Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

First, the Minister asked for proof of what Deputy Daly actually said. Tomorrow morning, I will give the Minister proof of district officer, Superintendent Pat Murray, reclassifying crime figures. This is an individual who has harassed and bullied a Garda whistleblower to an awful degree for a long time.

The Minister pointed out that we should not pretend that human rights are not part of Garda training. It takes much longer to become a hairdresser than a member of An Garda Síochána. In my opinion, and I am not alone, more training of gardaí is required, better resourcing of the organisation is required and better pay for members is also required.

She cited Article 28 as one of the reasons for the inability to introduce depoliticised policing in Ireland, claiming that there are restrictions on the extent to which it is open to the Government to delegate important functions relating to the executive power of the State to another body. In particular, this reference to the Constitution has been used to justify the fact that the Garda Commissioner remains exclusively accountable to the Minister rather than to the authority in contrast to the clear transfer of accountability promised in the heads of legislation in November 2014. Throughout the Bill, the structure is the same. The Commissioner is accountable to the Minister and the authority must run everything past the Minister and obey him or her at all times. If the Constitution can be used to make sure that we have a police force that is not accountable to the people, then it should be called into question. As has been argued by many legal scholars, it is difficult to address this reference to the Constitution as the Minister failed to inform the public what specific part of Article 28 she is referring to. She said the proposals in the Bill had been prepared in close consultation with the Attorney General. Will she please publish the advice of the Attorney General? She also stated her position on Article 28 was based on an interpretation by the courts. Will she inform the House of the case or cases is she referring to in order that we can at least attempt to understand and assess her line of reasoning?

Did she specifically request senior counsel advice on this Bill? If so, when?

See this speech in context