Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin has ten minutes remaining. I understand Deputy Mac Lochlainn is the next speaker?

Sandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I spoke briefly last night and I was due to resume on the debate.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ten minutes remain for the Deputy's party and it is up to her if she wants to speak now.

Sandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission confirmed to me yesterday that it is overburdened and under-resourced. Since it opened its doors to the public in May 2007 it has received some 3,500 complaints, 900 of which allege criminal behaviour on the part of gardaí. Sinn Féin is of the view that if the GSOC is to achieve its stated and essential mission of providing an effective complaints mechanism in which the public can have confidence, then the Government must make additional resources available.

In many respects not much has changed since then. There is still an issue as regards how the Garda co-operate with the GSOC. We saw that recently with an issue relating to Mr. Kieran Boylan who was allegedly found with significant amounts of cocaine and heroin and is a convicted drug dealer; he had serious charges dropped against him with no explanation and there was also the question of how he obtained a haulage licence after his conviction. This led to much discussion, particularly after the GSOC highlighted the matter. It has said in its correspondence with Oireachtas Members that it does not have the ability to do the job it is asked to do. The report used words such as "grave concern" about the level of co-operation from An Garda Síochána with an investigation into an extremely serious matter where allegedly a drug dealer had charges dropped. The GSOC reports seeking information from gardaí and being queried as to its relevance as well as being obstructed in different respects. That is not good enough. Clearly, there is need for reform.

I welcome this legislation. It is positive and it can add to the independence of the commission and ensure that it has the power and teeth to carry out its task. The board the legislation seeks to set up will include representations from joint policing committees, JPCs. I am a member of three JPCs, Youghal Cobh and Mallow and I recognise the excellent work that they do. It is where the community has its say. However, it does not have enough powers or strength and this would be a welcome new role. Notwithstanding that point, we would take a different approach to that taken by the proposers of the Bill. What Sinn Féin is calling for is an entirely autonomous and independent policing authority with its own independent budget and with strong powers of investigation. We also believe that it is important that there is a separation of the Government from the Garda. The power of appointment of senior gardaí by the Government must be removed in order to enhance transparency and oversight. However, these are issues which could be addressed on Committee Stage.

I recognise the essential role of the Garda Síochána and the considerable commitment most gardaí show in fulfilling their duty. From my experience of working with gardaí on the ground and on JPCs, I know many of these gardaí and know them to be excellent, honest, community-minded gardaí who would never abuse their power. However, it is essential that we have tools to punish and remove gardaí who do wrong. I believe that this is not only the interests of the wider community and of justice but it is the interests of honest gardaí that the reputation of the force be underpinned by a strong ombudsman system.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Wallace and his colleagues on bringing forward this Bill. It is a thoughtful contribution and it is overdue in terms of what we need. Much of the focus in recent times has been on issues that are certainly important but they are not the most important in terms of what we need from An Garda Síochána.

I believe every Member of this House would agree that the overwhelming majority of the men and women in An Garda Síochána are people of the highest calibre. We are very proud of them, we know them personally, we went to school with them ,we played football with them and when we leave our children to school or go to the supermarket we meet them. They are an integral part of our community. They are proud of what they do. That is not the issue. The issue here is about the power we bestow on them, the great power and responsibility we give them on behalf of our communities and the fact that some within An Garda Síochána have abused those powers. Unfortunately, we have seen in the history of all organisations that at some time power is abused. Therefore, we need checks and balances to protect our citizens from the abuse of power but also to protect the good name of An Garda Síochána and the good name of the overwhelming majority of gardaí who have never abused power and who have often spoken out against it. I commend in particular the whistleblowers who have raised issues of considerable public importance to their own personal detriment. Long live whistleblowers.

In terms of the existing issue of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, the Garda inspectorate and other institutional changes, they did not fall out of a tree. They followed the debacle of the Morris tribunal in my home county where a nest of vipers, who were not worthy of the name "garda" had abused their power in the most appalling fashion. The Morris tribunal revealed that sorry saga, particularly the use of informers and in some cases so-called informers to gain promotion. It was an appalling period in my county's history. Mr. Justice Morris made a series of recommendations and they were to have been implemented. That is what gave birth to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission but unfortunately from the outset it did not have the powers it required to hold the Garda to account. If there is any doubt about that, it was blown away by the report that the GSOC has given to the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda Commissioner in regard to what is known as the Kieran Boylan affair, the fact that a convicted drug dealer, allegedly in possession of cocaine and heroin worth €1.7 million, had charges dropped against him without any explanation. That investigation, which took four years, exposed a number of deeply troubling issues. As stated by the GSOC, it showed that the lessons of the Morris tribunal have not been learned and that it has grave concerns about the handling of informers and the retention of contemporaneous notes, which are critical to retrospective investigation. That is the reality.

The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, which also recently came before the committee that I chair, the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, has confirmed that it has faced serious blockages in its investigations. At times senior gardaí have questioned the relevance of the documents that it has sought to attain. There is a real need for serious additional powers to be given to it. That is the reason this legislation is so important. Sinn Féin would put forward proposals to strengthen it. We would work with the Deputies here on Committee Stage if the Bill was allowed to go forward, and it should be, to try to strengthen it. We believe there should be an independent policing authority. We would like to see more of the powers of accountability that are in the North of Ireland.

We would also like to see a good deal of what is in place in terms of the Policing Board of Northern Ireland replicated in terms of joint policing committees. The joint policing committees in this State need to be strengthened. We need to ensure that the Garda is completely independent from the State. We cannot have a situation any more where Ministers appoint senior gardaí and they in turn defend cutbacks, the closure of Garda stations, and reduction of Garda vehicles numbering in the hundreds, in the face of the clear evidence to the contrary from the Garda Representation Association and gardaí on the ground.

The days of a quid pro quoarrangement, where the Minister of the day circles the wagons around any criticism of senior gardaí while they in return circle the wagons around any criticism of the Minister by defending cutbacks, have to end. That is why this Bill is so important. We need to have full accountability for the Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission needs to have full powers and full independence from the Executive in this State. That would be in the best interests of the men and women who serve us in the Garda Síochána and all of our citizens.

When this Government came into power, it said it would act as a trailblazer. We heard exciting speeches about a new day and a new Republic. In that context, it is outrageous that this Bill was rejected as it was by the Minister, Deputy Shatter, last night. If the Government wants to make clarifications or changes, that can be facilitated on Committee Stage. I think the Deputies who introduced this Bill have made an excellent contribution. All Bills can be strengthened and tweaked. If the Government is sincere about independence, political reform, the protection of citizens and the integrity of serving members of the Garda Síochána, it will accept this Bill and amend it as necessary. Of course we know that the Government has proven that it is failing in this regard. That is a serious disappointment to our people. Nonetheless, the Opposition will continue to advocate for change in this area.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to share time with Deputies Áine Collins, Michael McCarthy, Dan Neville, Paudie Coffey and Helen McEntee.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Garda Síochána (Amendment) Bill 2013. I compliment my colleagues on the Opposition benches who have introduced this Bill and given Deputies an opportunities to debate this subject. I honestly believe the Bill is premature, however, given that a review of the operations of the Garda Síochána will be held on foot of the Haddington Road agreement. Those conducting the review are to report back by 1 June 2014. I do not know what is to be feared from listening to what all the stakeholders, including the Garda Síochána, have to say on this matter. It is important for us to listen to them.

