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

It is something of an indictment of the Government's handling of the situation in the Garda that, while everything is different, it remains the same. There has been a sea change over the course of the Government's lifetime in the population's attitude towards the Garda, a greater consciousness and understanding of its role and, probably, a greater demoralisation within the service itself than at any time before. The issues were not new, having been brewing for decades. They surfaced initially in the horrendous findings of the Morris tribunal, with the idea of a few bad apples in a part of the country being mooted, until it suddenly became clear that this was not just a case of a few bad apples, but of a systemic problem in the Garda's functioning, the blue wall of silence that resulted in gardaí being set apart from the general population.

A number of activities that I will discuss emerged during the course of this Government's lifetime, and it had the opportunity to do something about them. Instead of taking that opportunity, we now have a fig leaf, an attempt to derail the public attention that has been placed on this issue. The genuine demand for a police service that is accountable to the population has been scuppered. "Fig leaf" is the most flattering phrase I will use. I could be more insulting, but I will not be in polite conversation.

We must consider the Fennelly report because the Taoiseach, in his defence of his role in the sacking of the former Garda Commissioner, pointed to the "great" measures that the Government had taken to reform the Garda and highlighted this legislation. Many people have claimed that the report seems contradictory. In some ways it is, but it is also an incredibly thorough report put together by an able individual. The circle can only be squared in light of the terms of reference. Mr. Justice Fennelly was asked to consider the visit to the former Commissioner's house in the context of the tapes controversy. Upon considering what happened, though, it is clear that there is no way that the Commissioner jumped because of the tapes. Ironically, that was one area in which he performed and acquitted himself perfectly well. He stopped the practice as soon as he was made aware of it, accounted for the tapes, gathered and secured them and sought advice from the Attorney General and Departments. He was found negligent in his failure to notify the Minister, but he was awaiting information on the matter. Everything else was okay.

It is clear from the report that the Commissioner had become toxic and his role was untenable. That is no news to us, as we had been calling for his departure long before he jumped. The problem is the manner in which this was done. The Commissioner had to go because of the major problems within the Garda, which were made public through the heroic stance taken by the whistleblowers. It might be all well and good now for everyone to bandy around criticisms of the Garda and so on. Every media report of a problem is readily accepted in the House. When we first raised such concerns on behalf of the whistleblowers though, they were not accepted. We were criticised in the media and this House. How dare we raise a question about the heroic men and women of the Garda?

Everything has changed substantially. The revelations about wholesale malpractice in penalty point operations blew the lid and proved to people what they had long suspected, namely, that there were problems within the Garda. This gave many others the confidence to come forward and discuss their problems with the Garda's functioning, including the horrendous cases of injustice that resulted in the formation of the independent review mechanism. Hundreds of cases have been buried in that mechanism, with people no nearer to achieving justice. Their issues have been kicked down the road.

The wanton indiscipline in the Garda that Judge Peter Smithwick referred to is still there. We have a new Commissioner and Minister, but life goes on pretty much the same. The experience of current whistleblowers is dim. When a garda complained about a senior garda, information about the complaint was leaked to the latter. Subsequently, the new Commissioner appointed the person who had leaked the information to carry out disciplinary action on the senior garda, his friend. One could not make this stuff up, but it is live and current inside the Garda.

People refer to political policing. Political policing is not about picking on a particular party, whinging about feeling victimised and so on. It goes hand in hand with capitalism. It is a system whereby a state relies on the police to promote and defend the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the majority of citizens. The purpose of this debate is not to whinge about that situation, but to consider how to improve it. As a result of the great actions taken by whistleblowers during this Government's lifetime, the public has come to understand that this is not the type of police force that they want. Rather, they want a modern service that operates to human rights standards and is accountable to and serves the community. This is also what most people who join the Garda for the right reasons want. It is in everyone's interests that we achieve that end.

A key nugget along the way is the delivery of an independent Garda authority, but that is not what the Government is proposing.

This legislation is an utter insult. When compared with the Bill introduced by Deputy Wallace that already has gone through Second Stage here, it is incredibly weaker. That Bill provides for an independent police service but in this Bill, political control over the authority and the Garda Síochána is being retained by the Minister. That unquestionably is a fact. There have been many fanfares around this issue. The Taoiseach told Members in March 2014 that this so-called independent policing authority would be up and running by the end of 2014. Members now are being told it will be up and running by the end of 2015, which is highly unlikely.

