I will share my time with Deputies Ardagh, Hoctor, O'Connor, Fiona O'Malley and Peter Power, by agreement.
Private Members’ Business.
Morris Tribunal: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Rabbitte on Tuesday, 21 June 2005:
That Dáil Éireann,
—conscious of the widespread and justified public disquiet at the findings of the first and second reports of the tribunal of inquiry into complaints concerning some gardaí of the Donegal division;
—appreciative of the work of Mr. Justice Morris and of the significance of his recommendations for the future operation of the Garda Síochána;
—noting in particular the tribunal's findings:
—of appalling management of the Garda Síochána coupled with the manipulation of facts and circumstances to present to Garda headquarters and to the world at large an untruthful appearance of honesty and integrity in the Donegal Garda division;
—that the scandalous situation detailed in its Second Report was caused by a combination of gross negligence at senior level within the Garda Síochána, amounting to the criminal negligence standard in law, and a lack of objectivity and corruption at lower levels within the force;
—that, if there was a lack of proper management at senior level, corruption at middle level and a lack of review throughout the force, similar such situations could occur again; and
—that there will be no possibility of progress for the Garda Síochána until the infighting between officers, the failure of gardaí to account immediately and truthfully for their duties and the consequent effect on good morale are all fully addressed and there is in place an authority which is empowered to react;
—conscious of the recommendation of the tribunal that, at a minimum, the provisions of the Garda Síochána Bill 2004 should be reviewed by the Oireachtas so as to satisfy the legitimate disquiet arising from the lack of any independent body to receive legitimate concerns about Garda behaviour;
—aware of the need for fundamental structural reforms to ensure a policing service that is both democratically accountable and compliant with the rule of law; and
—convinced of the need for systematic independent examination and review of the structures and procedures of policing in the State and of the governing legislation, with a view to recommendations for reform;
calls on the Government to establish an independent commission to inquire into policing in Ireland, with the following terms of reference:
(1) To consult widely, with both members of the public, public bodies and non-governmental organisations and, on the basis of its findings, to bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, with particular regard to the need to ensure that;
(a) policing arrangements are such that the State has a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole;
(b) the Garda Síochána is structured, managed and resourced so that it can be effective in discharging its full range of functions, including structured co-operation with other police forces;
(c) the education and training of members of the Garda Síochána is of the highest order;
(d) there is a transparent and impartial mechanism for promotions and appointments at all levels of the service;
(e) the police service is delivered in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels;
(f) the legislative and constitutional framework requires the impartial discharge of policing functions and conforms with internationally accepted norms in relation to policing standards; and
(g) the Garda Síochána operates within a clear framework of accountability to the law and the community it serves, so that:
(i) it is constrained by, accountable to and acts only within the law;
(ii) its powers and procedures, like the law it enforces, are clearly established and publicly available;
(iii) there are open, accessible and independent means of investigating and adjudicating upon complaints against its members;
(iv) there are clearly established arrangements enabling local communities, and their political representatives, to articulate their views and concerns about policing and to establish publicly policing priorities and influence policing policies, subject to safeguards to ensure police impartiality and freedom from partisan political control;
(v) there are arrangements for accountability and for the effective, efficient and economic use of resources in achieving policing objectives; and
(vi) there are means to ensure independent professional scrutiny and inspection of the police service to ensure that proper professional standards are maintained.
(2) To complete its consultations and deliberations and to report its findings and recommendations to the Houses of the Oireachtas in as efficient and economical a manner as possible and at the earliest possible date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it and, in any event, no later than 18 months from the date of its establishment."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"—conscious of the widespread and justified public disquiet at the findings of the first and second reports of the tribunal of inquiry into complaints concerning some gardaí of the Donegal division;
—appreciative of the work of Mr. Justice Morris and of the significance of his recommendations for the future operation of the Garda Síochána;
—noting in particular the tribunal's findings of serious wrongdoing and gross negligence on the part of certain members of the Garda Síochána in the Donegal division;
—convinced of the urgent need for reform of the framework of accountability and oversight of the Garda Síochána;
—recognises the comprehensiveness of the reform measures contained in the Garda Síochána Bill 2004;
—recalls the amendments made to the Bill by both Houses of the Oireachtas in their extensive review of its measures;
in particular welcomes the provisions of the Bill which will:
—establish a Garda Síochána ombudsman commission to independently investigate complaints against members of the force;
—establish a Garda Síochána inspectorate to independently assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the force; and
—establish local policing committees to enhance co-operation between the Garda Síochána and local authorities;
—acknowledges the commitment of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to propose amendments to further strengthen the Bill, in particular through the establishment of a duty on members of the Garda Síochána to account for their official acts; and
—supports the urgent passage into law of the Bill."
—(Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform).
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am glad to contribute to this debate on policing in Ireland and I welcome the amendments announced by the Minister, which are broadly in line with the request made by the second Morris report for a review of the Bill. The second Morris report notes: "the provisions of the Garda Bill need to be reviewed by the Oireachtas, so as to satisfy the legitimate disquiet that arises". I believe that every Member of this House owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Justice Morris for the forthrightness of his report and conclusions. I have no doubt that when this Bill is passed, the confidence of the public will be restored and the events which occurred in Donegal will never recur.
The kernel of the issue raised by tonight's motion is the widespread and justified public disquiet at the findings of the Morris report of serious wrongdoing and gross negligence on the parts of certain members of the Garda Síochána in the Donegal division. The vast majority of members of the force are fine, honest, brave upstanding and hard-working men and women. I am conscious that, as legislators, we must ensure that we do not add to existing demoralisation within the force when we address justified public concerns.
How do we address that anxiety? How do we restore the high level of trust and confidence that the Garda has historically enjoyed? The Bill before the House is the means to do so. There has been widespread agreement for many years that a culture of reform is needed within the force. The wisdom of the motion, refined by the Government's amendment, is that the Bill devised by the Minister will deliver a remedy for that public disquiet and, crucially, provide dedicated gardaí with legislative armour to protect themselves from the accusations, spurious and otherwise, that are detrimental to the reputation and morale of the force. It will also ensure that never again will a situation be permitted to obtain where a wall of silence and the perversion of the course of justice is aided and abetted by a minority of dishonest members of the force to the detriment of the majority. What provisions should such a Bill contain? As Mr. Justice Morris said, the Oireachtas should review the legislation to ensure that key elements of reform are provided for.
Mr. Justice Morris stated that we need an independent body to examine concerns about Garda behaviour. The Bill provides for an independent ombudsman commission with strong powers of investigation. There will also be a provision that one of the three-person commission will be appointed as chairperson, so that there will be a recognisable and responsible individual on the commission. Contrary to a view repeated in this House and elsewhere, the functions and powers of the independent ombudsman commission fully measure up to those of the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The differences which exist do not detract from the equivalence of the two.
The Bill establishes a Garda inspectorate. This was not included in the Bill as published but was included in an amendment brought forward by the Minister, Deputy McDowell, in direct response to the first Morris report. The issue also arises of the connection with and responsibility to the public. The public is entitled to look to politicians to exercise accountability for the Garda. A link with the community is necessary, but this broke down in Donegal. It is appropriate that the Bill provides for a link between the force and the community through local policing committees and local authorities.