As a public representative who came through the ranks at county council and Seanad Éireann levels before being elected to the Dáil, I cannot understand why we are so anxious to divest ourselves of power. Why do we want to place our accountability in the hands of a board? I would equate this to the decision to establish the HSE some years ago. The HSE was used by successive Ministers to hide from responsibility and accountability. I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle experienced this. The existence of the HSE allowed Ministers who did not want to come in here to answer parliamentary questions to say that the matters about which they were asked were the responsibility of the HSE.

The establishment of another statutory board would be a retrograde step for us as public representatives. The necessary resources should be put into the services, statutory bodies and Garda structures that are in place at the moment, including the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. They should be beefed up and they should be accountable. The public has an opportunity every so often to decide on the fate of its public representatives, who should be held accountable for what goes on.

I passionately believe that the operation of the Garda Síochána should be a matter for the structures that are in place at present. I refer to the Garda Commissioner or chief executive officer, the deputy commissioner, the assistant commissioners, the chief superintendents, the superintendents, the local sergeants and the local gardaí. The only way to protect public confidence in the Garda Síochána, which is fundamental for the force, is to ensure the public and the elected representatives continue to have a relationship with the Garda Síochána and to have an opportunity to discuss matters with the Garda authorities as they arise. In a broad church like the Garda Síochána, which has over 13,300 members at present, there are bound to be difficulties and individuals who fall by the wayside. At the previous speaker said, the members of the force are people of the utmost calibre and the highest integrity, by and large. The gardaí themselves probably represent the best regulator the force can have.

When we speak about public confidence in the Garda Síochána, it is worth noting that almost everyone in the general public has a family member - a brother, sister or cousin - or a close friend in the force. The Garda Síochána and the general public are a closely-knit community. The force has never been found wanting when somebody has fallen by the wayside. It has prosecuted its own members. While I accept that people have the right to complain, there needs to be a balance in this situation as well. Members of the force need to be protected. Many unsubstantiated claims have been made by the general public against the Garda for one reason or another. When these claims pile up, it takes some time to have them heard. Such delays can have a profound effect on the stature of the garda in question, on his work and on his health. We need to put in place a system that upholds the right of the general public to complain and ensures the person who makes the complaint is also held accountable. Perhaps some kind of bond system can be considered.

When the Minister for Justice and Equality visited the Garda College in Templemore during the week, I was delighted to hear him announce that recruitment to the college will recommence in the coming months. It is a testament to the attractiveness of the job of gardaí, and indeed to the level of public confidence in the force, that over 27,000 people have expressed an interest in joining the Garda Síochána. That figure is expected to increase twofold or threefold when newspaper advertisements are published because of the level of interest on the part of those who want to join the force. That is a testament to the confidence of the general public in the Garda Síochána. It is also an indication of how popular the job is, how keen people are to serve their country and how willing they are to protect the citizens of this State.

I would like to avail of this opportunity to acknowledge the role that has been played by members of the Garda Síochána based at the Garda College in Templemore. Many people were negative about the college while it was closed. They said it would never open again, or that this or that would happen. The management of the college provided various in-service and other courses to keep the college going over the last two or three years, which have been quite difficult. I could never see that happening if we had an independent body. It would probably have closed the place down until recruitment recommenced. I pay tribute to the chief superintendent who is in charge down there. I would also like to mention Assistant commissioner Fintan Fanning, who had direct responsibility for it. Chief Superintendent Clancy and Superintendent Pat Dunne in Templemore kept it going as well. Great credit is due to all of them. It augurs well for the future of the force that recruitment is recommencing.

We can expect an intake of student gardaí into the Garda College in Templemore in early 2014. That will allay some of the concerns that have been expressed tonight. After spending 33 weeks in the college, those students will be attested and will become gardaí in their own right. When they are dispersed throughout the country, they will add to the ability of the Garda Síochána to deliver a service to the community, particularly in those rural areas about which we are so concerned. I look forward to that day. I remind the House that the Garda College in Templemore will celebrate its 50th anniversary in 2014.

I welcome the open debate on this Bill and the many suggestions that are being made. While I acknowledge the sincerity of Opposition Deputies, I believe it is premature of them to have introduced this Bill at this time. We should wait for the review to see what the people have said.

It is also important to hear what members of An Garda Síochána have to say. The ultimate responsibility for the operations of An Garda Síochána should lie with the Garda management. It should not be subject to any board or, as the Opposition has noted, any political interference. The function of the Government is to provide the necessary budget to allow An Garda Síochána to operate effectively and efficiently. That is what we wish for.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take the Deputies in the order in which they appear on the list.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin my contribution by welcoming the fact that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence has lifted the ban on recruitment to An Garda Síochána. That is very significant not least for the reasons set out by Deputy Coonan such as the boost to the economy. It is also a very good boost for those of us who hold out hope for the restoration of the public finances. It is also a good testament to the reputation enjoyed by An Garda Síochána. A very good expression of public confidence in An Garda Síochána is the fact that over 27,000 people have expressed an interest in joining the force at this very difficult time in our country's history. I know the Minister has put on record that he does not want to see the force drop below 13,000, which is very important.

The purpose of this Bill is to strengthen the independence and functions of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. I wish to put on record that I reject the notion that the functions set out in the Garda Síochána Act 2005 require strengthening and I reject the implication of the Bill brought forward by colleagues on the other side of the House. We all know the genesis of the Garda Síochána Act. It arose out of the findings of the Morris Tribunal. While any incident of maltreatment is an incident too many, by and large, we have been served very well by members of An Garda Síochána and the force. I often think we need to enjoy comment in the hear and now as opposed to any angle that individuals or groups may wish to put on that.

The Garda Síochána Act 2005 is without doubt the most profound legislation relating to the force in the history of the State. It was a catalyst and vehicle for the most fundamental reform and transformation of An Garda Síochána. It goes to the very core of policing, recasting in statute form the formal relationship between the Executive, the Minister, the Oireachtas and An Garda Síochána, as well as the force's relationship with local government. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 established the independent Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, and the Garda Síochána Inspectorate, which provides expert advice on achieving the highest levels of efficiency and effectiveness in the operation and administration of the force. The GSOC is independent and is responsible for receiving and dealing with all complaints made by members of the public concerning the conduct of members of the Garda Síochána. These are significant steps forward in terms of police oversight and an important step in mainstreaming human rights in Irish policing.

In addition to the Minister being answerable in Dáil Éireann for the Garda Síochána, the 2005 Act also made the Garda Commissioner the Accounting Officer for the Garda Síochána and liable to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. When I served on that committee up until before the Christmas recess, the Garda Commissioner and assistant commissioners appeared before it. While one could argue that it is an accounting role and the Committee of Public Accounts is concerned with expenditure by the force, we invariably would go into issues like policing. I have always found Commissioner Callinan and his team to be very engaging and anxious to constructively interact with Members of the Oireachtas through that forum.

