Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I note that it is part of the Government's and the Minister for Justice and Equality’s pledged reform of policing and the overhaul of the legislative framework for An Garda Síochána. These promised reforms arise out of the plethora of reports and controversies over the past year with the Cooke, Guerin and Garda Inspectorate reports.

I have always been strongly of the view that An Garda Síochána should be managed by an independent Garda or policing authority as is the case in so many other jurisdictions. Of course this was the policy of the Labour Party for many years. It was perhaps most cogently expressed in a policy document by the present Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin. I welcome the Minister's commitment to establish the policing authority and her promise to publish the necessary legislation for the new authority in the coming months. I have been a long-time supporter of community policing. I helped organise Garda and community meetings for many years before the existing joint policing committees, JPCs, were established. The gardaí in our Dublin Metropolitan division in the north-central area of Dublin city were always very supportive of those meetings, even before the legislation existed.

I spoke in this House earlier this year when Members discussed serious allegations raised about An Garda Síochána from claims made by whistleblowers, including Sergeant Maurice McCabe. At that time, I said that I agreed with the sentiments of former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Nuala O'Loan, about the deficiencies in the current structure and powers of GSOC as compared to the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman. Baroness O'Loan had said specifically that there were three issues which would preclude her from ever taking up the role of Garda Ombudsman: the lack of powers of GSOC to investigate the performance of a Garda Commissioner; the lack of power GSOC has to access all of the information, through police using leading systems effectively, PULSE, etc. that it requires from An Garda Síochána to carry out its investigations; and the fact that serving gardaí are working inside GSOC in a liaison capacity. Only one of these fundamental issues, the extension of GSOC's powers to investigate the Garda Commissioner, is addressed in the Bill. Some people have raised concerns about the provisions of section 7 and how it will operate.

I welcome the provisions contained in the Garda Síochána Amendment (No. 3) Bill 2014 and note it is part of a wider reform of policing in this country. However, it appears the Bill does not go far enough in addressing identified deficiencies with the operation of GSOC and the powers afforded to it. The Bill lacks clarity in some of its primary provisions, particularly in relation to when the time limit for making complaints actually kicks in and the lack of express timeframes for the Garda Síochána to be required to send necessary information to GSOC in order for GSOC to carry out its investigations. Those matters need to be considered more closely. The Bill is silent on some of the identified necessary reforms such as taking the Garda Síochána completely out of GSOC to ensure full impartiality and independence. One of the core principles of natural justice is nemo iudex in causa sua, no one should be a judge in his own case.

I served as a spokesperson in various areas during the years. I held various portfolios, including communications and transport. I am aware that the existing staff members of a telecommunications company would not be embedded in the Commission for Communications Regulation in some way. Similarly, existing staff members of an energy company would not be embedded in the Commission for Energy Regulation. Such a lacuna will continue in this area after this legislation has been enacted. People who are being regulated should not be working within the office of the regulator. As long as we continue to allow members of the Garda to be involved in any capacity in the investigatory functions of GSOC, we will not be true to the core principle of natural justice. This issue should be specifically addressed in the Bill before the House.

While I welcome the extension of GSOC's remit to include investigations concerning the Garda Commissioner, I share the concerns expressed by some stakeholders and experts, including Professor Dermot Walsh, about the apparent veto the Minister for Justice and Equality will have in any proposed investigation by GSOC regarding the Garda Commissioner. I also welcome the inclusion of a new power for GSOC to carry out investigations on its own initiative, which is very important. I note that the Office of the Ombudsman for Children has always had the power to carry out investigations on its own initiative under section 7 of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002.

I welcome the strengthened powers of surveillance that are to be afforded to designated officers of GSOC to investigate complaints, particularly about alleged criminal behaviour. I note that some concern has been expressed about the extension of surveillance powers to GSOC, specifically the possibility that this could interfere with ongoing criminal investigations by An Garda Síochána. There is a mechanism in place for surveillance applications to be invigilated by the Judiciary under section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009. Other specific procedures for surveillance in urgent cases are provided for in section 7 of the Act. These provisions should afford the necessary safeguards for any surveillance application made by designated officers of GSOC under the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009, as amended by this Bill.