These represent three of the key elements of the Bill. Time is not available to discuss every provision but the central point is that the Bill contains the most important legislative proposals on policing ever to come before these Houses. It replaces almost all the Garda legislation of the past 80 years. It is truly a root and branch overhaul of the force, its operation and how it is monitored.
The Bill has been the subject of wide consultation since its heads were first published. It has changed significantly on foot of an extensive Second Stage debate in this House, lengthy consideration on all Stages in the Seanad and a Committee Stage debate of record duration by the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Many excellent amendments based on the contributions of these quarters have enhanced the provisions of the Bill.
I welcome the support for the Bill expressed on radio by Deputy Costello this morning. However, I am disappointed that many others do not want the Minster to proceed with the Bill. By enacting this Bill as quickly as possible, I believe that all Members will make a significant contribution to the restoration of the high level of trust and confidence historically enjoyed by the Garda. A true democracy needs a force which commands the respect and confidence of citizens.
Notwithstanding the length of this Private Members' motion, two critical issues are involved. The first involves recognition of the widespread and justified public disquiet over the findings of the Morris tribunal. The second involves the question of whether an independent commission is required.
While I concur on the first issue, I find the second unnecessary. We do not need an independent commission, as proposed by the Labour Party motion, because that would take 18 months. This would consist of a finite period, and when concluded, the commission would report. We require to investigate how the Garda Síochána operates at present. Problems have been identified and we do not solely need investigations at this time but on an ongoing basis.
For that reason, I support the proposal put forward by the Minister with regard to the inspectorate. It would provide for the necessary appraisal of ongoing operations of the Garda and would be critical because there is nothing worse than investigating a matter at a certain time. Time has moved on. If the Labour Party had its way, 18 months would pass before we had a debate on the inspectorate's report, and what would obtain at the end of the process? We would not have an improved police service.
I join with Deputy Sexton in welcoming the fact that Deputy Costello and his party broadly support this Bill. It is important that Members co-operate to draw up a good Garda Bill which has cross-party support. Governments may come and go but the Garda Síochána will exist forever. For many years, it served this country well. However, as the Morris report noted, problems exist in certain areas. It is time that we reformed the Garda's operations. Accountability was not foremost in former ways of organising the force.
The security risk from violence in Northern Ireland which was suffered by this State for 30 years has been overlooked. Some commentators referred to this matter. It had an impact on policing throughout the country and is maybe one of the reasons for the way in which policing in Donegal evolved. We need to be realistic. The State was under threat, with the result that procedures may not have been conducted by the book. Practices developed and evolved. Now that peace exists, we need to explore the Garda in terms of its structure and how it may be made accountable.
Last week, I heard the Minister's response to the Morris report. I concur with him that accountability must always remain with the Minister. He or she must be politically accountable to the House and to citizens. We cannot let that go. We need to professionalise the Garda. Since taking the justice brief, the Minister held to the theme that reform is necessary. However, this process was not conducted quickly. He consulted the public. This is the Bill that is drawn up. He indicated he would listen to what the Morris tribunal found and I commend the work he has done. It is hoped this is the first step in restoring faith in the police service, which needs to be done.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this matter and to follow my good friends in the Progressive Democrats in doing so. I am sure it has come as a shock to Deputy Joe Costello to hear himself being praised from the Government benches so I will not overdo it or repeat it. I will compliment him on raising this matter because it gives us an opportunity to debate these important issues. Over a number of days we have debated justice and the future of the Garda Síochána, and it is important to have done so. As the Minister pointed out today, the public is watching us. I am concerned about the effect on the morale of the Garda Síochána and public confidence in the force. I speak as somebody who, like my colleagues, welcomes the Morris report and feels that the judge's findings should be implemented. It raises serious issues for the Garda Síochána and the public.
I was involved in the recent debate on anti-social behaviour orders. I represent a major urban area and it is important that we support it. I know other issues exist and people made the point that we should be careful with regard to anti-social behaviour orders, but in my community in Dublin South-West people tell me they support them. I have a background in community support as my previous employment was with the National Youth Federation so I am no hard right conservative reactionary politician. I feel strongly about the issue.
Deputy O'Connor should join us. We need men like him.
A number of people argue that one cannot implement anti-social behaviour orders because of what the Morris report states on the Garda Síochána. That is dangerous and it is a challenge for the Minister and for us all to make the point that we must have confidence in the Garda Síochána. I respect the gardaí in my community and everywhere else. In Tallaght, as in other parts of the country, gardaí have been killed in the course of duty. It is important that we support them.
Wrongdoing happens in all walks of life and we must acknowledge, as the Morris report suggests, that it has occurred in the Garda Síochána. The Minister stated that he is dealing with it and was clear on Friday that he is determined to reform the Garda Síochána in a real way. The majority of gardaí do their job well and need the respect, understanding and support of the community, and it is important we make it clear that this House wants to support the Garda Síochána in every way.
Deputy Finian McGrath, in a reasonable contribution cited by the Minister, referred to the fact that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, under the able chairmanship of Deputy Ardagh, recently visited London. I was proud to be a member of that delegation. We went to Scotland Yard and visited a project in Bexley. Deputy McGrath and I broke away from our other colleagues and went on an operation with a group from the Metropolitan police, which was an amazing experience. I must talk about it at length some day.
We saw what good community policing can do and Deputy McGrath made that point. That is the way forward. We should be supportive of the concept of community policing and tell the Minister that is what he should try to achieve. Ensuring members of the Garda Síochána are highly visible in all our communities would help support them, which is what they want us to do.
It is hoped when the dust settles on this issue that the Garda Síochána feels it has our strong support. Much has been stated on the need to deal with the problems occurring within the force. I am not afraid to make the point that I support independent investigations of garda wrongdoing. We should not be afraid of that. It would give gardaí confidence and would be a significant bridge between gardaí and communities, not only in Tallaght and Dublin South-West but in every community in the State.
I am glad to have the opportunity to support the amendment to the Private Members' motion. We all recognise the widespread disquiet at the findings of the Morris tribunal into complaints against some gardaí in Donegal. We particularly understand the suffering of the McBrearty, McConnell and Peoples families. I regret, as do my colleagues in Fianna Fáil, what happened to those families. It is hoped that in the not too distant future, the Government will come to an amicable solution with those families on compensation and apologies.
Members of the Garda Síochána committed serious wrongdoing in Donegal but, having said that, we must fully recognise the great work done by the majority of gardaí who serve us well. The type of work they do for our security and safety on an ongoing basis and how they put their lives at risk on a continual basis to protect the public was enunciated to some extent by the Minister yesterday. I commend the members of the Garda Síochána on the restraint they have shown over the recent past given the difficult circumstances in which they labour.
I am delighted this Government, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in particular, has brought forward reform of the Garda Síochána which has been discussed for in excess of 25 years. The root and branch change and revision of the way in which the Garda Síochána is accountable to the Executive and operates with local authorities, and the accountability of the Garda Commissioner to the committees in the House is welcome.
I also welcome the establishment of the Garda Síochána ombudsman commission, particularly the fact that it will be a threesome. This works well in the Revenue Commissioners where each of the three commissioners are equal but there is a primus inter pares with regard to the chairman. It allows the commissioners to have separate areas of responsibility. It will be a vehicle whereby the members of the ombudsman commission will be able to have responsibility for certain areas of the investigation of complaints and other jobs and at the same time come together to make important decisions. Those important decisions can then be articulated and voiced by one person who will be the chairman. It is an ideal way of working and has worked well for the Revenue Commissioners in the past. I am sure it will work well for the ombudsman commission in the future.