The powers available to GSOC are very wide ranging and sufficient to ensure that it is well equipped to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct and or alleged breaches of discipline. I wish to make a very important point. GSOC came into effect in 2007 and has dealt with over 2,600 complaints since then. Some of them are vexatious and we should never forget that. If anything needs expansion, it is the role of GSOC in terms of reports it receives of incidents. Approximately 80% of those are referred back to An Garda Síochána to investigate. If anything needs improvement, it is the role of GSOC in terms of how it approaches all allegations. I believe it should investigate all of them.

We do not need to be on a collision course with any other arm of the State. In terms of conducting public debate about An Garda Síochána, we need to leave any baggage outside the door and come to this with the best possible objective, which is to have an effective, properly resourced and efficient police service. That is very important in the current climate. I pay tribute to the Minister for the manner in which he has resourced the force in very difficult economic circumstances and the manner in which he has interacted constructively with the management of An Garda Síochána in order to ensure that we get no less than what we are entitled to, which is an effective and efficient police force which does a very effective and efficient job.

Dan Neville (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is important that we look at concerns gardaí have in respect of GSOC and I wish to put their concerns on the record. I am speaking for rank-and-file gardaí at the coalface instead of those up along the line, namely, the officers. The main body which represents this organisation is the Garda Representative Association which has repeatedly welcomed independent and impartial investigation of complaints relating to their members. However, the GSOC has failed to establish trust with the gardaí at the coalface. We must also take into account that there is a difficulty relating to the trust the Garda on the beat has in that organisation.

Why do members not trust the impartiality and fairness of investigations by the GSOC? I am not saying they are unfair or not impartial but why is the trust in their fairness and impartiality not there? Why is the GSOC concerned about a Garda attending with their lawyer present? Surely they have the same rights as any citizen under scrutiny in a criminal investigation? Not all of these investigations are criminal ones. Why is the GSOC concerned because surely every citizen has the right to be represented? Why are there no sanctions for those who make vexatious and malicious statements and accusations regarding members of An Garda Síochána operating at the coalface? The pressure on somebody waiting for a consideration of their position, their status within the organisation and their well-being in having to face this situation is quite serious so surely there should be some way of identifying or dealing with people who make proven vexatious and malicious complaints against individual gardaí. Will the Minister respond to the Garda Representative Association's request for a full investigation by an external agency to restore confidence within the Garda?

The most common complaints refer to discourtesy or abuse of authority by gardaí. Surely an informal approach should be used to restore that situation? If that does not work, one can go back to the formal situation rather than blocking up the system. We need to restore trust between the Garda and the GSOC.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I thank the Opposition for bringing forward the Bill, which gives us a chance to reflect on the contribution of An Garda Síochána and all that is good about it even though there may be some elements in it that are not so good. It is right and proper that we reflect on this in the national Parliament, and on the legacy of An Garda Síochána since its establishment in the State and how it has served our citizens.

On the first day they are commissioned gardaí take an oath to lay down their lives in the protection of the State and its citizens. This does not come lightly and it should be publicly acknowledged by all public representatives that young gardaí train with good intentions to take up a career which, in my opinion, goes beyond a normal vocation to serve the people of the country. Since its establishment in the State, the Garda Síochána has gone through some very difficult times. During the Troubles the Garda Síochána, which is one of the only unarmed police forces in the world, stood foursquare in protection of our citizens against terrorism and subversion-----

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and worked in the best interests of the State. It is very important to acknowledge this at the outset of any debate on this matter. The Garda has earned respect over many years through how it engages with communities and protects our citizens. It now faces very difficult modern challenges due to changes in technology. With drug lords, warlords and global terrorism, new challenges face the Garda Síochána and the State. We must be properly conscious of them and the force should be properly resourced.

I understand the reason the Bill has been tabled, which is to try to separate the accountability of senior-ranking gardaí from the political process. While I understand the good intention behind the Bill, I have difficulties with it because, ultimately, any national agency or organisation should be accountable to Dáil Éireann and the people elected to it. Through the House the Minister for Justice and Equality is accountable for all actions under his or her control, including the Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 ensures the Garda Commissioner is accountable to the Committee on Public Accounts with regard to how the Garda Síochána is run as an organisation. This is where accountability should remain. The joint policing committees are effectual to a degree, and I also acknowledge the engagement at local level of senior gardaí, but the potential exists to further this process to ensure local accountability from the Garda Síochána.

I listened to the debate yesterday, and there is no doubt that, like any organisation, the Garda has corrupt individuals. We have seen in the past that individuals in the Garda Síochána have abused their positions and have been found to be guilty of various levels of corruption and activities which ill behove the force. I do not agree with making broad allegations of corruption without foundation. Gardaí are subject to the rigours of the law and the courts just as Deputies and other citizens are. I would be very surprised to hear, in cases in which gardaí have acted inappropriately or in a criminal fashion, that they were not brought before the courts. If there are cover-ups, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission provides an opportunity to address them.

I support what Deputy Neville stated about building trust in the work of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. The nature of the Garda Síochána brings individuals into conflict in the line of their work and increases the risk of vexatious complaints. It is important that we have an accountable and trustworthy system through the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

With regard to restructuring Garda resources, we have heard many complaints from people concerned about rural communities. I have met chief superintendents and superintendents in my constituency who have engaged with communities on how they are restructuring their operations. Some rural Garda stations have closed, but if we are to be honest, many of them were essentially closed anyway, with gardaí visiting them for very short periods. The new systems being introduced, with the support of communities, can lead to a more effective police force in these areas with higher visibility and more operations.

I will not support the Bill. I wish again to put on the record my full support, respect and appreciation for the Garda Síochána and for the service it has given the State. There are appropriate accountability mechanisms for people with complaints to bring them before the House, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and the courts.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and I thank the Opposition for tabling it. I have a number of issues with the Bill. Having listened to contributions made on all sides of the House to the debate yesterday, and what followed this morning in the media at local and national level, it is safe to say that what I took from it, and what I can only presume people outside the House took from it, was an attack on the Garda Síochána, the Government and the Minister for Justice and Equality.