The reality is that under this Bill, ministerial and Government control of the authority and the Garda is maintained at every turn with perhaps the exception that it can do a bit of CCTV on its own. However, the authority must consult the Minister on everything else. The heads envisaged a model in which there was a division of accountability between security and policing work of An Garda Síochána. While accountability is directly to the Minister in respect of security issues, as for accountability on policing matters, on the one hand it is to the Minister alone but on the other hand, sometimes reporting responsibilities on policing matters are to both the Minister and the authority. Moreover, sometimes they are to the authority, which then is responsible and accountable to the Minister. It is an absolute fudge. It is chaotic, it is not clear and is a recipe for blame games and the type of fluthering around that was experienced in respect of the controversy with the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC.

An examination of head 24 really exposes how this Bill does not provide for an independent policing authority. As the Minister proposes it, the authority can only ask GSOC to investigate the Garda Commissioner if it believes the Garda Commissioner may have committed an offence or behaved in a manner which would constitute serious misconduct if the Minister consents to that happening. What is that about? How in God's name could the authority be considered to be independent if it cannot even investigate the Commissioner without the Minister stating it is allowed to so do? The Commissioner is remaining under the political protection of the Minister, which was the very nub of many of the problems discerned in the course of the present Government.

One talks about consultation in this process and these issues have been raised by the public. However, the consultation process that was embarked on was an utter sham. The proposed authority before Members is incredibly weaker than any of the proposals that were put to the Government by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, and the experts on policing. It is incredibly weaker than what exists in the North or in Scotland or than what was put together by the Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. Laughably, in light of what Deputy Creighton stated, it is completely different from what the Labour Party states it thought an independent police authority would be. This watered-down version is a pale shadow of any of those things. When Deputy Wallace put together his Bill, which I reiterate has passed Second Stage, we engaged in extensive research and consultation with a massive number of stakeholders in its preparation. We consulted Justice4All, all the GSOC commissioners, the ICCL, Transparency International and all the academics in this area. We made lengthy submissions to the Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and so on. The aforementioned Bill is meant to be on Committee Stage but obviously it will be trumped by this watered-down version and I do not believe that to be good enough.

It is ironic when Deputy Creighton talks about trade unions, as if the trade unions must be laughing themselves sick to think their agenda has been furthered by the present Administration, when many of their members have been disenfranchised massively by it. However, the reality is that the Labour Party's proposals on this issue, published in 2014, recommended that the authority would appoint the Garda Commissioner and other senior staff through open competition. This is not being done in this Bill. It recommended the authority would hold the Commissioner to account, which has not been done in this Bill and that the authority would prepare a policing plan with measurable targets. None of these recommendations is in this legislation. It is a poor step that the Minister would be required to consult the Garda Representative Association, GRA, or the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI, which I would not count in any way as trade unions or representative of the decent gardaí inside An Garda Síochána, given the disgraceful conduct of those organisations in trying to stifle transparency and open debate.

This legislation fails. It deals with performance targets and I would have a severe concern if the Government is pushing for target-driven policing on a legislative basis. Does that mean we will have a repeat of the doctoring of the crime figures that was evident in the Garda Inspectorate report? The Bill talks about budgets. The heads provided that the authority would ensure Garda resources were used to maintain the highest levels of efficiency and effectiveness, but this now has been changed "to provide advice" to the Minister before each financial year. That is absolutely meaningless and if one compares it with the real independent policing authority in Scotland, for example, that authority has 13 members. It is funded from a 10% portion of the overall policing budget and has a budget of more than £110 million, as well as approximately 60 staff. The authority in Northern Ireland has 20 members, a staff of 55, three directors of service and a £1.2 billion annual policing bill. In Ireland, we are proposing eight members plus a chairman and half a million euro to set it up. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission gets €6 million and GSOC get €9 million. As I presume the Minister is not suggesting the new commission will get half a million, how much will it be funded to deliver this new policing board?