I thank my colleagues for sharing their time with me. It is appropriate to discuss the connection between the Morris report and the Garda Síochána Bill in the context of this motion. We had debates in the House on both but it is appropriate that we are allowed and enabled to debate both together. In that respect I welcome the Private Members' motion tabled by the Labour Party.
Nobody in this House would disagree that the revelations in the Morris report are shocking in the extreme and that if they were replicated in Garda divisions in communities in every city and county throughout the country, we would be talking about a serious threat to our democracy. I do not believe that is the case, and I believe that is the view of most Members of this House.
We should remind ourselves of the comments made by the chairman of the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, Gordon Holmes, in the immediate aftermath of the publication of the Morris report when he indicated that in his view the Garda division in Donegal was a kingdom unto itself and in no way could it be said to be symptomatic of the culture in the Garda throughout the country.
The simple thread running through the report is that the gardaí in the Donegal division believed they would never be held to account. They believed they could get away with their actions and that, in effect, they were above the law because there were no systems or controls in place in the Garda framework that would identify what they were doing. That was a licence to indulge in corruption and in the sort of behaviour that almost destroyed families and brought the good name of the Garda, earned over decades by hard-working members of the force, into serious disrepute. The question, therefore, is one of accountability and whether the Bill as proposed responds to the concerns set out in the Morris report.
It would be appropriate to again quote the chairman of the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, Gordon Holmes, when he welcomed the provisions of the Bill. This is a person who was charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints against the gardaí. He was the first to acknowledge that he did not have the powers to investigate and oversee complaints against the Garda properly and therefore his comments and judgment carry enormous weight in this debate. We should take careful note of what he said. As I indicated earlier, he said that the Donegal division was a kingdom unto itself. He also indicated that we cannot legislate for one Garda division alone and that we must legislate responsibly and proportionately for every Garda division. Gordon Holmes concluded that having investigated complaints and presided over what he acknowledged to be a defective way of investigating the Garda, he felt this Bill was an appropriate response to the situation that has developed. That view carries enormous weight.
There are many other aspects of the Bill I would like to discuss. I welcome the fact that the ombudsman and inspectorate provisions are independent. In the opinion of most but not all commentators, they have the necessary powers. There is no point enshrining in legislation that the Garda must be accountable. Nobody would disagree with that but the question is about the way it is to be held accountable. Having studied the provisions for the ombudsman and the inspectorate, the powers are appropriate to deal with these situations into the future. For that reason I support the Government's amendment to the motion.
Táim an-bhuíoch den Leas-Cheann Comhairle as ucht seans a thabhairt dom labhairt ar Bhille an Gharda Síochána 2005 agus an Private Members' motion anocht.
We all agree that Garda reform has never been more timely in view of the recent revelations in the Morris tribunal report. Sensible people are very much aware that this is outrageous behaviour carried out by a small minority in the Garda who have brought into question the credibility and integrity of the force. We must recognise the loyal and dedicated service of the majority of the 12,000 members of the Garda Síochána and commend them on their work, which is often done under cover, is not recognised but is very effective throughout the country from rural villages to large provincial towns and cities.
In supporting the Government amendment I welcome the fact that the Garda Commissioner will have more heightened responsibility in reporting to the Minister and to Government. I have stated that view on the record as one who worked on the Barron inquiry along with my colleagues, Deputies Seán Ardagh, Charlie O'Connor and Peter Power. We know how sadly lacking that relationship was at the time but that was the system in place 30 years ago when the Minister and the Garda Commissioner worked largely independently of one another. As a result, inquiries were wound up early and we see the effect of that today, with people still seeking the truth 30 years on. I welcome the fact that the Garda Commissioner will have greater accountability and a better relationship with the Minister and the Government.
I welcome also the fact that the Garda Commissioner will be in a position to dismiss members whom he believes do not live up to their responsibilities and the integrity of the Garda Síochána. I would recommend, however, that it should happen only when the full facts are made known to him or her at the time. The evidence must be in abundance because I am aware of cases where members have been called into question, often with evidence pending in regard to the garda's position. That leaves many families traumatised until that evidence is forthcoming. I ask that full evidence be made available to the Garda Commissioner before he can make such a recommendation.
I welcome the fact that there will be greater transparency in the amendments to the Bill regarding the promotion of every rank within the Garda Síochána. Questions have been asked previously about the criteria used in regard to promotion within the ranks, which has not always been clear, but the fact that there will be a largely independent board made up of people who are not members of the Garda Síochána who will act and work effectively on the promotions board must be a welcome development in the Bill.
We welcome also the professional standards that will be required. Such standards have always been required but they will be clearly required in this Bill which is revolutionary legislation that has never been more timely in view of the recent revelations.
I welcome also the recent appointment of the chairperson to the ombudsman commission. It is only right that a visible figurehead be seen to lead the commission. It is welcome also that the ombudsman commission will be in place.
I was encouraged by the fact that the Minister responded to my representations on behalf of the Garda force which sought to have provision made within what we now know as the whistleblower's charter, whereby members of the Garda force would be able to proceed through a particular process to make complaints about colleagues who may experience bullying, be subject to harassment or whatever. I understand from my negotiations with the Garda Representative Association that the process has not been very effective to date but with the whistleblower's charter in place, the situation will become much more transparent. People can believe they will be aided if they experience bullying and harassment, something we cannot tolerate.
On the joint policing committees, as a committee we worked for more than 24 hours on the amendments to the Garda Síochána Bill. We welcome the fact that local authorities will have a greater say in the community policing of their areas. There is no doubt that the pooling of resources and experience will be an enhancement to the working practices of the Garda Síochána, which we welcome. We must also recognise that in many provincial towns, including Nenagh and Thurles, local gardaí were already working with local authorities before this legislation was put in place. It has been an effective measure for our towns. We welcome the fact this will now be given a statutory basis as the committee has worked diligently towards this achievement.
Despite all the difficulties of recent times in regard to an Garda Síochána, I welcome that approximately 3,000 applicants have made known their interest in positions in an Garda Síochána following recent advertisements. Many were not successful in their applications but, nevertheless, they will have the opportunity again. It is a point of encouragement in these dark days when the members of an Garda Síochána have gone through many difficulties. We need them. We need to empower them all the more to enable them to carry out their duties. We as legislators are in a position to empower them as never before so their work will be more transparent and more accountable to the public.
I wish to share time with Deputies Cuffe, Ó Snodaigh, Gregory, Finian McGrath and Connolly, by agreement.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Once the good name of an organisation is tarnished, the reason for this must be addressed and remedied if confidence is to be rebuilt. When the organisation is one of the cornerstones of democracy, the task is all the more important. As we are told that not only do we have the first and second Morris reports, but that a third will follow, there is clearly cause for concern.
It is impossible to judge from outside how deeply the problems identified by Mr. Justice Morris permeate. However, it is clear he identified concerns which he felt went beyond Donegal, or at the least he had concerns with some attitudes. An independent commission, for which the motion calls, is an ideal way of researching a response, in addition to the implementation of the Morris recommendations.