The apparent aim of the Bill is to establish an independent board that would have general oversight of the Garda Síochána, that would take over many of the existing functions of the Minister and the Government, and that in doing so would improve the democratic accountability of the Garda Síochána. I do not believe the Bill would achieve its stated aim. Changing the functions of the Garda Commissioner, along with deleting the statutory provisions that make the Garda Commissioner accountable to the Minister for Justice and Equality, would not improve accountability; in fact, it would cut essential links between different bodies of our workforce. The Minister for Justice and Equality is accountable to the House and it would be wrong to take this away from a democratically elected House of Parliament. I have every confidence in the Garda Síochána and commend gardaí on the work they carry out on a daily basis. They have taken hits and pay cuts like everybody else, and they have carried out their duties in a dignified and excellent manner. Whether it was meant to or not, what emerged from last night's debate was extremely unfair to members of the Garda Síochána.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister earlier this week that he has received sanction from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to begin the process of recruiting gardaí. At present we have just over 13,000 gardaí working to protect the citizens of Ireland. As has been mentioned, 27,000 people have expressed an interest in joining the force, so I have every confidence those in Templemore next year will be of the highest standard. This will be the first new set of recruits since 2009 and there was no way we could have gone this length of time without some areas being affected. The average time for Garda clearance or vetting is 12 to 14 weeks, and I can only assume this is due to the low number of gardaí available to deal with the process. Not too long ago I spoke to a friend who runs a surf school and water activity centre in the North of Ireland. Many such centres begin their season at the beginning of summer and in a perfect world they would have hired their employees before then, but this is not always the case as people leave, get sick or move on. Unfortunately, the length of the summer recess is 12 to 14 weeks, so any business working with children and young adults will face delays. Community employment schemes, JobBridge, Tús and the local government social employment scheme are also behind their targets by more than 50% with regard to the number of people on the schemes, and this is due to the delay in Garda vetting and clearance. This problem affects not only businesses but also those trying to return to work. I suggest to the Minister of State that a proportion of the new recruits could be specifically assigned to deal with this matter.

An Garda Síochána provides an invaluable service to the people of Ireland and it would be detrimental to everybody involved if we were to dismantle the system under which it works, because it works very well and has been strengthened by the 2005 Act.

Instead of establishing a board to carry out the work that is already being carried out by the Government, the Minister and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, we must focus on providing resources for the Garda and continue to invest in new recruits. We must support and respect the Garda Síochána. For that reason I will not support the Bill.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is Deputy Thomas Pringle. I understand he is sharing time with Deputies Mattie McGrath, Halligan, Healy and O'Sullivan. They have five minutes each.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Wallace and his staff for their work in preparing the legislation we are debating tonight – The Garda Síochána (Amendment) Bill. It is a worthwhile and timely legislation.

I have been listening to the debate over the past two nights and it has been interesting how many Deputies have prefaced their remarks by stating how many good gardaí there are and how many work hard and do their best in a very difficult situation. There is no doubt that is true and that a significant number of gardaí are doing their work. However, it signals the power of the Garda in society when we feel it necessary to preface our remarks by saying something of that nature. That goes to the heart of what this legislation is about and the purpose that it aims to achieve.

I heard some speakers refer to the amount of unsubstantiated claims against gardaí and how unfair it is that this is the situation. There is no doubt that is the case. However, it is a sign of the difficulty involved in ensuring complaints are investigated. If complaints are unsubstantiated then that must be clearly stated and where necessary answers should be sought. That again shows the issues of accountability that arise with the Garda Síochána as an organisation and the culture that can develop within it. As I look across the Chamber I am reminded that if we give people unrestricted and unaccountable power then we get abuses of it. It is not right that we would allow that to continue in a democratic society.

While there might be unsubstantiated claims against gardaí, many families around the country are very worried by what has happened to them. Serious wrongs were perpetrated against them. They have lost loved ones and they have not been able to get answers. Officialdom in society closes down when people begin to ask questions. Families are left on their own for long periods trying to get answers. That is not right. It is not good for the culture of the Garda and it is not good for society.

I wish to mention the family of Shane Tuohy, a case in which I had some involvement. They are in the Visitors Gallery tonight. They lost their son Shane in very tragic circumstances in County Offaly. I looked at the case and the official account does not reflect how Shane died. That is a wrong that continues to be perpetrated against the family. We need a mechanism to allow for such wrongs to be investigated and for answers to be provided to families around the country.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The legislation is about accountability and proving accountability. We have heard how the Garda Síochána Act came about as a result of the Morris tribunal and investigations that were carried out by Mr. Justice Morris in my county of Donegal. The interesting point about the tribunal is how the subsequent narrative confined the problem to Donegal. The view was that it was only in Donegal that such things were happening and that up there we are different and things go wrong. That was the narrative that was propagated by officialdom and by those with the power to make things happen. Families around the country could relate similar issues to what happened in Donegal to which they never been able to get answers or that have never been properly investigated.

The key issue relates to giving an organisation too much power. If any one of us in this House were given unlimited power the tendency would be to abuse it. That is natural. We must all be accountable and be held accountable. That is the objective of the Bill. The Bill provides for the setting up of a Garda Síochána independent board with the task of promoting respect for human rights within the Garda Síochána. That is something we should have across society. Departments should work on the same basis of respecting the human rights of all citizens.

The Bill seeks, rightly, to strengthen the power and independence of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. That should have been the case from the outset without having to introduce amending legislation to make it happen. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission should be able to initiate its own investigations. It is vitally important that serving gardaí should not form part of the commission’s investigative staff. The commission should also have mandatory supervision of gardaí investigating themselves. That cannot continue. All the good gardaí who are working hard and doing their best to serve their communities deserve that, as well as the citizens of Ireland.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too am pleased to speak on the Garda Síochána (Amendment) Bill. In deference to my colleague, Deputy Pringle, I will salute the bravery of the vast majority of gardaí for their integrity since the foundation of the State. I too have had some bad experiences. I could be bitter but I will not tarnish the entire force because of the actions, in my case, of one or two rotten apples. There are many rotten apples but it is a minority of the 13,000 strong force. That is the magic number we have now. I seek clarification from the Minister on whether the total strength includes the Garda Reserve. I believe it does.

I welcome the re-opening of Templemore but this is the second time the Minister has made such an announcement. He revised the original re-opening due to either the Haddington Road agreement or Croke Park II, I do not know which it was. The Minister cannot play politics with the issue. I want Templemore to be opened because it has been closed since 2009. We do not know the size of the intake in 2014 but it will be 2017 before the new recruits are out on the street.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Recruits are on the street after 33 weeks.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a serious situation. I salute the Garda Reserve who give their time. They should be given the first chance to become recruited to the Garda Síochána if they are suitable.

The Garda Representative Association, GRA, has repeatedly called for impartiality in investigations. No one is hiding in that regard. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and its forerunner, with which I was involved, must restore trust with the Garda and people. I have seen on television that when a garda is involved in an accident in some cases a helicopter flies members of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to investigate. I accept there must be independence but I question the resources that are put into the commission. The investigations must be carried out in a proper manner. We must examine the situation. The Garda must be investigated by an independent body. The GRA has asked for that. However, when we see cases such as those of the late Fr. Niall Molloy and Shane Tuohy they spoil the whole atmosphere for the rest of the good gardaí. I have seen gardaí being abused at the front gate trying to protect us in this House from people who want anarchy on the streets. I salute the Garda and I support it. I have been involved in the community alert initiative all my life. A police force cannot operate without the support of the public. We must build trust.

