Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I followed it up and to do so I went to five different locations to repeat what I set out to do in the first place. Recall that I specifically did not want anything done that might in any way affect the promotional prospects of the officer or officers concerned. Eventually, I was told what I had to. I would have to write to a person, who would in turn write to another person. That person in turn would write back to the first person, who would then make a decision, and I would have to make a statement. I had to explain I did not have to do anything and that I was simply bringing to the attention of the proper authorities something that concerned me and that would affect both the good standing and the morale of the force concerned. I said I would raise it in the House and I have just done so. The moral of that story is a situation whereby we are not going to be listened to if we raise something is totally wrong and will eventually undermine the standing of the force. It can do nothing else.

There are a number of instances I will not go into now other than to say we can all read and we can all hear what people say in response to a general query. I remember being told something on the way into this House in the very recent past. The Ceann Comhairle will recall this. There was some demonstration taking place. We are supposed be able to gain access to this House at any time 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I was told, "You cannot go there", which was interesting. I was told that if I did go there, I would not get in and if I did get in, I would not get out. I had to explain I had the right to go there at any time during the sitting time of the national Parliament without any interference from anybody. I went in, but there was a hell of a confrontation where people swarmed all over my car, took photographs, made threats and so on. It was not thought that I would follow anything up, but I did. I lodged a complaint. Nobody thought that would happen, but that is what we have to do in those kinds of situations in order to protect gardaí themselves. I am glad to say that in that case a hearing was held. The superintendent attended and explained to those concerned that you cannot do that. It should be noted we can move from situations where nothing is done to one where something is done.

I have, as has the Ceann Comhairle, supported strongly the forces of law in order for a long time. We have raised questions such as the need to reform the bail laws repeatedly, as well as the compensation boards where 4,000 or 5,000 gardaí were on a list waiting to be heard and have their cases discharged. We do not agree with that kind of thing. We believe An Garda Síochána must have applied to it the best possible services available at any time and without foot-dragging.

Another matter, which does not apply to the Ceann Comhairle, is that nowadays the Questions Office sometimes decides a question is disallowed. Sometimes we follow these matters up to find out where they go. I discovered an interesting thing. On one particular case, a question I raised on behalf of a garda was disallowed, but the subject of the question was immediately attended to within the section - a score the first time. I do not have any problem with that and do not mind the question being disallowed, but then I had another one. These are in recent times because for maybe 20 years I did not have a complaint from any quarter, but there is something gone wrong when these things are popping up. This one was a case where a couple came home from a night out to get a knock on the door at 2 a.m. or thereabouts. They had been accused of having a grow house or whatever it was. It had to do with drugs, in any event. Obviously, there was wrong information, which happens quite regularly, but the spouse in this case was very upset and had been restrained, for want of a better word. Consequently, I put down the question. It was disallowed on the basis that we cannot ask such questions - though of course we can ask questions - with the theory being it is a matter for the courts. We in this House do not have an access to the courts whereby we can ask the President of the High Court something. Our only route, therefore, is that the public says we must investigate something, we ask the question and if it is not satisfactorily dealt with, that is not our problem.

Returning to the grow house, I asked within the question whether it would be possible to explain to the people concerned that they were not accused of anything and that it was a mistake, mistaken identity or whatever the case may be. I was fobbed off. I pointed out there would be consequences and that the individuals concerned would definitely seek the law to protect themselves. They did so and won their case. Then they went again for wrongful arrest and won that case. This was a very simple issue to deal with in the first instance. All that was required was for somebody to say "I am very sorry, there was a misunderstanding here and something happened that should not have happened.". That needs to be brought into the legislation. Provision should be made to ensure that happens in future. The result in that case was thousands of euro in costs paid by the taxpayer. If the case had had to go to the European Court of Justice, it would have gone there too, because some people object strongly to being arrested or interfered with when there is no reason for it, as they see it.

There is a theory that nobody likes politicians. We know that; we did not have to wait until now to find it out. The institutions of the State must be recognised and their rights observed, be it the Garda, politicians or whatever. We are all part of that and need to recognise it. I do not object to or harangue the security forces at any time, but there comes a moment when one must ask what is going on here, see that we are informed about it and ensure it is not going to happen again. We had situations in Donegal a number of years ago where issues were investigated. Members of the House were due to be imprisoned because they would not disclose the source of their information. We know how that ended up. I was part of the commission at the time, as far as I can recall, and we had to deal with it. I am speaking as a citizen. I do my best to observe the rules and regulations. I resent being told there is a lesser code for you or people like you. Point taken and point given as well.

The previous speaker spoke at length about drugs. Drugs are the ruination of our society.

The longer we go on appeasing drug barons, the worse it is going to get. Regarding the methadone programmes, I was a ministerial member of the drugs alliance some years ago. We must be more effective in the way we provide treatment. Medical treatment must come for people. There is no doubt about this. It must be fully funded and supported. This should be done, however, based on it being an improvement. We should not feed the habit just for the fun of it. Otherwise, we will end up in a situation similar to feeding whiskey to somebody with an alcoholism problem. That does not work. We must get to the situation where we are dealing with the problem. We have all had to deal with drug addicts who could not help themselves and were helpless. We have had to try to get them into a particular unit to deal with them. Some of them have come out of it okay and unscathed but some have not and have instead gone the other way. We must, however, spend money on their rehabilitation. It is clear from reading about methadone that we are supposed to be weaning people off drugs. This is what it is supposed to be about, and not feeding them with enough to keep them going until they get their next big fix. That should not be the case under any circumstances.

I am totally opposed to the concept of liberalising the drugs issue here. To the extent that this is for medicinal purposes only, people can go to the chemist to get it. There is no problem getting the prescriptions for these drugs. The suggestion, though, that we want drugs for everybody at every street corner in the place in order to make it better is wrong and we will pay a big price for that. No matter what happens, there will be a massive increase in the use of drugs and in the numbers of those who will supply the drugs. By one means or another, we are going to get into a situation whereby this is going to get out of control. There are those who tell us this was a very successful programme in Spain and the Netherlands. I was in the latter country with the former Deputy, the late Tony Gregory, and we saw it all. We were in the coffee houses. That approach did not work. It just did not work. There is no good playing around with it and this is now being recognised there. Here, though, we are now apparently deciding to go down that road and to start entertaining ourselves with drugs, recreational drugs, gateway drugs and starter drugs. Eventually, we will end up in a situation whereby we will have to ask people at meetings whether they are under the influence or if it is their real selves present.

This approach will not work. It cannot work. All we have to do to see this is to take a trip along the quays at night and see what is happening there. The unfortunate people who are addicted cannot help themselves. They are gone past the stage where they can help themselves. It is the same on O'Connell Street in the capital city of the country. Anybody coming into the place and looking at the scene around them cannot but come to the conclusion that we have a drugs capital. We must get away from this.

I compliment the Minister on his responses to the various objects I have brought to his attention, and his predecessor as well. There is a lot of work to be done. We must ensure the integrity of An Garda Síochána and the supremacy of keeping the law in force. We must recognise that we must back up the Garda. To back something up, though, we must also recognise that we must be absolutely confident we are backing up something that will stand up to all scrutiny or as much scrutiny as possible. I think I have said enough for now. Perhaps I will say more at a later stage.

See this speech in context