As a new Deputy, I cannot believe the way in which the Garda Síochána Bill has been handled in its concluding Stages. I was not expecting so many amendments so quickly. While the Bill has been in gestation for several years, it is clear many amendments, some substantial, have appeared overnight.
We must be balanced and consider how the law impacts on gardaí because only a minority will be implicated in this matter. The Garda staff associations were summoned to meet officials of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform yesterday. On arrival, they realised it was not a briefing session but a conciliation hearing. On realising this, they withdrew. Most other workers would have the Labour Court or the Labour Relations Commission to seek redress. However, the Garda Síochána gets its rights of conciliation and arbitration from the 1989 regulations on discipline. It is clear the staff associations would not have walked out if they did not feel these rights were being infringed.
Mr. Justice Morris complained there was an over-reliance on the courts to deal with disputes. We are doing the reverse of what he recommended in pushing these staff associations towards the courts. There must be fair play on every side on this issue. Many of the amendments are reactive rather than proactive and sufficient time has not been given to properly consider them.
I support the motion as a constructive attempt to come to terms with the main findings of the Morris tribunal. I support the call for an independent commission into policing in the State. It is urgently needed because the action required will not be achieved by the hotchpotch of amendments with which the Minister, Deputy McDowell, has flooded us in the past 48 hours. A rushed response to the extreme situation presented by the Morris findings is not advisable. A more measured response involving root and branch reform is required. An independent commission could help achieve that result.
I note in the terms of reference for such a commission in the motion before us the objectives that the police service be delivered in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels. I fully support that objective. I want in this context to raise what may seem a minor issue, which the Minister might get his officials to examine.
I am involved in two community policing fora, one in the north inner city and one in Cabra. The idea of these fora is that they are above all else partnerships between the community, the local authority and an Garda Síochána. They have the active involvement of these agencies, were both launched by the Taoiseach and are funded by the local drugs task force, whereby they employ co-ordinators based in the local community. However, to employ personnel they are obliged to set up limited companies to disburse public funds. The directors of these companies, it was hoped, would come from the community, the city council and the Garda Síochána. It sounded like the making of a constructive, inclusive partnership until in stepped Garda Commissioner Conroy, who directed that no garda can be a director of any such limited company. This archaic and ham-fisted response to what was until then a real partnership put a question mark over the future viability of these pilot initiatives.
Some Members of the House believe Garda Commissioner Conroy should go. I would go a step further. The position of Garda Commissioner should be taken out of the hands of any serving member of an Garda Síochána and be filled either by an officer from an outside force or some other appropriately qualified, independent person, because what is required is a cultural change.
I welcome the opportunity provided by the Labour Party to debate the findings of the Morris report. I welcome the opportunity to engage constructively with the Government on how the Garda Síochána can be reformed. However, it has been very difficult to do so in the past two days because the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has thrown out amendments like snuff at a wake. It has been increasingly difficult for myself and those working with me to even track the individual amendments as they arise. It does a fundamental disservice to this House to shove matters through at the last minute, making it difficult for the House and other bodies to respond. I would be grateful if the Human Rights Commission could respond to some of these last minute amendments but we are not given the opportunity to seek the views of others. Instead, we are thrown into the Chamber to try to digest the latest missives from the Minister's fax machine.
It is important that heads roll in light of the Morris report. Last week, I sought the resignation or dismissal of the Garda Commissioner, which underlines the magnitude of the difficulties the force must overcome. The culture of complacency went all the way to the top. Garda Commissioner Conroy did not do enough when he was in receipt of strong information about what was happening in Donegal. He kept Frank McBrearty Sn. and his family under suspicion long after the dogs in the street knew they were not part of the process that led to the death of Richie Barron. He did not put his head above the parapet and deal with the real issues. Instead, he retreated to the stock response often produced by the Garda Síochána.
We need root and branch reform. It has to happen in the areas of recruitment, training, promotion and discipline — everything must change. We should have some kind of two-tiered admission to the Garda Síochána. We should recruit the brightest and best from our universities, who would enter the force at a more senior rank than ordinary recruits. We must also ensure we get the best people at junior level. We must recruit from ethnic minorities, the Traveller community and those who have come from the accession states. Otherwise, we will run the risk of going down the same road as the United States in its war on terror in Iraq in that we will not have the knowledge of the vital areas where we need to find out exactly what is going on. It is crucial we ensure recruitment to the Garda Síochána is a fair reflection of the spectrum of people living in Ireland.
I welcome the Labour Party's proposal to independently consider what went wrong and report back to us on that. It is crucial we have a clear assessment of where we stand. We must remember that we are only partially through the process Mr. Justice Morris is overseeing. Who knows what other revelations will come out? It is clear that something is rotten in the police force and that reforms are needed. I am not convinced the Garda Síochána Bill goes far enough to address them. Therefore, I welcome the contribution from the Labour Party that allows us to look deeply into what went wrong and what can be done to reform the force.
Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí agus Seanadóirí ó na páirtithe polaitiúla ar fad, seachas ceann amháin, a bhuail le clann Eddie Fullerton an tseachtain seo caite. Tá a fhios agam gur chuidigh an brú a chuir siad ar an Aire leis an athrú beag sa mheon a bhí aige go dtí seo.
The Minister was prompted by the concern of the Deputies and Senators. When confronted by Eddie Fullerton's sister at a public meeting he said he would establish an inquiry if a Garda Síochána reinvestigation found evidence of collusion in Mr. Fullerton's killing. That is to be welcomed although it is not sufficient. There is the question of possible Garda Síochána and British security services collusion. The relevance to this motion is that many of the gardaí who mishandled the investigation into Mr. Fullerton's killing are the same gardaí criticised by the Morris tribunal. That is why the family called for the terms of reference of the Morris tribunal to be extended to cover Mr. Fullerton's death and the subsequent investigation. At this stage we seek a separate public inquiry rather than an extension of the Morris tribunal.
Last week I asked the Minister to provide me with the details of the previous postings of the gardaí criticised by the Morris tribunal. It is a valid question. Some of these gardaí have been implicated by Mr. Justice Morris in serious crimes. If they were in other stations around the country who did they corrupt, or who corrupted them? The only way we can examine this matter is if we are supplied with the information on stations in which they worked in the past. I do not seek to know where they will be in the future. It should not be a State secret and as public representatives we are entitled to know so that we can examine the details of the Morris tribunal and future reports that come from it.
The Minister said there were only a handful of gardaí involved in the activities Mr. Justice Morris attributed to them. A handful means five or ten to most people. One can examine a list of gardaí implicated in some form or other, in gross negligence, incompetence, burying their heads in the sand, placing explosive devices and obstructing justice. That is from the first three modules. What about the next eight?
There is a culture of obstructing justice within the Garda Síochána. We do not hear from individual members of the Garda Síochána. They were not the ones who raised the question of corruption in Donegal. It was the families and Members of this House who managed to do that. We are still waiting for members of the Garda Síochána to stand up, be counted and point the finger at senior or junior members of the force who were involved in skullduggery. When they do so they need to be commended and protected against discrimination within the force.
If one considers the articles from Magill magazine, it is very strange that gardaí managed to get confessions from individuals who were not involved. Deputy Gregory referred last week to the case of Mark Nash. The Magill issue from April 2003 refers to Garda brutality and there is the case of a man hounded out of the Army and later hounded by the Garda Síochána. There are many cases in everyone’s constituency where the gardaí have been involved in skullduggery.