I am not a reckless person. I asked questions some months ago of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, about an incident when he was stopped at a checkpoint on Pembroke Street between February and early March 2011. He responded about incidents in 2008 and 2009. I inquired whether he was cautioned on that occasion by gardaí at a checkpoint under the Road Traffic Acts, which he was, and whether the gardaí on that occasion used their discretion. It was a simple question but he did not answer it. I asked whether he was asked to produce a specimen of breath under the mandatory breath testing provisions contained in the Road Traffic Act 2010. He did not fully answer the question. I also asked whether his behaviour and reaction to the request was appropriate and cordial. There was no answer. I further asked whether he attempted to use the privilege of travelling to the Dáil as a means of avoiding giving a breath test. The issue was not clarified. I inquired whether he did give a specimen of breath. According to legal advice I received, a failure to do so is the same as a refusal. The Minister did fail to do so. I asked the Tánaiste whether he would, in the public interest, and to facilitate greater transparency, immediately publish the Garda report which exists into the incident that took place in late February, early March 2011.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am afraid the Deputy is not speaking to the Bill.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to the Bill. That is why the Bill has been introduced. We must have trust from the top down. We must have trust in the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice and Equality, which we do not have. The Minister has treated the Garda with total disdain on many occasions. He was not invited to the conference. He did not allow gardaí to use facilities at his house. That has never happened before. These are not wild claims; they are facts on which I have corroborative proof. The report exists if the Minister wants to find it. The Garda will not find it if it looks in the reports for 2008 or 2009. The incident in question happened between late February and early March 2011. The Minister should cut out the tomfoolery and be honest. He should be upfront and answer the questions, not hide and then spend the past three weeks on national television and radio and other shows promoting his book, if one does not mind, and telling the presenter that it was not “Prime Time” and he would not answer questions other than on the book.

It is an abuse of power.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy must speak on the legislation. This is not on the legislation.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about Laura? I do not care about Laura.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, please.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

More power to him with his book, but he is not answering the questions.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not personalise this.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Garda must have trust and confidence in the Minister.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is personalising it.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We must have trust in the Commissioner. This is the same Commissioner who objected to an extension of time for a predecessor, but now he has received an extension himself. Is this the pot calling the kettle black? Where is the trust? I question the Commissioner on this aspect. How can he be impartial? The relationship between him and Minister is tainted. It is time the Minister - or the Taoiseach who appointed him - entered the House and answered the questions he is expected to answer as Minister for Justice and Equality, the highest office in the land. We must have faith and confidence in him, but we do not.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Mattie McGrath called for a vote on that issue.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but-----

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there is continuous interference from the Visitors' Gallery, I will have to ask those present to leave. Please be silent.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would be loth to stand here and making sweeping statements alleging Garda corruption and collusion, particularly at a time when many excellent and hard-working gardaí whom I know are demoralised by their work. They have suffered cuts to their wages and dramatic changes to their job descriptions. That there has been no recruitment for several years has crippled the force. One hundred Garda stations will be closed by the end of the year, resources are stretched and not enough importance is being placed on the brave work being done by gardaí on a daily basis. For example, only two Garda units - the domestic violence and sexual assault unit and the computer crime investigative unit - have access to counselling sessions. This is wrong. All members who suffer from stress or depression as a result of dealing with traumatic cases should have access to counsellors.

The fact that just four in ten cases are being dealt with or investigated by the Garda ombudsman, coupled with the worrying impediments that are being placed in the commission's way, makes it clear that action is needed urgently. Crime is demoralising people, terrifying the elderly and destroying the lives of many young people. To tackle this crime, we need an efficient and effective Garda force operating with the full confidence, support and co-operation of the population it serves.

The Bill proposes a greater role for community feedback in policing. Without Garda accountability, this Bill will only be a pipe dream. It should be supported. Last month, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission released a damning report about an incident in my constituency of Waterford. It claimed that members of the force had not co-operated with its investigation and refused to supply information when requested. The commission was investigating claims that a 38-year-old man had been badly beaten and kicked in the head by the gardaí who arrested him. Two former members of the force were later found guilty of the assault and another was found guilty of perverting the course of justice by moving CCTV cameras while the assault was occurring. The ombudsman claimed that its investigation had been hampered by the lack of support from some gardaí, particularly when it came to supplying necessary documentation. To compound this issue further, the document was later produced in the course of the trial by the defence for certain of the accused. This is wrong.

Nor is this an isolated incident. The ombudsman has highlighted cases in which repeated reminders - 18 in just one case - needed to be sent to Garda stations requesting information during various investigations. In one instance, it took 136 days for information to be provided after a request was made. Often, the relevance of a request is questioned before materials are released. This is unacceptable. I am told that some officers are routinely unwilling to take part even in informal attempts to resolve complaints made against them. It is almost as if a small number of gardaí take insult at being asked to account for themselves. How can the Minister stand over a situation in which gardaí are attending meetings with the ombudsman with nothing to say for themselves? This is on record - no comment, no comment, no comment. This is a matter of serious concern for us all.

Seven years after the Morris tribunal, we are still awaiting the recommended overhaul of the force. We need to reassure the public that senior officers will ensure that all gardaí co-operate with the ombudsman's office promptly. Otherwise, what kind of signal will we send people? The situation needs to be addressed from the top down. Funnily enough, when I showed the Bill to some gardaí, they had no problem with it. Gardaí on the ground have no problem with accountability. This is what we should be aiming for. The Bill goes a long way towards restoring people's confidence, which is badly needed.

I started my contribution by complimenting the good gardaí across the country who are doing their best for people. They do not want to be under investigation because of incidents that they find unacceptable. Were this Bill presented to ordinary gardaí on the ground, superintendents and sergeants who work for and in the community, they would find it acceptable.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to contribute on this new legislation. I welcome the Bill, as it is progressive, fair and sensible. Speaking as a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, I believe the Bill is a clear path towards ensuring fairness, equality and justice for all citizens. For this reason, I will vote in favour of the legislation.

The Bill is concerned with truth and the importance of fairly implementing the laws made in the Houses. Sadly, we have all seen the law abused and many miscarriages of justice. We cannot turn our backs on these cases. We cannot turn our backs on these people.

A number of Deputies referred to the issue of trust in and respect for An Garda Síochána. Where I come from, one earns trust and respect. This is the bottom line regardless of whether one is a garda, a teacher, a councillor or a Deputy. On the north side of Dublin, one earns respect by working in the community. It is important that we say this in the debate.

The legislation seeks to strengthen the independence and impartiality of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and to establish a Garda Síochána independent board with monitoring, supervisory and oversight functions in respect of the Garda Síochána. This is a sensible proposal. What is wrong with it?

Yesterday, I attended a meeting of five victims of Garda malpractice and a lack of Garda accountability. These are real people. Ms Margaret Delaney and Mr. Billy Ryan claim Garda harassment, but their case was deemed inadmissible for investigation by the ombudsman, as no breach of the disciplinary code had occurred. Mr. Eamon Tuohey claims there was an inadequate investigation into the death of his son. Dr. Richard O'Flaherty witnessed interference in cases and Garda harassment in Limerick. He is a Limerick doctor. Mrs. Nuala Ramseyer claims there was an inadequate investigation into the death of her brother. These are all real cases. They are decent and genuine people. It is important to point out that this Bill is about developing good policing, not about the dedicated and genuinely good gardaí who serve their communities and their country.

