Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the contributors to the debate. The Deputies who have spoken are the Deputies who have been consistent in their pursuit of a better criminal justice system which is what we all want. I thank those Deputies for taking the time to attend today in order to contribute to this important debate.

The Minister of State is a Dublin representative and I think he will agree that the situation in Dublin is nearing a very severe precipice. A chronic situation has developed in Dublin city centre and it is not receiving its due acknowledgement from Government. My colleague, Deputy Barry Cowen, raised the issues which were also highlighted on last night's "Prime Time" programme on RTE which included comments last Thursday by the Minister of State's party leader, the Tánaiste, Deputy Joan Burton. She did not seem to acknowledge or to have a handle on the problems as highlighted by the "Prime Time" programme.

The tourism industry and businesses in Dublin city centre have been articulating this problem for a long time. I refer to the related problems of homelessness, drug abuse and the incidence of crime which are visible every day in broad daylight. The Government must acknowledge the problem. I refer to the CSO new model for reporting crime statistics which was introduced 18 months ago. In my view this model masks the problem. There needs to be an acknowledgement that what was shown last night on "Prime Time" is the case and is impacting on the residents and businesses of Dublin and the city centre as well as on the tourism industry of our capital city. I do not have all the solutions but as a starting point there needs to be an acknowledgement of the problem. I compliment RTE for the very fine programme and the way in which it was produced.

The Government must prioritise the issue of gangland crime in Dublin. I refer to how this problem was addressed in Limerick with great credit due to the Government and to successive Governments for dealing with this issue which has yielded the right results. It is a situation that requires ongoing work every day of the week. I refer to the incident in Balbriggan last week but I have a constructive criticism that the Tánaiste was in pure denial in the House in this regard.

This Bill differs in one key point from the Minister's Bill in that she proposes to keep a veto on any investigation or review by GSOC of the activities of the Garda Commissioner. This proposal needs to be teased out further. If GSOC is to have true independence in its capacity for oversight, there should not be a veto.

All Members have signed up to the proposal for an independent policing authority and this is to be welcomed. However, there needs to be a realistic timeline for delivery of the authority but I note that the legislation is not listed on the Government's legislative programme. We were promised that this legislation would be enacted before the end of the year. I ask the Minister of State if it will be enacted before the end of the year because I am doubtful. The Government and the Minister have not given any indication that this legislation will be ready before the end of the year. This point is related to the recruitment of the new Garda Commissioner.

I refer to our recent trip to Scotland and to Northern Ireland where it was obvious that for an independent policing authority to be truly independent it is necessary that its main function is the appointment of a Garda Commissioner. If the Minister plans to appoint a Garda Commissioner in advance of the establishment of the independent policing authority, she is removing from that authority one of its most important functions. The recruitment process is underway but the independent policing authority has not been established. It could be argued that the cart is being put before the horse in this instance. I suggest that an interim independent policing authority could be appointed to participate in the recruitment process. This was the solution in other jurisdictions such as in Northern Ireland and in Scotland. It would mean that there can be no accusation that one was compromised by the absence of the other.

Other speakers have suggested the names of those they would like to be Garda Commissioner. I do not have a view in that regard. I wish all the applicants well; it is immaterial whether they are from outside or inside the jurisdiction, once the process is robust to deliver the best candidate for the job. I refer to the need for action on the Guerin report and that we have been promised a commission of investigation. Speakers have complimented the good work of the rank and file members of An Garda Síochána. Much of the debate in this House has rightly focused on the negative aspects and on malpractice.

However, we must give credit where it is due.

One section of the force which tends to be forgotten in this debate is the Garda Reserve. There are people within An Garda Síochána, namely, the reservists, who are doing tremendous work. These individuals are undervalued by the system and I am of the view that the system must be changed in order that their contribution might be recognised. They are not given any credit in terms of the recruitment process - the most recent round of which has just been completed - and neither is their service or input acknowledged. This is a matter to which we must give consideration in the context of the legislation that is coming down the tracks. Reservists perform the same duties as fully attested members of the force on an unremunerated basis, and many of them do so in the hope and with the intent of fully progressing to the full-time ranks An Garda Síochána. The contribution made by these people is both ignored and undervalued.

The notion of establishing a criminal justice inspectorate must be taken on board and considered in a serious manner. We already have a number of self-contained inspectorates, including that operated by the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention and the Garda Inspectorate. If we had an overarching criminal justice inspectorate, it would be of great assistance in the context of the operation of the criminal justice system and its component parts, namely, the courts, the prisons, the Probation Service, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Garda Síochána and GSOC. All of the entities to which I refer play their part in the context of the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, however, there are many cracks between these different component parts. If there was an overarching inspectorate which could advise and attempt to fill the cracks to which I refer, it would be of major assistance. The inspectorates that are already in place have done fine work. We are aware, for example, of all the good reports produced by the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention, Mr. Michael Reilly, a former judge, and of the fact that Chief Inspector Bob Olson of the Garda Inspectorate has produced some very fine recommendations, many of which have been acted upon. The establishment of an overarching criminal justice inspectorate which could focus in particular on the role the courts play within the criminal system would be a welcome development. Over 600,000 out of a total of 1.6 million summonses were not served between 2009 and 2012. There would have been genuine reasons why a number of these were not served - for example, if the person to whom a particular summons referred had left the country or resided outside the jurisdiction. No one has been held accountable for the failure to deliver the summonses to which I refer. The fact that they were not served resulted in a huge loss of revenue to the State. This is one of the reasons we need an overarching inspectorate.

There are more than 300 cases involving allegations of misconduct or malpractice on the part of some members of An Garda Síochána with the panel of counsel for review. I and other Deputies on all sides of the House referred a number of those cases to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald. The latter informed me that the panel, which comprises two senior counsel and a number of junior counsel, is going about its work. I am raising this issue again because the people to whom I have been speaking in the context of some of the cases I referred to the Taoiseach and the Minister are unhappy because they have not been met in person by the panel of counsel. What is happening is that desk reviews are being carried out in respect of the paperwork which has been submitted. Many of those involved cannot afford to pay to have written submissions drafted on their behalf. In addition, they may not themselves be capable of presenting their cases in the most full or informed manner. There is no doubt that these individuals have stories to tell. I am of the view that in order to satisfy those who have made allegations and submitted the relevant paperwork to the Department of Justice and Equality should, at a minimum, be met by the senior counsel on the panel and afforded the opportunity to recount their stories. If a person is making a social welfare appeal, he or she has the option of an oral hearing and can meet an appeals officer face to face. The avenue of appeal relating to the panel of counsel is one for people who feel they have not received justice. I am going to pursue this matter at every opportunity because I am of the view that those who have made allegations should be afforded the opportunity to have face-to-face meetings with the senior counsel involved.

See this speech in context