I know of many examples, including Mr. John Moloney who was brain damaged in a Garda station and died subsequently. In my constituency a man pulled a gun on a member of the community as he drove a car with six children. When he rang the gardaí he was told the man was coked up to the head and that he would be all right in the morning. They suggested he would not remember what he had done but he did because he pulled a gun again three days later. The gardaí did not search for him, they did not arrest him, and I believe this is because he is a Garda informer. One of the problems is that Garda informers seem to do what they like and break the law.
It is important to emphasise that the Morris tribunal was established to inquire into the nefarious activities of some members of the Garda Síochána in Donegal. The Morris report refers to a minority of gardaí who have been responsible for bringing dishonour to the force and undermining public confidence in it. The public confidence in the Garda Síochána needs to be restored and surgery needs to be undertaken to remove the corrupt cancer that knaws at the force. Many people think the report reflects badly on the force. Neither law-makers nor law enforcers should be above the law.
Since its inception the Garda Síochána has gained a well-merited reputation for being close to the people and representative of their culture and outlook. It is in the best interests of more than 12,000 gardaí that any hint of wrongdoing be eradicated from the force. If I were a young member of the Garda Síochána or if I were training in Templemore, I would have second thoughts about the career I had chosen. It is bound to affect morale and the quicker this is dealt with, the better.
The role of Ministers, Attorneys General and senior officers in the Department should also be subject to scrutiny. The revelations in Donegal underline the need for a totally independent and transparent office of police ombudsman, similar to that obtaining in Northern Ireland, to impartially investigate complaints against the Garda Síochána. It is noteworthy that rank and file gardaí want this type of independent office. They do not want to be investigated by other members of the force. The establishment of such an office would be the greatest single act to restore confidence in the Garda Síochána. The proposed ombudsman is a watered down version of what we really want.
I wish to put on the record my total support for the McBrearty family, the McConnell family and the family and friends of Richie Barron. They will always have my support in their quest for truth and justice. We must also face the fact that there is major disquiet among members of the public on the findings of the first and second reports of the tribunal of inquiry into complaints concerning gardaí of the Donegal division. There has been a major dent in public confidence in the Garda Síochána. The Government, particularly the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and senior gardaí must wake up to this reality. Trust and confidence has been eroded and corruption in all sectors of society must be rooted out. There can be no compromise on this fundamental issue and no fudge on the Garda Síochána Bill. Truth, justice and quality policing are the core issues.
We must return to the sensible idea of a day's work for a day's pay. If gardaí want to win back the trust of our citizens the first thing to do is face the reality that corruption and misconduct happened. Then they need to work harder and earn the respect of the community. These are two practical solutions that can be carried out tomorrow morning without delay.
I support the section of the motion that states:
calls on the Government to establish an independent commission to inquire into policing in Ireland, with the following terms of reference:
(1) To consult widely, with both members of the public, public bodies and non-governmental organisations and, on the basis of its findings, to bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, with particular regard to the need to ensure that;
(a) policing arrangements are such that the State has a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole;
We need to see that the Garda Síochána is structured, managed and resourced so that it can be effective in discharging its full range of functions. We must ensure that the education and training of members of the Garda Síochána are of the highest order.
There is also a need for a transparent and impartial mechanism for appointments and promotions at all levels of the police service. We need to ensure that the service is delivered in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels. The legislative and constitutional framework requires the impartial discharge of policing functions, which must conform with internationally accepted norms for policing standards. The Garda Síochána should operate within a clear framework of accountability to the law and the community it serves.
I support this motion whose clear objective is a professional Garda force of high quality, working for the community. I urge all Deputies to support the motion.
I want to share time with Deputies Sherlock, Burton and O'Shea.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am delighted to support the Labour Party motion before the House. Just two months ago when I spoke at short notice on the Second Stage of the Garda Síochána Bill, I welcomed many of the initiatives in the Bill. They included the joint policing committees my colleagues and I on Dublin City Council pioneered on that local authority, the setting of policing priorities, annual policing plans, the audit committee, the devolvement of financial accountability for the Garda Síochána to the Committee of Public Accounts, the statutory provision for international service and co-operation with other police services, especially the PSNI and the provision for volunteer or, as I understand it now, reserve members of the force. These are all important and useful initiatives that the Minister inserted in the original Bill as it emerged from the Seanad.
However, the major and serious omissions in the Bill, which I asked the Minister, Deputy McDowell, to re-examine last April, still remain absent from the legislation. They are the lack of a Garda authority to give crucial independence and modern managerial direction to the force, and the lack of a properly resourced and powerful Ombudsman to investigate thoroughly the actions of all Garda members in discharging their crucial police functions.
For these reasons and the shocking impact of the two Morris tribunal reports, the comprehensive motion before the House is both timely and necessary to restore full confidence in an Garda Síochána.
I paid warm tribute to the outstanding work of my local Garda officers in the debate two months ago. I now reiterate my respect for the often heroic work of Garda members in combating serious anti-social and violent behaviour. In many respects, the Minister has let those officers down by refusing to support them with adequate resources at critical times. In recent days, he has also let them down by refusing to embark on a root and branch redrafting of the Garda Síochána Bill — preferably following on or in conjunction with a Garda commission, as we have proposed — including key reforms the Labour Party has long sought.
Gardaí generally were horrified and disgusted by the two Morris tribunal reports. I read the second report at my desk last Friday as well as referring to media reports of the Morris tribunal. When I closed the report last week, I was deeply shocked and horrified by the appalling and disgraceful events detailed in Mr. Justice Morris's lucid and compelling account of the performance of a significant number of Garda members in the Donegal division.
The outrageous failure to investigate a citizen's death in any remotely professional way and the attempt to frame two innocent men, marks a dreadful watershed in the history of An Garda Síochána. The shocking collapse of discipline, morale and local Garda leadership was detailed in the 700-page report concerning ancillary events connected with the totally botched investigation. This makes it incumbent upon the Minister to accept the motion and proceed to a fundamental national review of the Garda Síochána. The Minister must also incorporate in the Garda Síochána Bill all the necessary reforms as outlined by our party leader, Deputy Rabbitte and our spokesperson on justice, Deputy Costello.
It is an indictment of the Minister and his advisers in the Government that Mr. Justice Frederick Morris felt he had to repeat, in appendix 1 of the second report, his recommendations from the first report on the manner of reporting by local Garda divisions to Garda headquarters, the management of informants, the maintenance of Garda officer's journals, the disciplining or dismissal of misbehaving Garda members, and the recruitment and promotion system.
I note that the Minister has belatedly moved on some of these issues. I pay tribute to Deputy Costello who has dragged these reforms from the Minister with heroic fortitude. The Minister, however, has totally failed to address other recommendations by Mr. Justice Morris in appendix 1 and chapter 9 of the current report.
Like his colleagues in Government, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, often comes across as a man obsessed with the history of the pre-1997 era. This hapless and mistake-riddled Government cannot defend its woeful and lethargic record since 1997, so its only recourse is to harp on about events in the mid-1990s or even earlier. This ludicrous approach re-appeared yesterday when the Minister rejected the idea of a Garda authority. Despite the long-standing success of such authorities in the neighbouring jurisdiction and similar examples in many other democracies, both inside and outside the EU, the Minister has again rejected the establishment of a Garda authority or a board of directors on security grounds, although he did not elaborate on those. His stance would be totally inappropriate in any parliamentary democracy.
