Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I want to address briefly the contributions made by the last few speakers who spoke about politicisation and corruption in the Department of Justice and Equality and the gardaí. They have been throwing around these remarks for some weeks to give credibility to their case.

The debate of recent weeks has done nothing to enhance the procedures and legislation in place as regards the ombudsman's office. It has only politicised the administration of justice. Just a few days ago, the same group of people wished to set up a judicial appointments commission comprising their own people, yet allegedly above politics. I presume that one of the Members opposite who was vocal or an associated Member intended to chair that commission, which would have been apolitical and met their requirements. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

This debate originally took place in 2004 when the people on the Opposition side of the House were in government. Although I do not have the time to do so, it would be interesting to read the speech of the Minister of the day when he was setting up the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. The debate focused on whether a single ombudsman or a commission would be appropriate. The latter was chosen. The next question was to whom the ombudsman would report, if anyone, and whether the Minister would have particular responsibilities. The Opposition of the time raised questions as to whether the Minister would have any responsibility. A strange thing has happened in recent weeks. If the Minister should not be involved or have a right to respond to issues, why has the Opposition been blaming him and the Department for the problems allegedly of concern to it?

It must be recognised that we all support the need for an open and transparent system in which complaints can be made to a particular body, whatever that may be in this or that Department, and reports can be made and allegations checked by the relevant authorities, not politicised or brought into the Houses of Parliament. Despite suggestions from the Opposition, which seems to avoid any attempt to address these issues, the responsible authorities addressed them after being brought to their attention. I am sure that the Minister is aware I tabled a parliamentary question on this matter. I hope it will be answered tomorrow.

The scarcity of Members on the Opposition side of the House is amazing. After making a political point, they scurry out of the House to make telephone calls to their respective contacts in an effort to enhance their political status. That is what this is about. This is the most disgraceful exhibition I have seen of an attempt by Members of Parliament to politicise the operation of An Garda Síochána. They pretend that they have sought to ensure there is an open and transparent body, although we do not know to whom it would be responsible. I believe it would be responsible to themselves.

The Oireachtas is not, never was and never should be the place to deal with complaints. A body already exists in the Garda. In recent days, people on the Opposition side of the House have suggested that the place to report is to the Oireachtas. That is not the procedure. They claim they have no confidence. They never had, not in anything. They claim that, because they do not have confidence in the system, Members of the Oireachtas must be approached. That is not the procedure. If matters are to be handled that way in future, we will not have a reliable or robust system. We will only have public pronouncements in the Houses of Parliament. Issues will be raised, after which people will run away from them without examining them adequately.

I will mention one or two other matters. Unfortunately, the time limit does not allow us to go into any great detail. The former Minister, Mr. Michael McDowell, went into great detail to rebut the Opposition's suggestions in 2004 concerning GSOC's construction. He was clear in his mind that the structures being put in place were adequate, robust, transparent and accountable. If I had time, I would read his remarks into the record. The debate, which took place on Tuesday, 2 March 2004 at 3 p.m. in the Upper House, illustrates adequately to all and sundry. The structure was provided by some of the Opposition Members who have expressed so little confidence in it. This is the reality, irrespective of whether we like it.

There has been a certain amount of political posturing recently in the hope that those involved will benefit. In the course of that, however, great damage has been done to the integrity of the Garda which has suffered a great deal in promoting the interests of integrity, honesty, security and justice in the State. There is no sense in being selective about incidents with which to disagree. The Garda has a difficult job. I do not doubt there are people in the Garda who should not be there. Everyone would accept this. I also have no doubt the same applies to every profession, as indicated by the occurrence of crime. Some Deputies might even be able to spend their time more usefully elsewhere. However, this does not give anyone the right to undermine the integrity of a state's police force as has been done in Ireland in recent weeks in gradual drips, creating doubt in people's minds. It is a dangerous approach.

Like others, I was a Deputy when details were brought to the House's attention of various gardaí being shot, executed and so on in pursuit of their duties on behalf of the State. I find it difficult to understand why this crying is taking place now when it relates to issues in respect of which people should know better. They know full well how the system works and that a complaint in any organisation must be investigated. The question in this instance is whether complaints were investigated fully and to the extent of the Opposition's satisfaction. The answer is that the Opposition does not need to be satisfied. Rather, an investigation must satisfy the conditions laid down in the original legislation. This morning and afternoon, the Minister and Taoiseach indicated clearly in the House that the procedures had been followed. What has been suggested in some Opposition quarters, that there was a cover-up, is not true.

I am amazed that taped conversations have become the basis for lodging complaints. I believed that documents marked "confidential" were not meant for disclosure to all and sundry so that people might promote their political philosophies. "Confidential" means confidential, particularly in terms of justice. It is about time that some people in this House recognised that they also have responsibilities in this regard.

See this speech in context