Members of my family have served in the Garda. Many relations and friends still serve there. I will not take any lecture from the Minister for Justice and Equality about being anti-Garda. I will not take a lecture from any member of the Government. This Bill is about setting standards, about honest, high-quality policing and, above all, about accountability, which is the key word in this debate. At all times, we need high-quality and honest policing. The majority of gardaí provide it. However, it is important that safeguards against bad, dishonest and corrupt policing be in place. That is what the Bill is about. Why are Government backbenchers and Ministers losing the bottle to support it?

I wish to highlight another example of corrupt policing. I raise the case of Mr. James Sheehan of West Commons, Ardfert, County Kerry, whom I met recently again. He was arrested on 17 August 1989 under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act. A gun was allegedly found in his car, which had been driven by a garda to Tralee Garda station. It was alleged that the gun was found in the dashboard. In a subsequent search of his house, a number of bullets-----

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should not name people.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy did.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I named the victim. I named a number of other victims. I did not name the gardaí.

Mr. Sheehan protested his innocence and said that this was a set-up. I have mentioned the case of Mr. James Sheehan a number of times. I have met him and I believe him 100%. The DPP also believed him, the charges were dropped and he was cleared. However, when he went to push this blatant set-up further and clear his name, the gun disappeared from Garda protection. Why? He endeavoured to vindicate his name, yet untruths and barriers were put in front of him by some gardaí. He is still suffering today and his family are also suffering, particularly when they want to travel through airports on holidays. His nightmare continues yet nobody listened to his claim that the gun was planted. This is a really sad, true story, yet the silence is deafening.

I will continue to fight Mr. James Sheehan's case until the truth comes out and he gets justice. This case is at the core of this legislation. This Bill is not anti-gardaí or anti-justice. The legislation is sensible, fair and above all it is the way to run policing in any democratic state. I urge all Deputies to vote for this legislation.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Wallace on bringing forward this important legislation. The Bill will, no doubt, be voted down later on this evening by the Government. However, it puts in place a template for best international practice, which will be acted upon in the not too distant future. It is worthwhile reminding ourselves that many of the provisions in the Bill before us have been recommended in reports and papers published by the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the Irish Human Rights Commission, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the Combat Poverty Agency, the Fr. Peter McVerry Trust, Social Justice Ireland, the Morris tribunal, the Patten report and various other groups.

These are well known and well respected bodies and individuals who have contributed to drawing up this legislation. The Bill sets out best practice and will, hopefully, be acted upon in the not too distant future and put into operation.

Many cases of malpractice have been instanced in the course of this debate. There is no doubt that many such cases exist. Yesterday, we met some of the individuals concerned in the audio-visual room of Leinster House. I am currently dealing with three cases of malpractice and it is quite clear that there are such cases throughout the country. We have also had the Morris tribunal.

Even if there was never an allegation of malpractice against one Garda, this Bill represents the most sensible and fairest way of operating the Garda Síochána in a democratic state. The Patten report in the North of Ireland set out what is international best practice. To a large extent, this Bill follows that report's parameters.

I support the introduction of a Garda Síochána independent board, which would be an important step in strengthening the democratic accountability of An Garda Síochána. In addition, it would ensure that there would be trust in the force and its membership. It would lead to policing by consent, and community policing, throughout the country. That is a key element in this legislation.

It was stated earlier that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, or GSOC, was an important milestone in dealing with complaints when it was introduced. It might well have been, but in recent times it is clear that the commission is certainly suffering from a lack of co-operation from the Garda Síochána. I would go so far as to say that the commission is suffering from obstruction by Garda management. There is obviously a need to ensure that we have a fully independent Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission that has full authority to act and is not being obstructed by Garda management.

The relevant section of the Bill will deal with that question by widening the admissibility of the criteria for complaints. It will also require mandatory supervision of all investigations by that office, rather than the current system whereby 40% of complaints are investigated by gardaí themselves. In addition, it would prohibit serving gardaí from forming part of the GSOC's staff. The latter two points are very important. We simply cannot have gardaí investigating themselves. It would not work for any other profession either. It simply does not work and it is quite clear from the recent report by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission that it is not working and needs to be changed.

This Bill will bring about such change. I would hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister and the Government would accept the Bill and afford it a further reading. It could be amended, if necessary, as it proceeds through the House. I confirm my support for the Bill.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don Bhille agus aitheantas a thabhairt do na Teachtaí Dála de réir an obair iontach a dhein siad ionas go mbeadh an Bille os ár gcomhair, go háirithe an obair a dhein an Teachta Dála Wallace.

In the Chamber yesterday, I heard the opening speeches from Deputies Mick Wallace, Clare Daly and Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, who along with Deputy Joan Collins, have done most of the work to bring this Bill before the House.

At the end of the Minister's speech, however, I had to ask myself if the people in the Visitors Gallery, who had issues in the area, were reassured by what he said. In recent years, I have attended countless meetings and briefings that were distressing and disturbing. They generally concerned injustices that had been allowed to continue for many years. I also attended the meeting in the audio-visual room yesterday. I listened, appalled, to the stories by people who had had experiences with gardaí because of particular incidents involving members of their families, and their efforts to get answers, information and justice.

Their encounters with the system, including gardaí and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, did not leave them feeling that their voices were heard, the issues were addressed or that justice had been achieved. Their stories were of Garda investigations being well below professional standards, shortcomings in Garda conduct and families forced to go to court - even to the Supreme Court - at considerable expense, in order to get information. They were simply seeking answers to genuine queries about what had happened to them or their loved ones. They have been treated very badly over quite a number of years.

It was horrific to listen to these people talking about harassment, gardaí not identifying themselves, inappropriate searches, false accusations and cover-ups. Some of this harassment, which went on in front of children, was because of what was described as collusion between certain local influential people and gardaí in the area. It was all basically impeding the course of justice.

We saw what happened in Donegal but it has certainly spread to other areas. I have been involved in one particular incident, trying to get information for a family in the inner city whose son was murdered. He was a criminal but he was their son and, like any parents, they are entitled to answers about what happened to him. So far, I have written to the Garda Commissioner, the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda Chief Superintendent, but I am still waiting for answers. The family have also been waiting for a number of years.

The Minister of State seems to have so much confidence in the current system, which she has outlined. The Minister is answerable to the Dáil for the Garda Síochána. The Garda Commissioner is the Accounting Officer for the Garda Síochána and in that capacity is liable to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. Whether that is supposed to inspire confidence, I am not too sure. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission will carry out independent investigations into Garda conduct and the Garda Síochána inspectorate. However, that system has not worked for the people who told their stories yesterday. Neither did it work for Dr. O'Flaherty or the family of Fr. Niall Molloy. In their case, they have been waiting for over 30 years.

We need impartiality, transparency and democratic accountability. Some 15 or 20 years ago, there was a very fractured relationship between the gardaí and communities in the inner city. There was no trust in the gardaí and there were serious shortcomings in their responses to crime. The gardaí then had to demonstrate that they were prepared to be responsive.

Out of that initiative, led by the late Tony Gregory, came the community policing forum, which comprises a co-ordinator and two other staff who organise meetings at which gardaí have to address the issues brought to them by the community. The issues raised range from crime to drug dealing and anti-social behaviour. The forum also provides for meetings held in confidential settings aided by the staff, at which gardaí must answer questions. This has led to trust in the Garda Síochána by the community.