It is true that Ireland, the UK and Sweden have had fundamentally different histories since the 1920s because, at times, fascistic and criminal forces seriously threatened our democracy. The Garda Síochána has a proven and distinguished record in opposing such evil but the presence of a Garda authority would only enhance our fine tradition of democratic policing. Likewise, in the 2000 Labour Party policy document, Deputy Howlin made a cogent and unanswerable argument for a Garda ombudsman on the lines of the Patten reforms in Northern Ireland. Mr. Justice Morris has reiterated his call for such an ombudsman. The awful events detailed in his report, so far, make such a development crucial to the future well-being of An Garda Síochána.
Many Deputies have expressed grievances about the Garda Complaints Board and from that point of view the sooner any legislation is passed the better. Nonetheless, a fundamental root and branch redrafting of the legislation is required. It is unbelievable that the Garda Complaints Board appears to be answerable neither to this House, the Minister, the alleged victims of Garda misbehaviour nor their solicitors.
Last April, on Second Stage of the Garda Síochána Bill, I asked the Minister, Deputy McDowell, to address one such case. Although the citizen concerned made a complaint directly to the Minister — he approached him before he contacted me — the Minister chose not to respond to the matter. The Minister will recall that this was the case of a Mr. Kevin Tracy of Chapelizod, Dublin. Approximately three years ago, Mr. Tracy complained to the Garda Complaints Board about alleged, serious misbehaviour by several gardaí. Mr. Tracy also alleges he has been unfairly treated by members of the Judiciary. I have heard these allegations by Mr. Tracy, as has the Minister, but it is appalling that the Garda Complaints Board has not reported on the matter for the sake of the gardaí concerned, the Judiciary, and Mr. Tracy and his wife. I invite the Minister to respond to the matter before this debate ends. He might also reflect on whether the new ombudsman commission should contain provision for a review of cases such as that of Mr. Tracy.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on one of the most fundamental issues currently confronting Irish society. The Garda Síochána remains a key institution in this State. Throughout the past century it operated as an effective police force of which we were all extremely proud. As a society, we owe a great deal to the collective endeavour of members of the Garda Síochána. However, at a time when anti-social behaviour is on the increase, crimes against the person have doubled in the past five years and drug use has spread nationwide, the number of gardaí on the beat is less now than it was seven years ago. We need a better, more modern police service equipped and structured to deal with the reality of life in the 21st century.
Dissatisfaction with the structures under which the Garda Síochána operates has been expressed long before recent scandals in the force emerged. Such dissatisfaction was also evident well before Mr. Justice Morris issued his second damning report into Garda conduct in Donegal, arising from investigations into the death of Mr. Richie Barron.
Much public dissatisfaction surrounds the manner in which the Garda Síochána responds to community concerns. There is widespread unhappiness with the working of the Garda Complaints Board and the adequacy of its governing legislation. Moreover, recent scandals, including the McBrearty affair in particular, have shaken public confidence in the Garda Síochána. I remind the Minister and the Government in general that the public accepted what the McBrearty family has had to say on this matter. There is no doubt about that.
Confidence in effective, efficient and accountable policing is a critical component of any normal democratic society where the rule of law prevails. The best way of restoring public confidence in the Garda Síochána, which has been lost in recent times, is to listen to what the public wants and expects from the police service.
Seven years ago, the public in a part of this island was engaged in such a debate. The Patten Commission process brought us the new beginning to policing in the North and the creation of one of the most modern police services in the world. While the modern PSNI emerged from unique circumstances arising from the bloody and tragic conflict in Northern Ireland in the latter part of the 20th century, it has become one of the most innovative and modern in the world.
I began my contribution by talking about the changes in policing structures that have been achieved in Northern Ireland. While these reforms still have some way to go — we are only in the fourth year of a ten-year reform programme — the PSNI performs to the highest international standards. It is time we started hearing such positive comments about our Garda Síochána.
The reasons for replacing this Government mount by the day. The Morris report and the Government's wholly inadequate response to it will come to be seen as one of the tipping issues which will clarify voters' minds as to why this Government must go. The Morris report outlines a litany of failure of management, absence of accountability and, crucially, absence of leadership on the part of senior management of the Garda Síochána, which is frightening in any democratic society.
The harassment, intimidation and persecution of the McBrearty family could have been stopped at any stage, from superintendent, to assistant commissioner and Commissioner levels, but it was not. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform failed utterly, both as Attorney General and as Minister, to respond adequately and give leadership to the Department and Garda Síochána senior management. He is now running for cover by presenting sweeping changes to the Garda Síochána Bill, many of which will never be debated in this House.
I want to draw to the attention of the House to amendment No. 36 in the name of the Minister. This amendment will basically give the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform the power of access on demand to Garda files on any and every person, place, body or thing. This is an extraordinary, draconian power that the Minister is taking for himself and his Secretary General. Recently, we had occasion to revisit Fianna Fáil's murky past of phone tapping, obstruction of justice and obstruction of the Garda. The Minister, Deputy McDowell, asked the public to put him in Government to be a watchdog on Fianna Fáil. His response to the Morris report, in the additional powers he has sought, may further damage the Garda Síochána and public trust in the force.
There is a crisis of policing here and total under provision of community policing, particularly in urban areas. Gardaí must regain the respect of the general public. There is a fear among many members of the public, including many young people, of being wrongly picked on by individual gardaí and of having no recourse. We must ask whether Donegal is typical and how many other similar situations exist.
We have seen the pattern for reform set by Patten and by Nuala O'Loan in her performance of the job of ombudsman. We have a body of gardaí who have given dedicated service and who operate to the highest standards of integrity. Their reputation and capacity to serve the community, as they have done since the foundation of the State, is being undermined by this Government and its shallow, pathetic response to police reform.
Tá áthas orm labhairt sa díospóireacht seo ag tacú le tairiscint na gComhaltaí Príobháideacha ó Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre ag impí ar an Rialtas coimisiún neamhspleách a bhunú chun féachaint ar obair na ngardaí in Éirinn. Molaim an rún freisin go dtugfaí tuairimí ón phobal, comhlachtaí poiblí agus cumainn nach cumainn Stáit iad san áireamh agus, bunaithe air sin, moltaí a chur ar fáil maidir le struchtúr na ngardaí agus an tslí a ndéanann siad a gcuid oibre.
I want to focus on a particular issue which comes within the ambit of the commission proposed by the Labour Party here over the past two nights that has particular significance for the Oireachtas, namely the right of a citizen to reach out to a public representative to report wrongdoing with a view to having the particular issue dealt with in the public interest. Surely a citizen should have the right to pass on such information to the public representative of his or her choice without putting himself or herself at risk.
