notified of the investigation. I do not see a major issue with notification being given to a member of An Garda Síochána because the investigation is coming from GSOC rather than internally. I do not see a significant question of principle differentiating these two situations. Therefore, when Ms Cunningham makes the point that at some stage a member of the force should be told whether he or she is being investigated, it has some force. The problem is this situation does not apply to any member of An Garda Síochána who this afternoon may be the subject of an investigation into involvement in corruption, drugs or organised crime. Nobody says the person concerned should be contacted and told he or she is under investigation. It simply does not happen. I would like some response on this point, from whoever might wish to address it, regarding in what sense is GSOC going to be accountable.

To echo the point made by Deputy Costello, it is not just gardaí who are interested in GSOC investigations. Without in any sense being prejudicial, we know of one shooting in north-west Dublin where it has taken months for GSOC even to interview the gardaí who carried out the shooting. I pass no judgment whatsoever regarding the circumstances and whether it was justified. That kind of situation would not happen if I were to be suspected of a shooting. The gardaí in Rathmines would not take three months to decide if they were going to ask me in to investigate such a situation. GSOC has a fair few questions to answer, and I would like to see this legislation containing some accountability for the organisation.