Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Deputies who contributed to the debate. It is important that we continue to debate issues concerning An Garda Síochána in the House.

Sometimes there is a tendency in Ireland for issues to boil up and then go off the boil, and we move from talking about the Garda to talking about the health services and on to some other topic. It is important that we keep the focus of this House on issues which are of public concern.

I will not get into the debate between the Minister and Deputy Ó Laoghaire as to the situation in respect of An Garda Síochána, but I will simply state, and I think everyone in the House can agree on this, that public confidence in An Garda Síochána has been damaged by recent events. I think we can also agree on the following statement, that it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to try to regain that public confidence and restore it to the very high level it was at before. It is still important to note that the public has great faith in the police force. It has been damaged, but we all have a responsibility in this House to try to see it improved again and to see it regain its proper place.

I listened closely to the contribution made by every Member here. In particular, I listened to the Minister. He indicated there are three grounds upon which he is opposing the Bill. The first is in respect of the timing. He says we should await the outcome of the commission on policing before we start introducing any legislation in the House. His second ground of objection was that he referred to section 62O of the Garda Síochána Act, as amended, which requires the Policing Authority to deliver a report to the Minister in respect of its effectiveness. He says we should await the outcome of that report. Third, the Minister referred to the fact that the Policing Authority had indicated that it has some concerns with the legislation that we are discussing this evening. The Minister then went on and looked at each of the sections in the Bill. I will respond to the Minister. By responding to him, I offer no disrespect to the other colleagues who spoke on the Bill, but since the Minister is opposing it, I wanted to concentrate on his arguments and submissions.

The first point the Minister mentioned was that we should await the outcome of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. Like the Minister and like most Members in this House, I welcomed the establishment of that commission. I welcomed its membership and I look forward to reading its final report when that is published in September 2018. However, simply because we have set up the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland does not mean that this House can go into a state of paralysis in which we twiddle our thumbs for ten months until the commission reports. We cannot do that. We would do a disservice to An Garda Síochána if we simply abdicate our responsibility for lawmaking to another, albeit welcome, body whose report we look forward to.

We cannot abandon our responsibility to make laws in respect of An Garda Síochána simply by awaiting the outcome of the report from the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. We do not know to what extent the commission will make recommendations in respect of how all legislation should be dealt with. It may make a recommendation that the law should be repealed or the law should be reformed, or it may make no recommendations in respect of legislative changes. However, what we have to recognise is that there are problems in the systems within An Garda Síochána, some of which can be resolved by legislative intervention by giving the Policing Authority more powers. If that is a good idea today, let us do it. Let us not simply postpone that on the basis that we will wait to find out whether the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland thinks it is a good idea. On many occasions over recent years, and this is not the exclusive fault of the Minister's party, we have delegated our responsibilities to so many other statutory bodies that we get to a stage where we are nearly afraid to make laws because of whether these other bodies will support it or whether some review group we have set up agrees with it. We are elected here to make laws. Let us not be afraid to do it. The fact that the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland is considering what should be done on the future of policing should not be a bar on us now taking steps to improve the legislative basis upon which there can be oversight of the Garda.

The second point raised by the Minister was that, under section 62O of the Garda Síochána Act, as amended by the 2015 Act, the Policing Authority will prepare a report on its own effectiveness. That is all very well and we look forward to reading that report, but that should not put us into a state of paralysis. We have an obligation to pass laws and it should not be dependent upon what a statutory body will say to us in its annual report or annual review.

The third point made by the Minister was that he had consulted the Policing Authority and it had some concerns in respect of the legislation. I must say I was relatively optimistic when I heard it only had some concerns in respect of it. That is generally Government or statutory body speak for there being some good ideas in it. We need to recognise we have a responsibility. I have no proprietorial ownership over this legislation. I want to ensure that the legislation that is introduced is the legislation for the country. When it gets to Committee Stage, let us table amendments, as no doubt every member on the Committee on Justice and Equality will do, to see whether they can improve the Bill. If they do, I will be glad to agree to them.

The Minister also mentioned that I had previously indicated that if this Bill had been in place, none of the difficulties in respect of An Garda Síochána would have occurred. I do not know if I said that. If I did say it, that is not what I intended. What I would have intended is that, given section 2 of the Bill, we would have had a different outcome in respect of the Garda breath test issue. I was limiting my comments in respect of that test issue. The reason I said that is because section 2 would have required An Garda Síochána to inform the Policing Authority, in 2015, when the authority came into existence, of the fact that there were audits going on into the Garda breath test issue. Had that been done, it would have been to the advantage of An Garda Síochána. The Garda could have shared this problem with the Policing Authority, and the authority could have directed how this should have been dealt with. One of the reasons there was such concern about the issue of false breath tests was there was a public belief that the Garda did not handle the issue well when it first came to its attention in 2014 and also after that. There was a slight public concern that the Garda was, in effect, hoping that the problem would go away. If this legislation had been in place, the Garda would have been obliged to report the fact of the internal review to the Policing Authority. That would have been to the benefit of this issue and it would have been to the benefit of the public.

The Minister then went through each of the sections and made some comments, and I will briefly reply to that. He said that section 2 probably is unnecessary because there is already legislation in place which allows the Policing Authority to seek information from An Garda Síochána. The purpose of section 2, however, is different. It places an obligation upon An Garda Síochána to bring to the attention of the Policing Authority that there is an internal review, audit or examination of the functions or operation of An Garda Síochána. There was no reason the Policing Authority, in 2015 or 2016, would have asked the Garda whether it was conducting any audits or reviews into false breath tests. The authority had no information about that. If this law had been in place, however, the Garda would have been obliged to inform the Policing Authority about the internal review and audit.

The Minister also referred to section 3, which would give the authority the power to dismiss a member of An Garda Síochána. It is important to point out that, at present under the legal system, the Policing Authority can make a recommendation that a Commissioner be removed, and in that instance the Government has a responsibility to take into account that recommendation. I do not see the legal obstacles that the Minister says would exist in respect of giving the power to the Policing Authority to remove a member of An Garda Síochána. It is a power that, I suspect, would be used only in exceptional circumstances by the Policing Authority. Nonetheless, it is a power that should exist, as otherwise we are dependent upon the Garda trying to put its own house in order, and sometimes that can be very difficult when there are disciplinary issues involved.

The third point that the Minister mentioned was in respect of section 4. He said that this in a way would put the Policing Authority in a position whereby it would be managing the Garda Commissioner's office. I do not think so. The word that is used is "supervision". It is important that the Policing Authority establishes policies and procedures for An Garda Síochána and that it keeps an overview of the functioning of the Garda Commissioner's office. That would be to the long-term benefit of An Garda Síochána.

The final issue was in respect of the Garda Inspectorate. As Deputy Clare Daly mentioned, that is a recommendation that was made previously and it would be one that would assist the inspectorate.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. It is important that we do not merely decide to put ourselves into cold storage until September 2018 when we get the report from the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. We should all contribute to that, but let us not forget what we are all elected to do. We are elected to make laws.

See this speech in context