Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister's commitment to reform of the Garda Síochána structure. I thank her for allowing this draft to progress past Second Stage. I welcome the words of Deputy Donohoe this evening. I acknowledge that a much-needed public consultation process is finally under way in respect of Garda reform. I emphasise that the Bill before the House was drafted only after extensive consultation with and research of the work of the many stakeholders currently before the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, in addition to the comments and reviews of many legal academics. I confirm that we have made an extensive submission to the justice committee in this regard, but we have not received any response as of yet. I am concerned that the House and the Government remain uncertain and uninformed about the concept of democratic accountability. This, in its purest form, is the accountability of the Garda to the citizens that the force polices.

This reinforces and legitimises the policing by consent model, which requires that a mutuality must exist between the Garda and the people. The improvement of democratic accountability would go some way towards restoring public confidence and trust in the Garda, which the Minister notes has been undermined.

Democratic accountability currently takes place through the medium of the Dáil, where the Minister answers parliamentary questions relating to policing on behalf of the Commissioner. However, the Minister frequently refuses to answer parliamentary questions, using the excuse that the subject of a question is an operational matter for the Garda. This allows the Garda Commissioner and the Minister to exercise policing powers without accountability.

The principal purpose of the proposed independent police board is to replace the current, unsatisfactory model of democratic accountability through Parliament. However, I note with concern that the Government has only committed to a board that will maintain this level of accountability to the Oireachtas. The strength and breadth of the objectives and functions of the proposed board will be the litmus test of the Government's commitment to real and meaningful reform of the Garda's structure.

In this regard, I am also concerned by the minimal function of a much weaker board, as proposed in Labour's disappointing and short discussion document. Principally, there is no mention of the centrality of human rights in those functions, for example, training, human rights proofing of all codes, etc. This contrasts with the Bill's extensive objectives and functions, which reflect the recommendations of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, and the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC.

The Minister, like her predecessor, seems to be implying that she has a difficulty with the proposed appointment of the Data Protection Commissioner and the Ombudsman for Children to the board, in that doing so might conflict with their duties. On the contrary, the experience of those two officers would be invaluable on such a board. It is acceptable and standard practice to act in an ex officiocapacity on boards. The Minister might be interested to know that both officers have confirmed to me their willingness to be considered for the board. Indeed, the Government recently saw fit to request and empower the Ombudsman for Children, whose remit only covers HSE investigations, to conduct an investigation into Garda misconduct in the case of the removal of Roma children.

I note with concern that the Bill's third theme, the depoliticisation of the Garda and removal of direct ministerial control by the amendment of many sections of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, was overlooked by most of the Deputies who contributed, including the Minister. A clear commitment to the House to relinquish ministerial and Government control of the Garda is necessary. The selection and appointment of all senior gardaí, including the Commissioner, can no longer be connected to the Government.

The Minister seemed to imply that a root and branch review of policing had already been provided for in the wake of the Guerin report through her referral of certain matters to the Garda Inspectorate. As noted by several human rights groups at a meeting of the justice committee, the Garda Inspectorate is merely a creature of the Minister under the 2005 Act. Any investigation by the inspectorate cannot be said to be truly independent, given its direct and sole accountability to the Minister and the fact that it can only act on the Minister's instruction. The inspectorate has also noted the limits of its investigatory powers, given that it must always provide advanced notice before visiting any Garda station and cannot engage in cold calling. A root and branch review conducted by a body with such weak investigatory powers cannot be expected to be thorough or comprehensive.

The Minister raised concerns about State security, the intelligence functions of the Garda and the proposed involvement of the board in same. I disagree with her reading of the Bill in this regard. Oversight of State security and Garda functions is not listed as either an objective or function of the board, although the reporting obligations of the Garda Commissioner relating to policing and security matters extends to the board and the Minister. The Garda should not be entitled to use the catch-all excuse of "State security" to defend the blue wall of silence. The European Court of Human Rights has held against such an excuse in terms of, for example, the Garda covert surveillance legislation. Whether the Garda should be responsible for national policing as well as State security is a discussion for another day, but this Bill has been drafted with the current arrangement in mind. For clarity, will the Minister examine sections 17(8), the new section 17B in section 28 and the new section 93A, which give comfort on the matter of State security? Sections 96 and 99 of the 2005 Act, which allow the Minister to give a direction, would not be amended by this Bill.

The value of transparency is promoted throughout the Bill by the requirement on the board to publish all relevant codes, operational policies and procedures and on the ombudsman commission to receive and publish follow-up details of all investigations. The publication and accessibility of these documents has long been recommended by the ICCL and the IHRC. The value of transparency was strongly emphasised throughout the Patten report. Transparency would be increased under the Bill through the identification of the Garda as a public body for the purposes of freedom of information legislation, which was recommended by the UN in its most recent report on compliance with the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights. It was also promised in the programme for Government. In 2008, the Information Commissioner pointed out that Ireland was almost unique in Europe in excluding its police force from the scope of freedom of information law. Current Government proposals on freedom of information only extend to the Garda's administrative records relating to human resources, finances and procurement matters.

While I welcome the Government's long-awaited admission that an independent and statutory inquiry is needed, I am concerned that there may be a temptation to kick these issues down the road without any real or meaningful commitment to wholesale reform of the Garda's structures. Despite Labour's newfound interest in police reform, it was not interested enough to include the matter in the programme for Government.

Some Government Deputies have a tendency to refer to these issues as legacy or historical in an effort to distance themselves and to justify their lack of action, which led to a wholesale political crisis. Last night, a Deputy told the House that he would stand shoulder to shoulder with gardaí regardless of whether they were good or bad. Surely, this is a cause for worry for all citizens.

Last night, it was pointed out that working in the Garda was a dangerous job and that many gave great service to the State. I agree wholeheartedly. Their job is certainly more dangerous than that of a politician. However, we would do well to remember that, since 2002, eight gardaí have tragically lost their lives at work, but that, in the same period, 47 fishermen have died at work and 172 people have died on construction sites, many of them roofers. When one is enjoying one's fish or listening to the rain lashing off the roof, spare a thought for those workers, too.

I pay tribute to the people in the Public Gallery, many of whom feel that they have not got justice and that they have suffered due to Garda malpractice or corruption of one form or another. It has been more than a year since we first met them, mainly at our Red Cow meetings. It was hard to give them hope, but we tried without giving them unrealistic expectations. Change does not come easily in Ireland. The blue wall of silence is very powerful not just in the Garda, but also in the Department of Justice and Equality and the Government. After more than a year, there is a little more hope. The Garda Commissioner was forced to resign because it was found that he had not done his job properly. The former Minister for Justice and Equality had to go because he did not do his job properly. The people in the Public Gallery are starting to believe that, maybe, justice is possible after all. I ask the Minister not to disappoint them.

See this speech in context