There is a fundamental principle involved here with regard to the role of the public representative in society. If a citizen passes on information that exposes unlawful or corrupt behaviour, he or she should be able to do so in the full certainty that the Member to whom he or she entrusted the information could not be compelled by the courts to disclose the source of that information. Take, for example, a non-national nursing assistant who works in a private nursing home on a work permit who is conscience driven to expose mistreatment or neglect of elderly patients to the authorities. Such a person would in most cases feel very much at risk in making such disclosures. However, if such a person could go to a Member and make these disclosures in the certainty that his or her identity would be protected by law, such disclosures would be made more frequently, to the benefit of the State. This is, perhaps, an extreme example, but obviously there are many other instances where whistleblowers should be protected and encouraged to pass on information to public representatives.
I raise this issue because a colleague of ours, a Member of the House, is before the Supreme Court because he feels honour bound not to reveal the source of information given to him confidentially which is relevant to the Morris tribunal. The irony is that if Deputy Howlin put the information he got in the public arena under parliamentary privilege when he got it, he could not be pursued through the courts to reveal his source. However, because he acted responsibly and went to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform with the information, he finds himself before the Supreme Court. I do not blame the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, for this. The blame lies with senior gardaí who demanded to know his source.
The question remains as to what confidence a whistleblower can have when confiding in Members other than the integrity of the Member. Members and public representatives generally are, by and large, close to their electorate. Much private and personal information is confided in them for reasons of advice and for taking action to right wrongs. This is a healthy aspect of our democracy and should not be weakened in any way. Deputy Howlin's dilemma underlines a potential hazard for all of us as Members. We need an urgent and effective remedy to it so this type of situation does not arise in future.
Massive corruption has been exposed in the Garda Síochána in Donegal. The legal system appears to be seeking to shoot the messenger, who acted from the best possible reasons in this case.
I have listened to what Deputies have said in the course of this debate, but nothing I have heard has convinced me that we should establish a policing commission. Essentially it would look at many of the issues which are addressed in the Bill before the House.
There is no doubt, following the publication of the second report of the Morris tribunal, that now is the time to take action with regard to reform of the organisation and structures of the Garda Síochána. I agree with Senator Maurice Hayes that now is the time to take advantage of the fair wind behind the desire for reform of the force. We do not need a new policing commission touring the highways and byways operating, in the words of this evening's motion, to hear further consultations. We need action now.
Senator Maurice Hayes also said that sections of the Bill were nonsense.
As the Deputy is aware, those issues have been addressed. Reform is necessary now. It is necessary to rebuild the confidence of the public in the force. The Government does not object to the principle or process of consultation. It published the heads of the Garda Síochána Bill in July 2003, when it initiated a public consultation process. It received and took into consideration a report on the Bill prepared by the Irish Human Rights Commission. A lengthy debate on all the Bill's provisions was followed by one of the longest Second Stage debates on any legislation that has been before the House. It is welcome and understandable that Members have such an intense interest in the future progress of the Garda Síochána. The lengthy Second Stage debate was followed by an extensive examination of the Bill on Committee Stage. This Bill was initiated in the Seanad where, following extensive scrutiny, it passed all Stages without a guillotine before being sent to this House.
The Bill was approximately half its current size at that stage.
Has the Minister of State read amendment No. 36?
It is a tribute to the open-mindedness of the Minister that he was prepared to take on board many of the suggestions for improvements to the Bill which were made throughout the legislative process.
He does not know what he is doing. The Minister of State should not be acting the hypocrite.
He is not prepared to turn up in the House.
When the Bill was sent to this House from the Seanad——
Why is the Minister not present?
I understand that the Minister must make an important announcement about child care.
The Minister of State, rather than the Minister, should be launching the report.
This Bill was initiated in the Seanad and passed by that House before being the subject of one of the longest Second Stage debates in this House since the foundation of the State. That is a tribute to the Members of the House who have demonstrated a passionate concern for the future of the Garda Síochána.
The Bill has been around the Oireachtas for two years.
The Bill was then referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Deputies Costello and Jim O'Keeffe played a diligent part in the Committee Stage debate which lasted 22 hours.
They were considering half a Bill.
When Committee Stage was concluded and the various amendments had been explained and discussed——
We are now having a Committee Stage debate masquerading as a Report Stage debate.
——the Bill arrived back in the House this morning. A raft of Report Stage amendments have been tabled to the Bill by the Opposition parties.
Many of them have been tabled by the Minister.
It was said this morning that some of the amendments were sent to the various groups by fax machine.
The Minister of State is wrong.
I would have thought that there would have been higher levels of co-operation between the members of the putative rainbow coalition.
The Minister of State is playing politics with this issue.
When the amendments were tabled, we discovered that a vast number of amendments——
The Minister of State should go back to the playgrounds.
I deal with much more than playgrounds.
He could do with building a few.
I have never seen a playground that has been constructed by the Deputy.
I have not seen one that has been developed by the Government.
The Deputy will see it soon enough. It is an incontestable fact that a large number of amendments, many of which had been explained, discussed and satisfactorily resolved on Committee Stage, were tabled by Opposition parties before the start of the Report Stage debate.
What about the Minister's amendments? The Minister of State is being provocative.
The Government agreed last week to the requests of the Opposition parties to debate the first and second reports of the Morris tribunal before the Report Stage consideration of this Bill.
There was no debate on the reports.
The Government has addressed all the statutory issues raised in the Morris reports. Some amendments were published by the Minister last night in response to the issues raised in the Morris reports. There is no excuse for further delay — now is the time for action.
The proposals in the Garda Síochána Bill reflect the outcome of a thorough process of review and consultation. The Bill sets out a new accountability structure for the force. It will establish an independent ombudsman commission and a Garda inspectorate. The ombudsman commission will be very different from the existing Garda Síochána Complaints Board. Its powers will be modelled on those of the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland.
That is a big promise.
It will be able to recruit investigators from abroad, enter Garda stations, seize documents and, if necessary, arrest members of the force. I hope the new and independent investigation complaints authority will underpin public confidence in the force.
The establishment of the Garda inspectorate is a vital provision in the Garda Síochána Bill. It will ensure that the Garda's resources are used to achieve the highest levels of efficiency and effectiveness, when compared with best police practice and standards. The inspectorate will inspect the operation and administration of the force and report to the Minister of the day with advice on best practice. Not only will it assist the Garda to achieve the highest standards, it will also give the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day an independent and objective assessment of the force's performance. That is a crucial response to the concern expressed in the report of the Morris tribunal that too much distance has opened between the Garda and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The inspectorate's reports will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The chief inspector will be available when requested to attend meetings of any Oireachtas committee to discuss any such report.
As I have already indicated, the Minister has introduced amendments to the Bill to address fully the issues raised in the reports of the Morris tribunal. The amendments will place a new statutory duty on members of the force to account for their action or inaction while on duty. The amendments will also provide for a procedure that will enable and empower the Garda Commissioner to dismiss members of the force of sergeant or inspector rank.
I regret that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not available to come to the House for the conclusion of this debate. I appreciate that he is busy today. The Minister promised that his predecessor as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, would contribute tonight but he has not done so.
I will try to be dispassionate and calm as I respond to the speech made last evening by the Minister, Deputy McDowell. His contribution can only be described as the performance of a performer. He was trained in his previous occupation to make a case when no case exists and to distract his audience, formerly a jury, from unpalatable truths. As Minister, Deputy McDowell is an excellent lawyer. He argued last night that this side of the House responded to the Morris report in "the white heat of outrage". There was no "white heat" of sudden revelation for those of us who have spent years pursuing the truth about the activities of certain gardaí in County Donegal. Our views and proposals, which have been shaped by years of careful analysis, were spelled out in this House more than four years ago. The mainstay of the Minister's shameful argument, which would not be out of place on Ballymagash urban district council, was the "youse did nothing" tack. That is simply a lie.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw the word "lie".
