I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I would like to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath, Mick Wallace, Clare Daly and Mattie McGrath.
Public Sector Management (Appointment of Senior Members of the Garda Síochána) Bill 2014: Second Stage [Private Members]
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am delighted to move this Bill in front of the new Minister for Justice and Equality. I hope the response we get from the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, gives us a message of hope, reform and change and includes a major dismissal of the events of the past. We need a new departure in the Department of Justice and Equality, in the appointment of judges and in the appointment of the Garda Commissioner and other top gardaí. There is very little doubt that there is a contaminated culture in the Garda. It is evident in the review the Minister has already ordered. I have proposed this Bill, which relates to the appointment of top gardaí, in the full knowledge that such appointments may be flawed and that the contaminated culture to which I refer has unfortunately spread beyond the people this Bill actually addresses.
The reason for the crisis of confidence in the Garda has been clearly illustrated by recent events. This Bill begs certain questions. I refer not only to the questions of why the Commissioner resigned or was sacked, why the Minister resigned or why the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality, Mr. Purcell, is now under a cloud, but also to the question of how these people, specifically the top gardaí, were actually appointed. Is this part of the cause of the crisis we are now facing in the administration of justice in this country? The Minister should make no mistake - there is no point in pretending otherwise - about the fact that the people have lost confidence in this country's top gardaí because of the behaviour of gardaí in recent times. It is no less a crisis than that. It is one which the Minister now faces. Part of this is due to the fact that there is an atmosphere of paranoia at the top of the Garda.
I would like to refer to some of my own experiences. I would be very sympathetic with the role of gardaí and what they have done. My own experience of contact with gardaí, as a journalist and as a politician, is that they immediately flee to the bunker when they are asked questions. I have experienced that over many years. I have experienced it even more recently in my role as a Deputy. When I asked the gardaí how much it costs to fund the Garda Commissioner's office, they pleaded security reasons and all sorts of bogus camouflage to explain why they could not answer that question. When I rang the Department of Justice and Equality today to ask about the process for the appointment of the new Garda Commissioner that is required, the first answer I got was "hold on, we will ring you back and we will see if we can reply". Why could the Department not reply to such a simple question? We have a right to know the answer. When they did reply, they said they wanted the question in writing. They knew and I knew that I needed an answer to the question by 7.30 this evening. It is now 7.30 p.m. and they have still not replied to this simple question. Where is the process? What is happening? We have a vacancy at the top of the Garda. We are entitled to know what the process is. We are entitled to a reply from the Department of Justice and Equality on it. I do not know what they thought I was asking - perhaps they thought there was hostility involved - but they went back into their bunker. Unfortunately, that is the attitude of the press office in the Department of Justice and Equality.
I received a similar type of response, one of hostility and paranoia, when I rang the Garda press office today. The person to whom I spoke was pretty defensive and referred me pretty quickly up to the Garda Commissioner's office. I got hold of a garda there who was anonymous. I was told it was an inappropriate question and I was referred to someone else who was more pleasant but did not give me an answer. That person referred me back to the Department of Justice and Equality, which has yet to reply. What is going on in justice in this country? One cannot get a response when one asks about the process being used to fill the most important position in the Garda. They cannot do it. They will not give an answer because they cannot get out of their bunker mentality. We should get answers to all of these questions now, when there is an actual vacancy to be filled. We should know what the process is, what the timetable is and how we will get a new Garda Commissioner.
I have introduced this Bill, which relates to appointments at the top of the Garda, because it is extremely opportune that legislation of this sort should be in place to reform the appointments of people at the top of the force before the next Garda Commissioner is appointed. I would like to know whether that process is already in train. We do not know what process is being followed. If a Bill like this were passed, we could quite easily have a new Commissioner by September. I do not know what the process is, but I do know there seems to be a problem. The cancer of cronyism at the top of this country's justice system is continuing. I say that with conviction and without appearing to engage in sensationalism. Several Bills relating to the appointment of judges have already been introduced in this House. The continuing cronyist culture in that regard in this country has not been addressed for many years. Every single judge is politically appointed.
