Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I find the Tánaiste's strident response to the critical issues raised by other Deputies depressing. That there is a growing level of crisis in and about An Garda Síochána is undeniable. It is not conjecture or fanciful thought. Perhaps the most concerning development of recent days is the clear division opening up between senior civilian members and other members of An Garda Síochána. The intention behind civilianisation of An Garda Síochána and giving civilians senior roles was twofold, namely, to bring additional expertise that the Garda did not have into the heart of the force and to open up and change the closed culture that I, the Tánaiste and others know exists within the force.

In the past week, three senior civilian officers have sharply disagreed with the stance of senior Garda officers. Mr. Gurchand Singh, the civilian head of analysis, made clear to the Policing Authority that the report on mistakes in the homicide figures were not his work. He also made clear that he did not even get to read the report submitted to the Policing Authority, although he is the head of analysis. Mr. Niall Kelly, the civilian head of audit, told the Policing Authority that the review of breath test figures repeatedly referred to by the most senior members of An Garda Síochána as an audit could not be regarded as an audit and was not done by him. Then we had Mr. John Barrett, the civilian head of human resources, whose detailed recollection of meetings with the Commissioner regarding profoundly disturbing matters in Templemore clearly and flatly contradicted the assertion of the Garda Commissioner that their meeting was a short encounter over a cup of tea.

The leadership of An Garda Síochána is in crisis management mode or, more accurately, crisis reaction mode. It is staggering from one emergency to another. It is clear that the ability of the Garda and its leadership to respond effectively to the cascade of crises is bringing this matter to a critical mass. I am trying to use objective and dispassionate language. I do not want to apportion blame, let alone seek to blame all of this on one individual, namely, the Garda Commissioner. When the Commissioner was appointed, I hoped that she could bring about the fresh start the policing service required. I also want to use objective language because the law requires the Tánaiste, as Minister for Justice and Equality, to apply an objective test in this case. There has been much talk of whether the Tánaiste has confidence in the Garda Commissioner and barely a day goes by that she - or one of her colleagues - responds to that question.

There has been a learned but unnecessary intervention from the other side of the House claiming it is for the Tánaiste rather than the House to decide whether she has lost confidence in the Garda Commissioner. That intervention was unnecessary because it misses the essential point. Section 11 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 does not refer to whether anyone has confidence in the Commissioner but sets out a different, much simpler test in objective terms, that is, whether the continued role of the Garda Commissioner is in the best interests of the force. My question is very simple and the Tánaiste should apply that test now. Does she believe the continuation in office of the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána is in the best interests of the force?

See this speech in context