Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Renua Ireland) | Oireachtas source

In fairness to her, I fully accept that the Minister did not assume the justice portfolio until just before the Toland report was published. Regular meetings should be standard practice in all Departments. From my experience, that is not always the case.

If the position of Secretary General is occupied on an interim basis, what value are these meetings in the context of developing a long-term strategic direction and vision for the Department? I accept that the absence of a long-term permanent occupant of the position places the Minister in a difficult position, but the matter must be addressed urgently if the Department is to undergo the root and branch reform that has been promised and which was recommended by the Toland report. The public deserves this reform. The current scenario and absence of a leader is illustrative of a Department which is viewed by members of the public, in the words of Kevin Toland's review group, as being beset by a "closed, secretive and silo driven culture." Mr. Toland's report also found "Significant leadership and management problems" and "Ineffective management processes and structures to provide significant leadership and management oversight to key agencies both to hold them accountable and to ensure their effectiveness is maximised."

The Toland report has been strongly corroborated in the past fortnight by the interim report of Mr. Justice Fennelly, which again exposed a complete absence of efficient communication and transparency in the Department.

This is an issue of significant concern in a modern, developed democracy. The question I ask of the Minister, which she will no doubt endeavour to answer, is this: who is leading this promised root-and-branch reform of the Department? Without a permanent Secretary General of the Department, it is very hard to see how it can happen.

I note that Deputy Niall Collins earlier expressed his hope that the Bill will maintain current levels of public trust in An Garda Síochána. On this point, I disagree. As I said at the outset, current levels of public trust in An Garda Síochána are very, very low. It is incumbent upon the Minister, her Department, her Secretary General, when he or she arrives, and the Garda Commissioner, Nóirín O'Sullivan, to show leadership by taking active steps to restore a relationship of confidence between the Irish public and An Garda Síochána. That will take time. Deputy O'Donnell has highlighted very clearly the major issues of concern, which I accept are absolutely acute in rural Ireland. However, they are not exclusive to rural Ireland. They exist throughout the country. There is huge concern, particularly among elderly people and people living alone. They feel isolated and have lost confidence in the policing of the State. That is partly because of the scandals that have emerged but also because of the resourcing issues in rural Ireland. These are significant challenges that face the Minister, and I wish her well, genuinely, in trying to tackle them.

An issue has come to light in recent weeks which really illustrates that things have not changed and that the culture that led to the vilification of whistleblowers within An Garda Síochána just 18 months ago is still there. The problems and that culture are still there. Recent whistleblower revelations show that many of the most serious cultural problems still exist and have not been rooted out, despite lofty statements by the Garda Commissioner and the Minister. We saw a very recent case in which two whistleblowers found that when they made complaints about a senior member of An Garda Síochána, the person within the force assigned to investigate was actually connected to the person complained about. That is completely inappropriate and shows that the systems are not changing. With those systems, unfortunately, the culture remains largely unchanged. This is something that must be prioritised. It will require a huge effort and co-ordination between the Minister, the Garda Commissioner and the new policing authority. It is imperative that this culture is rooted out of An Garda Síochána; otherwise, the public will not have confidence in its ability to discharge its duties.

