Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

The fundamental fact is that at all times Deputy O'Donoghue as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform wanted to have the truth emerge. At all times I was supportive of that aim subject to the legal difficulty under which I laboured, which was that to have a tribunal of inquiry could pull the plug on the criminal prosecutions then pending. Ultimately it became essential to amend the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts to facilitate the holding of such an inquiry to allow the public to get at the truth without at the same time pulling the rug from under the criminal prosecutions taking place. In this respect both the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, and the former Minister for Justice, Mrs. Nora Owen, in every respect behaved to the highest standards and did not depart from any standard of political accountability at any point. That is my honest view.

The second report of the Morris tribunal states, at paragraph 9.06:

The Tribunal is much concerned by the lack of any independent body to receive legitimate concerns about Garda behaviour. The provisions of the Garda Bill need to be reviewed by the Oireachtas, so as to satisfy the legitimate disquiet that arises from the Tribunal's study of the documents in this case.

I agree with the tribunal that we need an independent body to examine legitimate concerns about Garda behaviour, and the Bill provides for such a body, the independent ombudsman commission, with strong powers of investigation. I agree also with the tribunal that it is clearly right for this House and Seanad Éireann to review the provisions of the Bill to ensure that they meet the requirements which we all recognise. A process of continuing review has been carried out as the Bill has passed through its parliamentary stages, first in Seanad Éireann and now in this House. Significant amendments have been made to the Bill drawing on ideas from all sides of the House and the Bill is the better for it. We are today engaged in a major debate on the reports of the tribunal and their implications for the Bill. The Report Stage of the Bill will be taken next week when many further amendments will be considered by this House.

Let me therefore directly address the question as to how the Bill responds to the findings and recommendations of the Morris tribunal. As the House knows, the Bill provides for an independent Garda Síochána ombudsman commission. The ombudsman commission will be empowered to investigate directly and independently complaints against members of the Garda Síochána. It will also be empowered to investigate any matter, even where no complaint has been made, where it appears that a garda may have committed an offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings. It will also be empowered to investigate any practice, policy or procedure of the Garda Síochána with a view to reducing the incidence of related complaints, a power that does not vest in the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

In carrying out a criminal investigation, designated officers of the ombudsman commission will have Garda powers, immunities and privileges. They will be empowered to obtain search warrants, arrest members of the force, detain and question them and take forensic samples, and bring charges against them. Such investigations will therefore be full criminal investigations carried out independently by the commission. Where a criminal offence is not at issue or a prosecution has been ruled out, the commission will be empowered to conduct a civil investigation, as part of which it may require persons to provide documents or other information to it or may require persons — not necessarily gardaí— to appear before it and answer fully and truthfully any questions put to them by the ombudsman commission. If any person fails to comply with these requirements, the ombudsman commission may seek an order of the Circuit Court requiring him or her to comply, and failure to comply with such an order will be a criminal offence. This applies to gardaí and civilians alike.

The tribunal's clear view is that gardaí should be required to account for their actions on duty without delay and without the need for applications to court. Once again, I agree with the tribunal. In the light of the findings of the Morris tribunal and its recommendations, it is essential that every garda should have a duty to account without delay, procrastination or prevarication for his or her actions on duty. While it was always my intention to provide for such a duty in the disciplinary regulations to be made under the Bill, as I have recently made clear I will now be placing such a duty on an express statutory footing in view of the remarks in the tribunal's report. I share the view of the tribunal that such a duty, vigorously implemented, should in many cases obviate the necessity for more involved investigations. This new duty should greatly assist not only the internal management of the Garda but also the commission in its investigations.

However, it is important that the Circuit Court procedure should remain available to the ombudsman commission in its civil investigations as it is an appropriate power for the commission to have. It is a particularly strong power backed up by the potential for a criminal conviction as distinct from disciplinary action. This was the power applied in the case of former Deputy Liam Lawlor and his non-co-operation with the Mahon tribunal. It would be needed to enforce co-operation from civilians, whether civilian employees in the Garda Síochána or members of the public, who appear before the ombudsman commission and for whom Garda disciplinary regulations have no relevance.

I believe, therefore, that the functions and powers of the independent ombudsman commission fully measure up to those of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. While some differences exist, none of these detracts from the equivalence of the two bodies. Let me directly address the two differences which have been recently highlighted in public debate. One difference is that the ombudsman commission will be made up of three persons whereas in Northern Ireland it is a single individual. It is predictable that the argument is made that we should simply copy what has been done in Northern Ireland. However, it is valid to contend, as I do, that there are advantages in having a commission composed of three persons, from the point of view of continuity for holidays, illness etc. let alone other reasons. In this regard, I note the chairman of the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, Mr. Gordon Holmes, who is an independently minded man, favours a three-person commission rather than a single ombudsman.

See this speech in context