It is only just emerging, on foot of the crisis we discovered in the Garda, that the top 200 - not the top two or three - gardaí are politically appointed. We have a kind of silence about it at the top. We need to see a dramatic and immediate change in order that people at the top of the gardaí are appointed in a new way. That needs to happen immediately. We should not countenance any delay in this regard. I anticipate that the Minister might well reply by saying "we are looking at this, we are very serious about it, we will do something about it, there will be a new system for the new Commissioner but it is going to take a certain amount of time". The figure I have just cited, that the top 200 gardaí are politically appointed, is pretty staggering, but I think it is worse than that. The system to which I refer is governed by the 2005 Act. How are all the other promotions decided? Are external interviews conducted? Is there a kind of incestuous relationship in which people who have done the right thing and who know the right people are appointed by their pals from above? It is a bit of a mystery, but it should not be.
The appointment of all top gardaí - indeed, all gardaí - should be subject to an open competition. This Bill seeks to end the absolutely indefensible system of politicians, that is, the Cabinet, appointing the top 200 gardaí and to introduce a new system which, although not perfect and certainly subject to amendment, is far preferable to the current system. We must have an open contest, which this Bill introduces, that is open to outsiders and will ensure the independence of the Garda Síochána. Gardaí, and top gardaí in particular, must be appointed on merit. As it stands, we have a system which was described in a recent Garda Review editorial as involving the selection of a winner by a hidden hand in what amounted to a three ball lottery system. This Bill attempts, in a constructive and cost neutral way, to address this problem by removing the Garda from public control. The result will be that gardaí, for the first time, will be appointed on merit.
The structure of appointments proposed in the Bill is very simple. At the top is the Top Level Appointments Committee, TLAC, which, after carrying out advertising and interviews, will recommend three individuals to a subsidiary board comprising three members of the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, and two newly appointed members. This five member board will then recommend one individual to the Dáil. The beauty of this is that the TLAC is comprised mostly of civilians or outsiders. The Dáil, in turn, can accept or reject the recommended person, in which case a second individual will be recommended through the same process. A Dáil committee will be able to interview these candidates and make its own recommendation.
The advantage of this system is that the appointment is not a matter for decision by the Minister for Justice and Equality or any other member of the Cabinet. In other words, it does not become a nakedly political appointment. The procedure I have outlined applies in the case of the top three members of the Garda. Other top appointments, namely, those of chief superintendents and superintendents, will be made by the appointments board. Again, there is no ministerial involvement. In fact, it is a Minister-free zone. This takes the appointments process out of the political arena and puts it into an area far removed from the type of criticism directed towards it recently.
My reason for bringing forward this Bill is, quite simply, the huge controversies that have emerged recently. There can be no doubt whatsoever, from the controversies we have heard about, that there is something rotten in the Garda. The force needs, above all, to be removed from the political arena, and that is the essential principle upon which this Bill is pitched. The appointments process must be removed totally and utterly from the political arena and given to an external body which enjoys the public's respect. There is a difficulty here in that so many of those bodies have some element of political influence. It is very difficult to avoid that entirely, but this Bill represents a start. Its acceptance would be a recognition by the Minister that there is a terrible crisis at the top of the Garda. I hope and pray she does not come back with the response that this issue is being addressed by various bodies and we must await the outcome of this process. There is, at this very moment, a vacancy at the top of the Garda. This Bill could easily be passed by the House, with or without amendment, by the end of July. I ask the Minister to consider it and to consider also the issue of dismissals, which is included in the Bill. The dismissal of a Commissioner should only be possible with the permission of the Dáil. That function should not be in the political power of a Minister, because situations like this have been abused too much.
I propose to share time with Deputy Mattie McGrath.
That is agreed.
I commend my colleague, Deputy Shane Ross, on bringing forward this legislation. It is always refreshing to see Independent Deputies not only holding this Government to account but also putting forward new ideas and proposals to the House. The Bill is about Garda reform and I urge all Deputies to support it. It is about introducing new structures for the management of the Garda and safeguarding the professionalism of the force. Above all, it is about restoring public confidence and trust in our Garda service. I emphasise the word "service" here, because it is all about serving the public. We must ensure citizens have a professional police service in which they can trust.
