Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

If the Deputy was listening to the beginning of my contribution, one of the points to which I referred was Donegal's isolation from the rest of the Twenty-Six Counties. We should recall exactly what Mr. Justice Morris said about complicity in the upper ranks. He found there was "gross negligence falling short of actual complicity". That is the phrase he used. This goes back to my original point that we are talking about major problems of mismanagement. In all the reams of evidence from 450 days of hearings, Mr. Justice Morris did not find evidence of actual complicity in the Donegal division's senior management.

Other issues concerned informants who seem to have been kept as the personal property of certain individuals who used them as launch-pads for their own careers. Much has been done about that. The establishment of the Garda ombudsman commission is a proportionate response to the issues of Garda discipline and inquiries into misconduct in the force. I do not wish to go into the methods of investigation but suffice it to say they will be appropriate for different levels of behaviour. They will also try to address the over-legalistic approach that has characterised most investigations within the Garda Síochána in recent times.

A report by Mr. Barry Vaughan of the Institute of Public Administration made a cogent argument about the Garda Complaints Board, comparing the board's results with those of the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland. Mr. Vaughan pointed out that 11% of complaints made to the Garda Complaints Board in 2004 were substantiated. In 2005, 10% of matters referred to the DPP by the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland led to a prosecution. This pattern can be found in many police forces around the world. We are therefore looking for an ombudsman commission on the basis of an unsound assumption — that an external body will be more effective in bringing prosecutions. According to those statistics, it would seem the Garda Complaints Board was doing a good job in certain circumstances. We must deal with that reality when we are dealing with the problems identified by Mr. Justice Morris.

I also wish to refer to the issue of promotion. I have spoken to many gardaí about the duality within the force between plain-clothes and uniformed members. A major morale problem is created within the force when it becomes obvious that plain-clothes gardaí are more inclined to be promoted than their uniformed colleagues. Obviously, an old-boys' club existed for much too long, so the Government's response in establishing a promotions board is proportionate and well thought out. There will be two civilians on the board who will bring balance and will break up what has been an unfortunate pattern over the last few years. I hope the policy principle behind the promotions board will be one of merit as well as reflecting public policy as set out by the Government and this House.

We want better community policing and we want people working in that sector to be promoted and have a specific career path. At every residents' meeting I have attended, the constant refrain is "We want to know who our community police person is. We want to see them on the street". I hope such sentiments will be reflected in the type of promotions that are made. I will cite one example of the problem as I see it. In one station, which I will not name, the member in charge sought other members to become involved in community policing. Over a number of weeks, however, he failed to find one applicant. The problem seems to be that so many gardaí — let us call them the blue light brigade — want to go around in a squad car and be involved in detection work. Maybe they watch too many detective programmes on television, but they do not want to get involved in the nitty-gritty or nuts and bolts of community policing, which everyone is seeking.

I have already heard criticism of the Nally report. Naturally, the fact it has been edited down is unfortunate but there seems to be very little we can do about it. Some of the criticism is based on the fact the individuals who carried out the investigation turned a blind eye to some of the alleged facts. To suggest these people are incapable of an independent inquiry, however, demeans them. They have served Government Ministers of every political hue over the years and have been promoted within their own organisations on the basis of their independence. I reject that criticism and strongly support the content of that report. It is a good day for the victims of the Omagh bombing who will be pleased to see this report being published.

The Morris report recommended that section 29 of the Offences Against the State Act be changed so a Garda superintendent could not issue a search warrant under that section to a member of the force. It is recommended that it should be approved by a judge of the District or Circuit Court. This is sensible and the right solution to that problem. Clearly this area was abused in the case of Donegal. The power should be retained by a superintendent in exceptional circumstances where it can be shown that it was not physically possible, for whatever reason of urgency, to prepare paperwork for a grounding application to a judge.

Duty to account is an interesting issue and there are already practical differences in Garda stations throughout the country. The 2005 Act at section 39 imposes a clear duty on every member of the force, when required to do so by a member of higher rank, to account for his or her action or inaction while on duty. I have spoken to higher ranking gardaí in my area to discuss how this is practically implemented and there is no doubt it is making a difference in Garda stations throughout the country. It helps avoid the problems seen in Donegal around revealing a truth adverse to a colleague that Mr. Justice Morris identified in his investigation. This is a crucial development and a proportionate response by the Government to the problems identified.

Many have argued in this House today and elsewhere that there should be a police authority or policing board similar to that in Northern Ireland but I have never heard a strong argument in support of such a proposal. I strongly believe in the authority of this House and I do not believe its powers should be emasculated. It was suggested that at some stage in the future the Minister might be a corrupt individual and that it would be more appropriate for the commissioner to report to a policing board which is less likely to be corrupt. This argument would denude all Ministers of all powers for fear that some later occupant of that office might have corrupt leanings.

Too many powers are being removed from this House causing too many occasions when a Minister can answer that he or she cannot respond to a query and must refer the questioner to some agency or executive. I reject the idea of a policing board and suggest we keep power in this House and stand up for the democratic institution we put so much effort into gaining entry to. To remove powers makes no sense.

The next module of the Morris report will be interesting, especially regarding the higher ranks of the Garda Síochána. One of the issues that will arise is bugging in interview rooms and I will quote from the testimony of Detective Sergeant White in this regard:

Officers and members, including myself, believed that we were entitled to use covert recording equipment in the struggle against crimes of murder and other very serious crimes. It was not a case of being entitled to do so by law but on the assumption that the equipment would not harm any innocent person and that the persons being listened to were either persons who had committed a very serious criminal act or were murderers. It was quite clear this system could not have operated for so many years without the knowledge and approval of the most senior authority within An Garda Síochána. This system of covert recording was being used as a tool by detectives in an effort to solve crime and, while it could not be regarded by any member of An Garda Síochána as being lawful, it was not regarded by those aware of its existence as being morally wrong.

This quotation contains the nub of the wrong mindedness that existed for too long in Donegal.

This is a corruption of the procedural basis of criminal justice in Ireland, it is a denial of a person's right to silence, a denial of due process, a denial of solicitor-client confidentiality in some cases and it leads to corrupt convictions in many ways. Detective Sergeant White would have convinced himself that what he was doing was morally correct at all times but outside the law. Once a guardian of the peace becomes judge and jury the system will, inevitably, collapse.

We tend to forget in this debate that our police force is unarmed and we must bear in mind the dangerous characters that live in society. These people are not only subversives but also function in drugs gangs and will willingly discharge weapons as an occupational hazard. Even the louts out drinking and taking drugs will use knives against members of the force. Our uniformed police put themselves in harms way as a matter of duty.

The Garda is uniquely based on the principle of morale and we, as politicians, have a duty to morale as much as possible while holding the Garda to account for the misdeeds of individual members. We should remember this throughout this debate.

See this speech in context