My concerns about the Bill and the existing GSOC legislative framework are based on my experience of constituents interacting with the GSOC and briefings I have received from the PARC road safety group which has extensive experience in supporting families who have made complaints to GSOC about traffic collisions. It has repeatedly come to my attention that the existing six month time limit for initiating complaints is too short. It has precluded some potential complainants from being afforded an opportunity to make a complaint to GSOC. In that context, I welcome section 4 of the Bill which amends section 84 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 by increasing the permissible time limit for making complaints to GSOC from six months to 12, while retaining the ability of GSOC to extend the time limit if there are good reasons for doing so. The existing section 84(1) of the 2005 Act provides that "a complaint must be made within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the conduct giving rise to the complaint or within any extension of that period allowed under subsection (2)". I believe there is a lack of clarity about the beginning of the time limit. Does it begin on the date on which the incident giving rise to the complaint occurred, or does it begin on the date on which the complainant became aware of the conduct giving rise to the complaint? I recognise that this is a somewhat technical issue. The lack of clarity about when the time limit kicks in has been prohibitive for some complainants, particularly those who have gone through traumatic experiences and find the GSOC complaints system difficult to navigate.

Another issue that has been raised with me but whih is not addressed in the Bill relates to any discipline or sanctions that may be imposed when a complaint about a member of An Garda Síochána is accepted and upheld by GSOC. As far as I am aware, there is no obligation on An Garda Síochána to inform GSOC or the complainants about the disciplinary sanctions imposed on a member who has been found by GSOC to have been involved in misbehaviour. This could and should be addressed in the legislation before the House. Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, might consider amending the Bill to bring more clarity and transparency to it and ensure complainants will have an idea of how satisfactorily their complaints have been addressed.

I refer to the express provision in section 9 of the Bill that inserts a new section after section 103 in the 2005 Act, requiring An Garda Síochána to supply information necessary to carry out investigations to GSOC as soon as practicable. I acknowledge the express inclusion of this requirement in the Bill. I appreciate that the tardy exchange of information between the Garda and GSOC has rightly been a point of contention and is now the subject of revised protocols. Many other Deputies have made that point in the House. The provision in the Bill relating to the exchange of information could be much more robust. It should include specific timeframes during which the Garda would be compelled to supply information requested by GSOC which has been deemed necessary for investigations.

A related concern in the area of access to information is the lack of an express provision in the Bill for designated officers of GSOC to have access to the PULSE system. In its report on the review of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality recommended that access by GSOC to PULSE should be placed on a statutory footing, not by way of protocols. This recommendation was made by a dedicated committee of the House in a report that further states "the access to Garda systems is of integral importance to the operation of effective oversight of An Garda Síochána". The Minister's stated aim in introducing the Bill and reforming the 2005 Act is to improve confidence in policing and strengthen the powers of GSOC. I suggest GSOC will not be in a position to adequately carry out some investigations without being permitted to access PULSE.

How and by whom will the activities of GSOC be invigilated? I note that Vicky Conway who has written extensively on policing matters has suggested it is unclear how the public will complain about GSOC's performance or use of its powers. In other words, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guardians? We often use this famous phrase in reference to An Garda Síochána, but who will make sure GSOC is doing its job? I assume there will be some oversight by the new policing authority. Perhaps the Minister might clarify this matter for us when she replies at the end of the debate.

I welcome this legislation as a first small step towards bringing about necessary reforms to policing in Ireland and the oversight of An Garda Síochána. As I have pointed out, a number of outstanding issues need to be addressed, particularly with regard to the information which can be accessed by GSOC designated officers and the timeframes in which information must be provided for GSOC by An Garda Síochána. Serving gardaí should not be working in GSOC in any capacity, as this completely undermines the independence of the GSOC organisation. I hope some of the other issues I have raised that merit further clarity in this legislation such as the question of when the time limit for making a complaint will kick in will be addressed on Committee Stage or in the further promised legislation the Minister plans to introduce.

Many Deputies read the recent Garda Inspectorate report very carefully. I raised the issue, too. I note that a former follow member of one of the local policing committees in my constituency is present in the Chamber for this debate. He shares my interest in how Garda statistics, particularly crime statistics, are collated and presented to us and the public. There are some concerns in this regard. I have been assured by the chief superintendent in our region, Mr. Frank Clerkin, that An Garda Síochána can stand over the statistics we are presented with on a bimonthly or trimonthly basis. I believe that to be the case. The Garda Inspectorate report was disturbing. I hope the Minister will respond to it and agree to debate it in the House.

See this speech in context