What is proposed in this Bill is in the best interests of those hard-working, honourable gardaí who are equally appalled at what has been going on in certain sections.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been an interesting debate. While I do not propose to recap on all the issues raised by the Minister, the model proposed in the Bill does not have due regard to the existence of a national police force in this jurisdiction which is not only the police service but the security and intelligence service and border control authority of this State.

In his opposition to the Bill, the Minister voiced the concern that the proposal to transfer key oversight functions of the Garda Síochána to a separate unelected body would not improve the democratic accountability of the force. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 provides that the Garda Commissioner is accountable to the Minister in the performance of his or her functions and those of the force and the Minister, in turn, is accountable to this House. As Accounting Officer for the force, the Commissioner is also liable to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts.

It is noteworthy that the UK is moving away from the type of structure proposed in the Bill to systems aimed at more democratic accountability linked to elected representatives, in tandem of course with an independent body to investigate allegations of misconduct. The Bill also calls for enhanced Garda measures on human rights. It is indeed appropriate that we debate Garda responsibilities on human rights and the policies developed to meet these. There have been a number of developments within An Garda Síochána in recent years designed to put regard for human rights at the core of policing in Ireland. A function of the Garda Síochána under section 7 of the 2005 Act is to vindicate the human rights of each individual. Arising from this requirement, all Garda policy is drafted in accordance with human rights principles and all operational Garda directives now make reference to the relevant human rights principles. Accordingly, the application of human rights is a core objective of the force. This work is supported by advice from the Garda Síochána strategic human rights committee, membership of which includes NGO experts in human rights.

The Bill seeks an enhanced role for the joint policing committees. A number of Deputies brought their own personal and positive experience of these committees to the fore in their contributions on the Bill. My experience in this regard has also been positive. The Minister awaits the outcome of the review of the JPCs which is under way. I expect that we can look forward to improved operating guidelines for JPCs, providing, in particular, for an enhanced communication role at local and national levels.

In presenting the Bill, some Deputies referred to whistleblowing provisions for members of the Garda Síochána. As members will be aware, the programme for Government contains a commitment to enhance whistleblowing provisions. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform recently published the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013, which provides for robust protection to whistleblowing employees generally across the public and private sectors. Section 19 of that Bill provides for the making of regulations relating to protected disclosures by members of the Garda Síochána. This provision provides for enhanced procedures for members of the Garda Síochána who wish to raise matters of concern.

I would like to comment on two issues in the Bill. First, a number of Deputies commented that certain forms of harm, including torture and rape, are not covered under section 102 of the 2005 Act. Section 102 requires the Garda Commissioner to refer to the Ombudsman Commission any matter in which it appears the behaviour of a member may have resulted in the death of, or serious harm to, a person. The term "serious harm" is comprehensively defined. It is important to understand that this is an automatic referral mechanism. In other words, the Commissioner does not have to decide whether any wrongdoing might be involved. For example, a death arising from a straightforward car accident would be covered under this provision. The scenarios outlined by some Deputies, concerning incidents of torture or rape, are of an entirely different order and would fall to be investigated as serious criminal allegations. In this regard, the other provisions of the Act relating to the Ombudsman Commission would be relevant.

Second, the Bill seeks the extension, from six months to one year, in the time within which complaints must be made to the Ombudsman Commission. Section 84(2) of the 2005 Act provides that the Ombudsman Commission may extend the time limit if it considers there are good reasons for so doing. For practical reasons, including the public interest in investigating incidents as soon as possible, there must be a reasonable timeframe within which a complaint can be made. It is also the case that proposals from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission for amendments to Part 4 of the 2005 Act are under consideration and these proposals are the starting point for any revision to its oversight role.

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate on the Bill. I agree with the Minister's acknowledgement yesterday of the genuine objectives behind the Bill but conclude that the Bill cannot, for the reasons stated during the debate, be supported.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everybody is on the side of the Garda Síochána and wants to see an efficient, honest and honourable force. Nobody is disputing that. The problem as outlined in this Bill is not what is happening in the middle or on the ground but at the top. The authors of this Bill are seeking to tackle the principles of political appointments and self-regulation.

The Minister of State rightly pointed out that methods of accountability are already in place. The problem is they are not working efficiently and leave an enormous amount of room for public doubt about what is happening at the top of the Garda Síochána. I am a member of the Committee of Public Accounts to which the Minister of State referred. When the Commissioner appeared before that committee in early May, his performance was lamentable. He refused to answer questions put to him. When asked the real questions, he dived for cover. When he was asked about what the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, had found about the treatment by gardaí of informants and breaches of Garda Síochána guidelines, he said he did not wish to talk about those issues. The Committee of Public Accounts does not effectively manage to illicit from the Garda Síochána the information that is necessary solely because it refuses to give it. The Garda Síochána is not accountable in part because the committee does not push issues hard enough and because those at the top are politically appointed.

That the Commissioner or anybody at the top of the Garda Síochána should be politically appointed is wrong. It means that such persons are in the hands of a Government which may ask them to do things which are either improper or politically motivated. It would be far better if, as provided for in this Bill, the appointment of the Commissioner and regulation of the Garda Síochána was changed. The Commissioner should be appointed by other means, although I do not agree with the formula proposed in that regard in the Bill. However, it should be done in manner that is detached from political appointments so that the Garda Síochána is not politicised at the top. The Garda Síochána has always been over-politicised at the top and we have had accidents here as a result. I am not suggesting that this Government is behaving improperly or doing anything improper. However, it is important we legislate to ensure future Governments cannot behave in that way. This Bill offers a possible model for appointment of a Garda Commissioner.

The second issue is self regulation, which was exposed by the penalty points investigation. I do not propose to run over any old sores. The GSOC was involved in two parallel investigations, namely, the penalty points investigation and investigation into another matter. The penalty points investigation, which by and large exonerated the Garda Síochána, was an internal inquiry by a garda appointed by the Commissioner. When the Commissioner was questioned about this at the Committee of Public Accounts his response was that he decided the garda concerned was a man of integrity. That is the problem: such matters should not be decided by the Commissioner. The appointment of that internal investigator should not have been made by the Commissioner. The other investigation going at the time was an inquiry being carried out by the Garda Ombudsman.

It took four years to complete because senior gardaí delayed, procrastinated and refused to issue documents to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. The external inquiry then issued an excoriating report about what was happening at the top of the Garda, while the internal inquiry by and large exonerated the Garda and found that three gardaí had questions to answer. This is not satisfactory as it indicates that self-regulation, that is, the appointment of gardaí internally, leads to one outcome, while independent oversight leads to another outcome. It also indicates that the Garda is prepared to delay and obstruct when it is not in its interests for an external inquiry to find out what is going on.

I welcome the Bill because greater accountability and freedom of information are long overdue. We must end political appointments of members of the Garda and Judiciary. This Bill is a first step in that direction.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am extremely disappointed by the Government's response to this considered and well-drafted Bill which deals with very important issues. Deputy Wallace and his staff did a great deal of work on the legislation. More important, as the Deputy will agree, I salute those who are present in numbers in the Gallery, in particular those who gave testimony about the issues they face. I take offence at statements to the effect that nothing is being done to address Garda corruption at certain levels. The people in the Gallery travelled to Dublin to give testimony and relate what is happening in their communities.