A further question that arises is the following. What aspects of this Bill would have stopped the events described in the interim Fennelly report from happening? The sacking of the Garda Commissioner was a clear abuse of power. It was an abuse of power for cynical, self-preserving and base political reasons and nothing has happened in relation to it. The Government has closed ranks and denied any wrongdoing and there is no facing up to the very clear findings in the Fennelly report and the huge contradictions in the evidence given by the various people who surrounded the hazy events in which the Garda Commissioner was constructively dismissed. Given that An Taoiseach, supported by his Cabinet colleagues, including the Minister for Justice and Equality, continues to stick to the barely credible version of events which purports that Martin Callinan retired from his position entirely of his own volition rather than at the behest of An Taoiseach, it is clear that the events of March 2014 could easily be repeated, notwithstanding the contents of this worthy Bill. That is a matter of grave concern. What aspects of this Bill or a new Garda authority would address the highly worrying state of affairs that allowed the former Commissioner, Martin Callinan, to destroy between eight and ten bags of documents on the day of his resignation? That is something the Minister must address urgently. A decade ago, the Morris tribunal recommended specifically the introduction of sanctions for the destruction of any papers or journals by any member of An Garda Síochána. This recommendation remains utterly not implemented. That sits in neat parallel with the failure of the Garda Commissioner to respond in any meaningful way to my letter of complaint in relation to Mr. Callinan's destruction of such a substantial number of documents. The Minister has been very quiet on this - disappointingly so. She has the power to launch an inquiry into what happened to that documentation to establish what was contained in it and whether it included sensitive materials pertaining to cases that the former Commissioner was involved in or aware of. It is essential that the Minister confront the issue and recognise that changes such as those proposed in the Bill will not achieve anything if they are not accompanied by cultural changes in her Department and within the police force, as outlined in the Toland and Guerin reports. We have a long way to go before those recommendations are implemented.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to having a debate in the House on the appointment of the members of the Garda authority and to require a resolution of both Houses to make such appointments. However, it is regrettable that such parliamentary oversight of a State body is an anomaly in the context of the Government's failure to fundamentally and substantively reform the way in which appointments to State boards are made. That remains the case. Nothing has really changed. The establishment of the Public Appointments Service has not removed the influence of political patronage from the appointment process across the board and the Government continues to repeat the cronyism of its predecessors. The slight anomaly in the legislation which allows the Government to make the initial appointments to the first board is a mistake. The Minister should start as it is intended to go on. It should be a completely open and transparent process in which people apply, are selected completely independently of the Government and are then ratified or otherwise by the Dáil and Seanad. That would be a much better way to start. It would be a better start for the authority itself and would lend credibility to the Minister's stated intention of having an completely independent policing authority. That slight caveat in the legislation is a shame, and perhaps the Minister might consider accepting or putting down an amendment on Committee or Report Stage to change that.

Finally, I turn to political involvement in An Garda Síochána, which is something that has been deeply controversial in the last number of years. The issue of the authority's membership forms part of a wider issue raised by the Bill - namely, the role of politics and politicians in the administration of policing. It is clear from the proposed legislation that the Government will retain a role in policing, most notably in its capacity to appoint or remove a Garda Commissioner and in its appointment of the members of the authority. There is no easy answer to this. I mean that genuinely. A balance must be found between depoliticising policing and maintaining democratic accountability in the area of justice. In the case of the HSE, we have seen an utter failure to achieve that balance. The lessons of the HSE underscore the dangers or potential risks of removing the administration of a major arm of Government from the direct control of a Minister and placing it with an outside authority. The Minister must be really cognisant of this, as must all of us as parliamentarians, as the Bill goes through the Houses and as we review its performance over the coming years. It will not be acceptable for a Minister to come to the Chamber, as we have seen with successive Ministers for Health, and say "It has nothing to do with me; it is a matter for the policing authority."

It is essential that the Minister of Justice and Equality remain a central figure in terms of being accountable to the House and, therefore, the people for policing policy and the administration of justice. It is a balancing act.

I am concerned that the fingerprints of the Labour Party are evident in the Bill, given the bizarre obligation of the new authority to consult trade unions in the formulation of a code of ethics for the Garda. It is unclear whether a trade union could have a meaningful role in this process, but the unions' inclusion under section 16 once more reminds us of their disproportionate influence over the affairs of the Government, most recently demonstrated by their shameful exclusion from the requirements placed by the Minister, Deputy Howlin's, lobbying Act. This shows that there is one rule for every other organisation and a special rule for trade unions, obviously at the behest of their friends in government. It is bizarre and disappointing that such vested interests continue to wield influence over all aspects of governance, notwithstanding the promise of a democratic revolution just four and a half short years ago.

I urge the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, to take into account the legitimate issues that have been raised about the Bill by Deputies on all benches. Deputy Stanton, the Chairman of the justice committee, made a number of pertinent points. His committee has given great attention to the Bill and made significant recommendations, some of which have been included in the Bill but many of which have not. I hope that there will be genuine engagement by the Minister. It is in everyone's interests that we restore confidence in her Department and the Garda and restore the people's faith in the administration of justice. It will not be an easy task or be achieved by this Bill alone, but if the Minister is willing to work with Members from all sides of the House so that the Bill does what it sets out to achieve, that is, ensure a strong, robust and independent policing authority that can hold senior levels of Garda management to account and create a genuine sea change in the culture within the Garda, many Deputies will work with her to that end.

See this speech in context