Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

This is the easiest limitation to identify in the Bill. It probably reflects a decision by the Government to tinker around the edges of Garda reform in the teeth of a massive public outcry on foot of the heroic efforts by a number of Garda whistleblowers, followed by which members of the public began to speak about their own experiences. These interventions led to a change in mentality both inside and outside of this House.

The Bill as it stands will not deliver the reforms that are necessary to establish a modern police service rather than the old type of police force that was subject to much public discussion. From the days of the heavy gang, the Kerry babies investigation and the Sallins train robbery through to the Donegal cases and the blue wall of silence in investigations the tendency was to cover up for poor behaviour. This Bill is supposed to offer a new start in terms of accountability but we need a system which offers the public an effective mechanism for bringing complaints about the activities of members of An Garda Síochána. The idea that the Garda Commissioner would be excluded from such a situation is clearly laughable. However, while it is welcome that the Commissioner is now being included, the provision that it will be subject to the approval of the Minister takes the teeth from the entire process and undermines the strength and independence of GSOC. The political protection of the Commissioner remains.

2 o’clock

It is precisely as Deputy Wallace says. While GSOC can now investigate the Commissioner, it is only where the Minister consents and in the case of an offence or serious misconduct rather than by way of a facility to analyse ongoing behaviour and breach of duty. That is why amendment No. 15, which refers to repeated breach of duty, is also important. It should not only be in the case of a one-off incident and on an ad hoc, once-in-a-blue-moon, basis that GSOC can to investigate. There should be a system to provide for effective monitoring and remedies on an ongoing basis where the Commissioner's behaviour is called to account.

The fact that GSOC has now replaced the confidential recipient adds a new dimension to this scenario. While members of the public may have complaints about individual gardaí or the practices, policies and procedures which can be complained about through the figurehead of the Garda Síochána, it will sometimes be the case that the personal actions of the Garda Commissioner affect matters. That is more likely to happen in cases where the complainant is a member of An Garda Síochána. The likelihood of a private citizen having a complaint personally against the Garda Commissioner rather than in respect of Garda policies is limited. However, gardaí themselves are in a position where they are more likely to need that mechanism. That is why this needs to have more teeth.

Public utterances are being made by the new Commissioner welcoming whistleblowers and asking people to speak out against dissent, but within the ranks of An Garda Síochána the reality is very different. This because there are a number of people who used the mechanisms internally and through GSOC to make very serious complaints of Garda misconduct against their peers and, in particular, against senior members of the force. These serving Garda whistleblowers are living in hell as we speak. One of them is out sick for a period of nearly ten months and his case is being investigated by GSOC. It is a very difficult situation for that man and his family. As he goes about his daily business, he has to face unmarked patrol cars coming to the place he lives where no random cars pass by. He has a feeling of complete vulnerability and susceptibility to pressure. The Garda Commissioner overseas appointments, promotions and senior staffing and in many cases these are the people involved in the activity the person is complaining about. We have to be very mindful of that fact.

Some of the matters which have been brought forward for investigation involve very serious matters, including for example, gardaí being involved in the drugs trade, which is of deep concern. Information on this may have been given to the Commissioner and not acted upon while members of the force are still in their jobs. These are very worrying matters. The fact that complaints can be made for a period of nine or ten months without anything being done or any feedback provided is very worrying. We must remove political protection. While we will not rehearse what we debated yesterday and over the past few years in terms of the relationship between the former Minister for Justice and Equality and the former Commissioner, it is the reason many of these issues have got public traction. There was a feeling that the police force was, as the former Commissioner said, his force and not a body that should be accountable to citizens.

We must be careful here as a great deal of the activity gardaí are being forced into at the moment is not helping, including the involvement of members of An Garda Síochána in the policing of anti-water charges protests or the installation of water meters. We have been contacted by very senior members of An Garda Síochána who feel they are being pressurised by those at the top of the force because of political interference at Government level. They are being told to send their officers out to act as a private security firm for Irish Water and to go to war against the citizens they are trying to work with in communities on a collective and ongoing basis. The result of that has been a knock-back of community relations which undermines some excellent work by community gardaí who have been trying to move things on. It is critically important that any political protection is removed. We must make a couple of amendments on that while including breach of duty.

See this speech in context