The Minister referred to measures to promote human rights and inform members of the Garda of their responsibilities and noted the establishment of a committee to advise senior Garda management. What mechanism is in place to ensure citizens' human rights are not breached and to deal with complaints made by members of the public? We need a well-resourced, independent body to investigate such complaints.

I refer to the death some years ago in my constituency of a 21 year old man who had been held in Rathfarnham Garda station and was later found in a coma in a nearby estate. While I do not know what happened to the young man in question - an open verdict was returned at his inquest - I am aware that the internal Garda investigation did not answer serious questions arising from the case. For example, why was a person being held in a Garda station while awaiting transfer to a second Garda station suddenly released? The family of the dead man could not obtain answers about what had taken place and were treated with what can only be described as contempt. They were not afforded any rights and were subject to cruel and organised harassment by members of the Garda Síochána.

The suggestion that gardaí should investigate other gardaí is not acceptable, as the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled in the Govell v. UK case. In its findings, the court held that police investigating complaints against police officers, where the complaint suggests a breach of a right under the European Convention on Human Rights, is a breach of Article 13 of the convention providing a right to an effective remedy. The measures in the Bill would remedy this issue by widening the criteria that apply in respect of time limits and including breaches of the new code of service. Currently, only 40% of complaints are deemed admissible. Of these, 40% are investigated by gardaí without supervision by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Under the Bill, complaints could only be referred to gardaí with the consent of the complainant. The key issue is that gardaí and retired gardaí should not be involved in the investigation of complaints.

The Minister stated the Bill had two main objectives, namely, to strengthen the independence of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and establish a Garda Síochána independent police board. The third objective of the Bill is to increase Garda autonomy and its independence from central Government, direct ministerial control and political influence. In pointing out that the Garda has responsibility for State security as well as civil policy, the Minister makes an argument for greater accountability and the dilution of political control of the police force.

In 2001, while in opposition, the Labour Party introduced a Bill which called for an independent policing strategy. The current Ministers and then Deputies Eamon Gilmore, Brendan Howlin and Pat Rabbitte fully supported the legislation, arguing that ministerial power over the Garda was excessive, while the then Deputy Alan Shatter argued for greater democratic accountability. Why are they now throwing their hands in the air and arguing that they cannot do anything?

The reforms proposed in the Bill are crucial if we are to ensure the highest standards are maintained in the Garda Síochána and there is confidence in the impartiality of the law. The policing service is certainly not corrupt by international standards. The purpose of the legislation is not to undermine the Garda but to ensure high policing standards are maintained in all circumstances. If, on occasion, these standards are not maintained, effective redress must be provided for those affected. This is the objective of the Bill.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Speaking yesterday, the Minister failed to acknowledge or address the third objective of the Bill, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, namely, to reduce ministerial control and political influence over the Garda Síochána. He emphasised his view that because the Garda is responsible for State security and law enforcement, he could not risk the proposed board being involved in policing. On the contrary, it is precisely because of the excessive concentration and centralisation of power in the hands of the Garda and Government that the proposed board and restructuring are necessary. This Bill will help to ensure excessive or unaccountable power over the police is not concentrated in the hands of party politicians.

The Minister also proposed that oversight and accountability were already adequately provided for by the offices of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and Garda Síochána Inspectorate. This is not the case. The former is a body that deals with complaints made by individual citizens about their treatment by individual gardaí. This does not constitute oversight of Garda policies and procedures or involvement in the drafting of codes or human rights proofing of policies. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission does not hold the Garda Commissioner to account in any sense or assess his performance in relation to policing plans, strategies and priorities. Similarly, the Garda Síochána Inspectorate cannot provide the type of independent oversight envisaged for the proposed board because it may only act or report on matters when instructed to do so by the Minister.

The Minister expressed a concern that a 16 member board would not be able to operate effectively. Either he did not read or he chose to ignore the section which provides that the board would have a full complement of staff to assist it, as is the case in respect of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Moreover, the composition of the board is broadly in line with a recommendation by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and a motion passed by the Labour Party in 2001 calling for a policing authority to be established with approximately 15 members.

Rather than address the substantive points raised in the Bill about the structure of policing, the Minister preferred to devote much of his time to nitpicking about the composition of the board. The experience of people such as the Ombudsman for Children and Data Protection Commissioner would be invaluable to the board. The idea of such individuals serving on more than one board is not as foreign as the Minister suggests. Given the strong emphasis on human rights in the proposed board, the experience of these two officeholders would be particularly apt.

The Minister also believes that the appointment of the Chief Inspector of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate to the board would create a conflict of interest. Given the focus in the Bill on co-operative development of policing policy and the partnership approach envisaged between the Garda Commissioner and proposed board, this appointment would be particularly appropriate. Again, I wonder if the Minister has considered the measured arrangements proposed in the Bill in any depth or with any seriousness.

The value of transparency is promoted throughout the Bill by the requirement on the board to publish all relevant codes, operational policies and procedures and the requirement on the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to receive and publish follow-up details of investigations. Publication of and access to these documents has long been recommended by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Irish Human Rights Commission.

The Bill also provides for greater transparency by identifying the Garda Síochána as a public body for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. It is disturbing to note that the Minister is prepared to ignore the recommendations of the United Nations with regard to Ireland's non-compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly Article 7. He has also chosen to ignore the 2009 recommendations of the Irish Human Rights Commission which are reflected in many of the proposals in the Bill.

Yesterday, the Minister and other speakers on the Government side demonstrated a lack of understanding of the true meaning of the concept of democratic accountability and what is required in this regard. Democratic accountability in its purest form means accountability of the Garda to the people. From the bottom up, the board would take into consideration the recommendations of joint policing committees. The proposals allow for a multi-layered form of democratic accountability rather than the very limited form about which the Minister spoke.

The Minister indicated the Garda Commissioner is currently answerable to the Dáil via the Minister by virtue of the ability of Deputies to table parliamentary questions. This is nonsense. If a question is tabled which relates to operational matters, the Minister will indicate that it is a matter for the Garda Commissioner. The Dáil has very limited power because Parliament is totally controlled by the Executive. So much for the argument that the Garda Commissioner is held to account by elected representatives.

That so many politicians are determined to prove their support for and dedication to the Garda Síochána further limits the Dáil's potential to hold the Garda to account.

They were falling over themselves in their attempts to be identified as pro-Garda. I am not anti-Garda, but I believe it is in the interest of every citizen, including all the honest gardaí, that there is real accountability in our police force, a police force for the people and not just a tool of Government.

There is a couple in the Visitors Gallery tonight who say they have been subjected to repeated Garda harassment through inappropriate searches, false accusations and seizure of mobile telephones over the past year or so. They also allege an assault by a garda during one of the searches. They have two children, eight and nine years old, who have witnessed some of this intimidation. The children are afraid, find it difficult to sleep and they wet the bed. They do not want to be at home in case the gardaí come again. These people feel that accountability would help.