The Bill sets out its purpose as follows:
[T]o provide for the independent appointment of Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and senior members of the Garda Síochána, to make the removal of such members more transparent and accountable, to amend the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 and 2013 and the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and to provide for related matters.
The reforms it proposes are urgently needed. It is about ensuring the best gardaí get to the top of the force on merit, not on the basis of political connections or strokes. We must not duck and dive on this issue. Hard work, quality policing and dedication to our citizens must be the considerations that apply when it comes to the promotion of gardaí. The old ways must change so far as promotions are concerned, but we can retain some of the old values as represented by the hard-working garda on the beat who engages with his or her community. A good police officer never demands respect but earns it. This Bill will help us to shape the future of the force.
It is helpful to consider some of the data on crime that are available to us. There were 66 homicide offences in 2011, increasing to 79 to 2012 and 80 in 2013. Fear and intimidation are a major tool in ensuring gangs maintain their hold on communities. Threats of murder have increased dramatically in the past decade, from 45 in 2004 to 348 in 2013. International data on intentional homicide from gun crime are difficult to compare due to different countries reporting in different ways. However, the rate of crime per thousand of population shows Ireland at 1.2 per 1,000, putting us ahead of England, France and China at 1.0, New Zealand at 0.9, Spain, Germany and Luxembourg at 0.8, and Sweden at 0.7.
The gardaí in Limerick led an offensive against gang related crime there. In the past decade, they have arrested more than 60 leading gang members who have been imprisoned. In 2002, John Connolly of the Health Research Board showed that the statistics of crimes carried out by drug users tallied with the strong link between drugs and crime in the public mind. They are intertwined but many gangland killings are carried out by non-drug users and people attracted to gangland crime for other reasons. Studies from the USA and Sweden have shown that environmental factors have much greater impact in lower socioeconomic groups and this means that the nurture rather than nature factor is a bigger contributor to gang membership. I raise these issues because they are connected to the broader debate on gangland killings and on having top quality gardaí at the top of the Garda.
Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom mo chomhghairdeas a ghabháil leis an Aire nua. I wish the new Minister for Justice and Equality all the best. I compliment Deputy Ross on bringing forward the Public Sector Management (Appointment of Senior Members of the Garda Síochána) Bill 2014. He has been preparing it for quite some time and it is not a knee-jerk reaction to recent events in An Garda Síochána.
I have said umpteen times in this House that the Garda Síochána, or any police force for that matter, cannot police without the full support of the public. That is what it is all about; it is a two-way process. I have been a member of Muintir na Tíre and community alert for many years, encouraging communities to support the Garda. It is very important the Garda Síochána has the trust of the people.
Unfortunately, what has happened in recent times has besmirched the good name of An Garda Síochána. A very small number of events have really done damage to the people whom I salute and who have put their lives on the line day in, day out to maintain peace and stability in our country, and they need our support. Every member of An Garda Síochána, from the newest recruits right up to the Garda Commissioner, needs trust and respect. If they do not have that, things will not be right.
I have many contacts and good friends in the Garda Síochána who have supported community alert, rural Ireland and the town of Clonmel. I mention two recently retired superintendents, Superintendents Courtney and Duggan.
My feeling is that appointments are political. That is known and I hope the Minister will make a clean sweep with a new brush because we need to clean out that culture of political appointments and to be able to say without fear or favour that it is the people's and the Garda's Commissioner and not someone acting at the behest of a Minister or a Government.
What happened recently with the Commissioner and the Minister, who are both gone and which came about under a cloud of darkness, was very unsavoury. We will never know about the trip that fateful night by the Secretary General of the Department to the Commissioner's home. We must have openness and transparency.
We must go abroad to make appointments because this country is too small. I have little faith in the Public Appointments Service because, along with two colleagues from this House, I had to appoint a number of people to the fisheries board as the former Minister, Eamon Ryan, had a new idea. However, we were not welcome there. It had its own shortlist of people it wanted who were all retirees from other Departments. I happened to be chair of the appointments group and I gladly turned the list upside down and started from the bottom up. We need that culture in the public service to change. We will have to look for people from abroad when making appointments. I wish the acting Commissioner well and do not know what will happen to her but we need people from abroad to come here to clean up whatever mistrust is at the top. There is a feeling in the Garda Síochána that the detective branch has had too much sway. I know it does important work but one cannot have cliques in An Garda Síochána. It is one force serving the public at all times.
