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

We are confused by the grouping because we are operating with the earlier grouping we received and are not sure which group of amendments is being discussed now. That is a consequence of the manner in which the issue was handled this morning. We will operate off the initial grouping.

We are discussing an attempt to move away from the Minister being the final arbiter in these matters. The idea that the demarcation between policing and security is unclear but can be tested is not good enough. There is no appeal to the courts and no way to test it. Under the Bill, the Minister will have the final say. We want to insert a buffer at least. I am not overawed by High Court judges and they are not necessarily the be all and end all in deciding these matters, but they are a step removed from the Oireachtas and there is an independence around them. With the Government not breaking the political link in the Bill, we believe that this is the best way to deal with the issue.

This relates to the point on State security, which is not defined in the Garda Síochána Act 2005. In certain cases where GSOC wanted to investigate matters but the Garda authorities or the Garda Commissioner objected to that on grounds of national security, the Minister was the final arbiter in the disagreement. A procedure is in place under section 100 of the Act, in that a designated High Court judge can, at GSOC's request, review the operation of section 99 and any regulation issued under sections 96 and 126, which allow a garda who is requested by GSOC to provide a document in connection with a GSOC investigation to refuse on grounds of national security. At that point, the matter is referred to the Minister for a direction. If the matter does not relate to State security, GSOC can appeal to the Circuit Court for a direction. From my parliamentary questions, I know that GSOC has not applied to the Circuit Court on any of these issues. The Government appointed a judge to administer this system, but that was only last February, which is surprising.

No applications on matters that cited State security have been made in the lifetime of this Government. This fact could be viewed in two ways. On one hand, is it not grand that the provision has never been invoked and there has never been an attempt to hide behind national security and, as such, what are we worried about? On the other, what is the problem with accepting our amendment? We should always err on the side of being human rights compliant, open and transparent. We must view this issue in the context of what we are discussing. The Bill is supposed to deliver accountability and transparency to the Garda, but it does not break the political link if the Minister can object.

Our amendment No. 3 is not the best thing ever, and we did not draft the provision this way when we tabled our Bill, but it at least provides the protection of judicial oversight in this matter. It is preferable in that regard.

See this speech in context