It is completely untrue and inaccurate.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw the word "lie".
I withdraw the word "lie". The Minister's allegation is completely untrue and inaccurate.
The Minister is a stranger to the truth.
A motion I introduced in this House more than four years ago, on 10 April 2001, contained three main elements. First, it proposed the establishment of a Garda authority to set priorities for fighting crime at national level, to make the key decisions about policing more open and accountable, to be responsible for senior appointments within the force and to receive and consider reports from the Garda Commissioner on operational decisions. Second, the motion recommended the establishment of county policing liaison committees which would be charged with agreeing county or city policing plans, arranging regular meetings between the committees and local gardaí and monitoring progress and addressing the concerns of local communities.
The third mainstay of the set of proposals I issued on behalf of the Labour Party more than four years ago was the abolition of the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, the role and functioning of which is widely agreed to be unsatisfactory. I proposed the replacement of the board with a Garda ombudsman who would be responsible for investigating complaints against the Garda. Such an officer would be given his or her own staff and would be responsible for putting in place a new and independent system for ensuring Garda accountability.
The Labour Party did its work four years ago. The then Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, with Mr. Michael McDowell SC as Attorney General, responded in a predictably dismissive manner. The then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, responded to the motion I tabled by saying:
I accept that the current arrangements for dealing with complaints against members of the Garda Síochána are not fully satisfactory and need to be reformed. In that regard, I have also made it clear that I intend to bring forward appropriate proposals to the Government to amend the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Act 1986.
The Labour Party proposed more than four years ago the establishment of a Nuala O'Loan-type Garda ombudsman. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats responded by proposing to amend the discredited Garda Síochána (Complaints) Act. The then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, hardly addressed my other proposals in his long diatribe. He preferred to trot out a self-satisfied dismissal of reality, as the suffering of individuals, families and communities in County Donegal continued. The current Minister's arrogant tone last night is an eerie echo of the speech of the former Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, four years ago.
Let us turn to the second issue. Exactly when did the former Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, receive the report of Assistant Commissioner Carty which we now know contained details of the scale and true nature of wrongdoing in Donegal? I believed he received the report in July 2000. Last Friday, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, informed this House that in fact neither he as Attorney General, or Deputy O'Donoghue when Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, received the report until early in 2002, some 18 months later.
Deputy McDowell said to the Dáil last Friday that:
the Carty report was not delivered ... either to me or to the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, at a time when its full contents would have been definitely of interest to us and would have enabled us to make earlier judgments on some of the issues involved.
The Minister, Deputy McDowell, told us last Friday that if only he had the facts earlier, he would have acted earlier. This view was restated this morning by the Taoiseach during Leader's Questions when he said:
A partial version of the Carty report was eventually furnished in November 2001, the same month in which Shane Murphy, Senior Counsel, was appointed to review the matter. The complete Carty report, as was stated last week, including appendices, was not furnished to the Minister or the Attorney General until the very end of January or early February 2002.
Accordingly, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, along with the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, and the Taoiseach all tell us that they did not have a partial version of the Carty report, which contained the essence of the truth about wrongdoings in Donegal, until November 2001, and the full version until 2002. That is what they told this House. It is on the record. The problem with this version of events is that it flatly contradicts what the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, told the House in 2001.
I tabled a parliamentary question for answer on 7 February 2001:
To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps that have been taken since he received the report of a senior Garda official [namely, Assistant Commissioner Kevin Carty] in July 2000 into allegations of corruption and malpractice involving members of the Garda Síochána in County Donegal; if he will bring the report to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights; if he will establish a sworn inquiry into the allegations; the steps he will take to re-establish public confidence in the Garda in the area having regard to the serious public concern at the allegations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
At no time in the Minister's answer — I am talking of February 2001, months before the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform say they received the report — did he say that he had not received the report, or convey in any way that he did not have it. I do not have time to read the supplementaries into the record of the House, but any reading of his reply would indicate that he had the report at that stage. For absolute certainty I draw the attention of the Ceann Comhairle and that of the House to a parliamentary question tabled by former Deputy Alan Shatter and answered by the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, on 23 May 2001. I quote from the Official Report of Dáil Debates, vol. 536, col. 1414 of 23 May 2001:
Mr. O'Donoghue: As I have indicated on a number of occasions, I am anxious to get to the bottom of what happened in Donegal . . . The investigation by Assistant Commissioner Carty was completed and presented to me and, in turn, to the D[irector of] P[ublic] P[rosecutions].
The Minister of State now knows why the two Members are not here tonight. That is why the Minister of State is on his own.
Plainly, the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, was — I must find a phrase which will not run foul of the Ceann Comhairle — not giving the full story in truth to this House in May 2000, or he and the current Minister and the Taoiseach are not telling the truth now, because both answers cannot be true.
Why have we got two conflicting answers? If the Carty report was with the Minister and the Attorney General at the time of the Opposition motion to establish a sworn inquiry, if they had that information, they were clearly negligent in the extreme in voting down the motion.
The Minister, Deputy McDowell, is putting as much distance as he can between himself and the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue. It is not difficult to establish such distance, since Deputy O'Donoghue has not presented himself at any discussion on these issues, apart from running out of the House last Friday after delivering a prepared script and without answering questions. He has made no contribution tonight.
Last Friday, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, told this House:
In May 2001, he [meaning the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue] wrote to me in my capacity as Attorney General and asked me to advise him of his options in respect of establishing the facts by some process ... I replied to his letter and said I had not yet seen the Carty report and that I was labouring at a disadvantage on that account.
The extraordinary position now being canvassed by the Minister, Deputy McDowell, is that he was not in a position to advise the Government adequately regarding the establishment of an inquiry because the full facts were being withheld from him, the Government's chief law officer. If he had only known them, then to use his own words, it "would have enabled us to make an earlier judgment on some of the issues involved".
The essence of the Carty report was with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform from the summer of 2000. I do not know how much of its contents he shared with the then Attorney General, but it makes all the more grievous the wrong done by voting down the motion to establish the inquiry in November 2001. It also exposes the hypocrisy of the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, when during that debate on 20 November 2001 on a motion to establish an independent sworn inquiry into all the allegations, he smugly announced himself to be gravely suspicious of the Opposition's motives in tabling the motion. Our motivation was the pursuit of truth, then and now. The motivation on that side of the House in voting down that motion is not clear.
Policing is an issue that should not divide this House. Good policing is a cornerstone of all our freedoms. The Labour Party knows and recognises the excellent, honourable and decent overwhelming majority of members who comprise an Garda Síochána. We also know our duty to our country, its citizens and its legislators, as we have done since the foundation of the State. When Progressive Democrats come and when they are gone, we will serve the people's interest.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 48.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Gerard.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Neville.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided by electronic means.
Given the importance of this issue and the way the House has been treated by the Government on this issue, as a teller, under Standing Order 69 I propose that the vote be taken by other than electronic means.
As Deputy Stagg is a Whip, under Standing Order 69 he is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.
Question again put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 47.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Neville.
Question declared carried.