I support the aim of this Bill brought forward by Deputy Ross, which is to de-politicise An Garda Síochána by providing for the independent appointment of the Garda Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and other senior members of the Garda.
The Garda Act 2005 gives the Government very wide latitude and discretion as regards the appointment and removal of senior gardaí. It allows for Government to make appointments of superintendent and above and does not specify any qualifications or criteria that must be considered. Under section 11 of the Act, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and assistant commissioners can be removed for a range of flimsy reasons. The Garda Commissioner alone can be removed for failing to have regard to section 26, which sets out the functions of the Garda Commissioner. These additional grounds for removal mean that the Commissioner's position is the most vulnerable of all to Government whim, as the last Commissioner found out to his peril.
In the past few months alone, we have seen several scandals which highlight the dangers of politicisation of An Garda Síochána. We had called for the removal of the former Garda Commissioner on several occasions for different reasons but his eventual removal was to provide a public scapegoat for political problems. This was an unfair attempt to try to salvage the Government's reputation. A politicised Garda Síochána and the bias of the Government towards it resulted in the vitriolic and unfair treatment of the Garda ombudsman in the GSOC bugging scandal, a bias which continues with the unfair and untrue allegations that it has breached a statutory duty.
Although the Government has confirmed that the next Garda Commissioner will be selected by open competition, it has not made any commitment to changing the legislation permanently in this regard. This is another short-term reaction to the recent series of Garda scandals rather than any meaningful and permanent reform of the manner in which the Garda Commissioner is appointed.
Recent events have demonstrated the acute need for immediate reform to address the unhealthy nexus that exists between the Commissioner, the Minister and the Government. The findings of the Guerin report, including the Minister's acceptance at face value of the Garda Commissioner's investigation into a complaint against himself, reinforces the irrationality of the current structure. It is this direct and centralised Government control of a single, hierarchical national organisation which has been identified by Professor Dermot Walsh as "rendering the police vulnerable to being used by dominant interests as a vehicle for protecting their privilege, through the suppression of minority views and lifestyles". There must be a dilution of the current partisan political control over the Garda to ensure that too much police power is not left over-concentrated and under-accounted for in the hands of any party.
Some other examples of over-politicisation in the Garda Act 2005 include section 40(2) referred to by Professor Dermot Walsh as an "alarming provision" which provides that the Minister or the Government can demand any record or documents from An Garda Síochána. The ministerial power under section 25 to issue directives to the Garda Commissioner "concerning any matter relating to An Garda Síochána" should also be removed. The direct accountability of the Commissioner to the Minister is very unhealthy.
A rebalancing is particularly necessary in light of the extensive functions and powers of the Garda Síochána in providing both civil policing and security to the State. A Minister for Justice and Equality's reputation is too closely linked to that of the Garda Commissioner's under the current legislative structure. Section 26(3) of the Garda Act 2005 provides that the Garda Commissioner is solely accountable to the Minister in the performance of his functions. Criticising a Garda Commissioner's performance in a public forum would thus be akin to the Minister criticising himself and his own performance. Any holding to account is impossible in these circumstances.
Using the medium of Parliament to provide democratic accountability allows the Minister and the Garda Commissioner to escape any parliamentary requests to explain policy with the excuse that something is an operational matter for the Garda Commissioner, which we have heard many times. As the Garda Commissioner's conduct and performance is also exempt from GSOC's remit and due again to the exclusivity of accountability provided for under section 26(3), there is no further avenue or no other method of holding the Garda Commissioner, and by extension the Garda Síochána, to account once this operational matter excuse is provided to a parliamentary question.
This difficulty was clearly demonstrated by our efforts to raise by way of parliamentary question the issue of Garda racial profiling of Travellers on PULSE. The then Minister was content to tell us that the Garda Commissioner said that racial profiling did not exist, so that was good enough for him.
