Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999

Vol. 502 No. 1

Priority Questions. - Garda Complaints Board.

Brendan Howlin

Question:

40 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will make a statement on the recent report of the Garda Complaints Board; his views on the introduction of amendments to the Garda Siochána Complaints Act, 1986, along the lines sought in the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7295/99]

I welcome the publication of the third report of the Garda Síochána Complaints Board in relation to the operation of the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Act, 1986 to which the Deputy refers. I presented this report to Government last week and duly received approval to lay it before the Oireachtas and to publish it.

As part of an ongoing review mechanism, the 1986 Act, under which the Complaints Board was established, requires the board to keep the working of the system of investigation and adjudication of complaints under review and to report to me generally on these matters at regular intervals. The recently published report is the third such submitted by the board. In it, the board makes a number of recommendations for legislative and procedural change to improve the board's effectiveness and efficiency and to protect and enhance its independence.

These recommendations number more than 30 so it is not practical to discuss each one today. However, I will mention one of the significant recommendations set out in the report. The board makes the case for it to be allowed to decide the level of supervision of its investigations on a case-by-case basis. The Act provides for general supervision of the investigation of complaints by Garda officers and this, in practice, means that the board is confined to reviewing the investigation file, once submitted.

A consequence of this is that officers of the Complaints Board are effectively precluded from attending at interview between investigating officers and complainants or members of the force against whom complaints are made. This is regarded by the board as a significant deficiency in enabling it to effectively exercise its supervisory functions in regard to complaints investigation.

The board, therefore, recommends that the Act be amended to allow it to decide the level of supervision in each case, which would range from the status quo to the direct supervision of all aspects of an investigation. In this regard, however, the board made it very clear that in exercising a right to decide on the level of supervision, it would consider that reviewing the investigation file, as is currently provided for, would be sufficient for most investigations.

I emphasise that this proposal is but one of many requiring detailed consideration and consultation. While the board's recommendations are wide-ranging and detailed, the broad thrust of the current legislation allows complaints against members of the Garda Síochána to be dealt with effectively and fairly. That is not to say that enhancements to the current system cannot be made where appropriate. That is what the ongoing review of the Act and its operation is all about.

Many of the recommendations in the board's third report were included in its second triennial report and much of the analysis needed to reach conclusions on these recommendations is almost complete. I hope I will be in a position to bring proposals to Government arising from the board's recommendations in the near future. I see merit in many of the recommendations and am keen to see them implemented as soon as possible.

I thank the Minister for his reply. There are up to 30 recommendations in the report, which he has had for up to three months. Rather than simply mention some of its more important recommendations, he should have an opinion on them. By now he should be in a position to put forward proposals on amending legislation to Government, if that is what he intends to do.

The chairman's foreword to the report states that for a variety of reasons the last review was done for the 1990-92 period and part of the reason it took so long to complete the third report was insufficient staff. Does the Minister intend to provide adequate staff to rectify that deficiency?

The chairman's foreword states that the board is strongly of the view that in order to properly supervise some of the most serious complaints an amendment to the Act is required. Will the Minister give a guarantee to the House that those amendments will be made speedily?

There are three reports. The last report covered the period 1993-98 and the chairman cited a problem of staffing as one of the difficulties in producing an earlier report. I am anxious to address the concern about staffing. Recently I put forward a proposal to the Department of Finance to augment the staff.

I accept the Deputy's contention that if recommendations are to be implemented, legislation will be required. It would be premature to state categorically what kind of amendments I envisage, but we can take it as read that the Garda Complaints Board's recommendation that greater supervision is needed on a case-by-case basis requires implementation.

The other recommendations are receiving careful consideration and proposals will be brought forward to the Government in due course.

This is my first time to ask the Minister for Justice priority questions. It will take me some time to get used to his style. I asked two clear questions. Will he accept the chairman's demand for more staff to enable him to do his job properly? Will he give a "yes" or "no" answer to that question? There are 30 recommendations in the report, but the main recommendation, which is repeated in the chairman's foreword, is that in order to deal with the most serious complaints, a change in the Act in relation to the supervision of these complaints is required. Does the Minister accept that in principle? Will he give an undertaking to the House to introduce amending legislation in due course?

With due respect to the Deputy, I do not believe that the problem has anything to do with my style. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Deputy does not understand me.

The Minister has failed to answer my questions.

I answered both questions.

This is Question Time and Members have rights here. Will the Minister provide the staff that the board requires to enable it do its work properly? Will he accept that recommendation? That is not a difficult question to answer. Will he answer it directly and not in a ponderous way? I will not go into the other 30 recommendations. I would have liked to have the time to go through one or two other points to ascertain the Minister's attitude in this regard. I would have thought that three months after receiving the report the Minister would be able to tell us the salient points with which he agrees. If amending legislation is to be produced, was it agreed by Government when he brought the report to it last week? Did he seek authorisation to bring forward amending legislation? That is the type of detail to which the House is entitled from the Minister. I do not mean to be contentious.

The Deputy seemed to suggest that he did not adequately hear me on the first occasion. In those circumstances and in deference to him I will repeat what I said. I stated that I had made proposals to the Minister for Finance to augment the staff in accordance with a recommendation in the report of the Garda Complaint Board. I indicated to him that while it would not be appropriate for me to outline in detail what legislative amendments I will bring forward, I said that considering the examination of cases on a case-by-case basis should be looked on favourably. In those circumstances I respectfully submit that I answered the Deputy's two questions.

As to the implementation of the report, which is three months old, I only wish Deputy Howlin had been as expeditious in implementing reports which he had when he was Minister for the Environment and Minister for Health.

Name one report. Jibes are cheap. The Minister is lost for words again.

Top
Share