Dan Boyle (Green Party)

The gratitude of the House in respect of the work done by Mr. Justice Morris already has been marked. One must repeat the comments made by the Minister of State in his opening contribution to the effect that the entire purpose of the tribunal was to examine how one particular incident affected those who were accused and how they were subsequently treated in Garda custody. The main finding of the report, which was given in June 2005, indicated the investigation was "prejudiced, tendentious and utterly negligent in the highest degree". To have such a finding made in respect of our police force is utterly shaming. It reflects badly on the individuals concerned and places an onus on how the Garda, as a body corporate, is perceived by the public. Everyone will accept the Garda is a highly effective police force. It is supported by the population but such incidents and those who are involved in them do nothing to ensure this confidence is shared at all times.

The tribunal findings in respect of particular incidents pertained to the culture that obtained in County Donegal in particular. However, while such incidents may have been specific to that location in their intensity, there is a need for wider debate on whether their more petty practices are to be found elsewhere. If a case exists that there is a culture of planting evidence or of petty corruption, such as the breaking of laws and subsequent avoidance of taking responsibility for so doing by Garda members or the protection of family members in similar circumstances, then confidence-building agencies are needed that will help to identify such practices, root them out and ensure they do not recur.

The office of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was established subsequent to the establishment of the tribunal and it is a case of waiting and seeing as to its effectiveness. I tend to consider that the degree to which Garda representative bodies are unhappy with the manner in which the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission has worked to date is a sign in its favour because it shows there is a policing of the police. This pertains to the dilemma of who guards the guards that has obtained since Members have been obliged to deal with such issues in the first instance. Members must ensure the resources and structures that are in place in the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission are sufficient. During the passage of the relevant legislation, Members debated whether the three-person structure was adequate or whether the highly effective structure that operated in Northern Ireland would be more appropriate. This debate should be ongoing because the work done by Nuala O'Loan in particular, albeit in a situation that also was coloured by distinctions of a political and religious nature, was highly effective and proved to be a template for how such an office should work.

I will revert to the matters in hand in respect of the report itself. It is an additional commendation of the work of Mr. Justice Morris and his team that he is far from circumspect in spreading the blame regarding what went wrong in respect of this incident and the systems and procedures surrounding it. There is criticism of the Houses of the Oireachtas regarding the area of privileges and procedures. I consider that the work of the two Oireachtas Members in question was more to the advantage of advancing justice in Ireland than not. However, pertinent questions are asked by the findings as to whether the use of privilege and the potential abuse of privilege is something against which these Houses have sufficient protection. These are pertinent questions because of the potential that, for mischief's sake, allegations can be invented on the pretext of privilege, even without such allegations coming through a third party or an alleged whistleblower. I would welcome a wider debate on how Members can prevent such an occurrence. I must admit that in my experience in both Houses, I never have seen an incidence of the use of privilege being abused. However, that does not mean Members must not be wary of the possibility that it can be.

Blame also is apportioned to some of those who were peripheral victims of the original incident in respect of the making of further allegations. Mr. Justice Morris has made a highly serious criticism in this regard. The invention of further allegations is the equivalent of police planting evidence in the first instance and the planting of drugs in particular. I am unsure how this finding of the tribunal will be pursued. While one can argue about how this might have come about in human terms, it did not help how the tribunal was allowed to do its work or how the tribunal eventually was allowed to make its finding on the main object, namely, the death of a person and people who were unjustly accused in that regard.

Subsequently, there has been a huge cost to the State, not only in the cost of the tribunal itself but in high awards to individuals who have been affected by Garda negligence. Members' responsibility is of both a fiscal and a moral nature and when addressing the work of the Morris tribunal, they should not only state that such situations should be avoided but should discuss how it both affects the rights of the individuals concerns and how it diminishes the ability of the Government to allocate resources effectively, particularly in the area of justice. If such lessons are learned, if they can be reinforced and if such incidents can be avoided, Members should be grateful for what the Morris tribunal has done. However, if another situation arises in which such cultures are allowed to develop that somehow are reinforced by a lack of proper management within the Garda and a lack of legislative and political action, unfortunately the work of Mr. Justice Morris and his team merely will be perceived as another attempt to stop a tide that those of us engaged in politics have not been successful in stopping in the first instance.