We can learn from other countries. Sometimes, there are good examples and we should be repeating what is best in other countries. We need not reinvent the wheel and under the Northern Ireland Policing Board, a clear primary function of the board there is to hold the Chief Constable and the police service publicly to account in the exercise of their functions, including compliance with human rights standards. When one scrapes it all away, is that not really what the people want, namely, to have the police force or police service accountable to the population? However, they are not getting it through this board. They know they do not get it through the Minister at present. I do not mean the Minister personally but the ministerial position. The only way in which to deliver it effectively is through an independent board. The difference in the North of Ireland is that the Northern Ireland Policing Board has strong monetary and supervisory functions. It is interesting if one considers the wording of this Bill that there is only one mention of monitoring. Although it was mentioned often in the heads of the Bill, it has been taken out at this Stage. It now has been replaced with "keeping under review", which means an entirely different thing. Consequently, there is no real reference to supervision in this regard. Obviously, I do not have time now but I certainly intend to table massive amendments to this legislation and there should be many such references.

The key question here is what should it be and I believe that were the Government serious, it would scrap this legislation. It would return on Committee Stage and examine the comprehensive Bill put together by Deputy Wallace because what should have been is that the role of the Minister, who is maintaining control in this Bill, should be transferred to the authority. That is the first thing that needs to be done if this is to be a real independent body. However, that is not being done. The authority must be able to draw up policing plans, to take account of priorities, identified of course by the Government and the Minister, but to oversee that. Moreover, the authority must be the body that monitors compliance with those plans as otherwise it is not independent; it is just a complete and utter joke. In addition, it must have access to a budget. The authority must have the responsibility for the appointment of the Commissioner, absolutely with the approval and the input of the Minister. However, the authority should call the shots in this regard and it should have the power to request the Commissioner to retire, particularly given the recent controversies we have experienced. However, that is not what is being proposed in this legislation.

This is really regrettable and represents a serious lost opportunity. As Dr. Vicky Conway said in one presentation on this issue, GSOC should be in a position to make the Commissioner accountable. The Commissioner should not be a political appointee and there needs to be wider criteria for disciplinary regulations. As she says: "An Authority which is not given specific powers such as the setting of policing plans, the determining of budgets and the appointment of the Commissioner, could on the other hand be a retrograde step for Irish policing." That is what I consider this Bill to be. It is not even merely half a good step forward. It actually is a step back because it is giving the pretence that the Government is doing something when in fact, it is not. As Dr. Conway stated:

In that scenario [which is the scenario we are now in] we create the semblance of independence and accountability without the reality, just as was done with the creation of GSOC in the last decade. That would be a disservice to Irish society and to the members of An Garda Síochána.

Indeed, we have met many of them and we stand over that statement. This Bill is a disservice to the loyal members of An Garda Síochána and citizens of this State. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and all NGOs in this area made submissions on the Bill, all of which have been ignored. In their view, the authority should have a disciplinary role in relation to senior management. Given the air of indiscipline that exists within An Garda Síochána, I believe that is very necessary. However, that is not being provided for here, although it is in the North.

Deputy Wallace spoke earlier about membership of the authority. The fact that the initial board will be made up of all appointees is a joke and sets the tone for the future. Membership of the board should include representatives of minority communities and those whose paths cross with the Garda and will be most affected by measures when the Garda do not serve the public appropriately.

This is a substantial enough Bill, about which there has been a significant amount of discussion. There is a genuine desire among the population for something different in this area. There are many people in An Garda Síochána who would also like to see something different. This Bill does not provide that. It is not even a pale shadow of the heads of Bill which the Government put forward. It is a diametrically watered down version of the heads of the Bill. It bears no resemblance to it. It bears no relation to what exists in the North or in Scotland and it is an insult to the Bill which has already passed Second Stage in this House. That Bill would deliver an independent policing authority, which is key to ensuring democratic accountability inside the service, and would bring to an end the era of erosion of confidence, in terms of the Morris tribunal and the whistleblower revelations, in An Garda Síochána and address the allegations of malpractice, injustice and cover-up culture that prevails in that organisation.

This legislation presents an opportunity for a clean sweep and a breath of fresh air inside our service but, sadly, it is a lost opportunity and in that, as Vicky Conway said, it does a disservice to all of us. It is worse than doing nothing; it is a step back.

See this speech in context