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

The Minister implied that we were saying nothing had changed. We have not said that, but this is a good, or poor, example of how things are half-changing or quarter-changing. That is the point we are trying to address. It is very good that, for the first time, section 103 inserts a statutory and legal obligation on the Commissioner to provide information to GSOC. That is good and we are very happy with it but as Deputy Wallace said, it is only being provided in regard to section 102 inquiries. It is not being provided in sections 95 and 98, and most of the queries and complaints that come before GSOC come under those criteria, involving the people with whom all the Deputies' paths have crossed. In such cases, in many instances information has not been passed over in a timely or accurate manner to GSOC and this has inhibited its ability to conduct proper investigations. That point is even more critical in regard to section 106, on investigations into practices, policies and procedures. This is a new departure, which was highlighted repeatedly over the years on multiple occasions by the UN human rights bodies and special rapporteurs. Giving the Government possession of those reports when they come back is not good enough. It is moving a quarter of the way in the direction we need to go. That means it is a piecemeal and non-comprehensive approach to what we need to be doing.

I do not think our amendment is in contradiction of Deputy Mac Lochlainn's. Thirty days versus four weeks is not the problem. The point we are both trying to get at is that it is very hard to define "as soon as practicable". If members of An Garda Síochána were being obstreperous or unhelpful in their dealings, relying on what Deputy Wallace called soft law or protocols, that is not enough. Defining the timescale in some way would be better. It might be something we have to return to later and monitor if the Minister is not going to accept the amendment now.

See this speech in context