The over-politicised nature of our police force is also powerfully illustrated by many aspects of the Cooke report.
The 64 page report was published by Government at 8.45 p.m. on Tuesday last. Fifteen minutes later, the headlines on the RTE news at 9 o'clock could only repeat the selective quotes that had already been leaked by Government sources to certain journalists who are widely recognised to be uncritical of the Garda. The tactic was previously employed by the Government press office on the publication of the Garda Inspectorate report into penalty points. Despite a handful of exceptions, the Government line has generally been accepted by the media establishment, without question or serious analysis.
The Government has praised the report both in the Dáil and on "Prime Time" for being "comprehensive" and for reaching "evidence-based" conclusions following "rigorous" investigation. I wonder whether it has considered any of the following points. The former judge concluded that there was no evidence of Garda involvement. However, he did not seek any evidence, he did not question a single garda, nor did he request a report from the Garda Commissioner regarding, for example, the storage and log books of IMSI catchers, or the possibility of the involvement of rogue gardaí. He did not seek to question the senior gardaí who were the subject of two highly sensitive GSOC investigations, investigations which the retired judge admitted led to the heightened tension and paranoia between GSOC and the Garda Síochána at the time. The retired judge admitted that the most significant "anomaly" identified by Verrimus "remains unexplained". That was the ring-back to a telephone which bypassed the main switch at 1.30 a.m. and which occurred immediately after a TALAN test. The absence of any explanation for that mysterious occurrence is inconsistent with the report's conclusions.
The possibility of lawful surveillance was never investigated at all. Although the terms of reference cleverly require an examination only of unlawful surveillance, the elimination of the possibility of lawful surveillance would appear to be a basic requirement if the priority was to establish the truth. The former justice Minister refused to answer that question both at committee and in my parliamentary question to him in this Chamber in February. A senior garda can bypass judicial supervision completely and internally authorise another garda to conduct covert surveillance. That is entirely lawful if it is done in accordance with the exceptional circumstances set out in section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009. If lawful surveillance by the Garda, the Army or Revenue was at issue, the retired judge could then have examined whether it was in fact lawful, that is, whether those exceptional circumstances did in fact exist. Rogue gardaí could have received permission from other senior gardaí and bugged GSOC without breaking the law, but the matter has not been examined by Mr. Justice Cooke.
The report asserts a breach of statutory obligation by GSOC in its failure to report the results and progress but fails to mention that section 103 allows for exemptions if, in GSOC's opinion, that were necessary in the public interest. That has been repeated ad nauseam by Government speakers. Such a selective and incomplete reading of the relevant legislation is a strange omission for a former judge of Mr. Justice Cooke's experience and stature.
The report does not assess any evidence of an attempted security breach at GSOC, as requested by paragraph 3 of the terms of reference, preferring to focus on whether "actual surveillance" took place. The judge appeared to accept that ordinary surveillance of the Verrimus personnel took place, but does not view that as corroborating evidence nor does he consider it alongside the three technical "anomalies". That type of surveillance is unregulated in Ireland and that may be the reason the retired judge did not consider it. He did not appear overly concerned that Verrimus was the subject of ordinary surveillance while conducting the GSOC operation, nor was he curious about the identity of those who carried out the surveillance, although he stated that could only be examined by a statutory investigation.
In fairness, the retired judge went to some lengths to set out in his introduction that the report has "no authority to make binding findings of fact, much less definitive ones", that it does not have "authority to adjudicate on disputes of fact", and that it has been reliant on the "voluntary co-operation" of the parties concerned. The report also states that its conclusions are "based upon my personal evaluation and opinion". He stated they were not judicial, nor the result of a statutory inquiry by a sitting judge with powers of compellability. That is in contrast to the disingenuous efforts of Government to impart a sheen of legitimacy by emphasising at every opportunity that this paper review was conducted by a retired judge. It was by and large a paper review of secondary evidence already available rather than an investigation from first principles. Had the impossible happened and incontrovertible proof been provided and established on the unlawful Garda bugging of GSOC, that would have resulted in huge upheaval within some of the more sacred institutions of the State, and yet another possibly fatal blow for the party of law and order in the run-up to the next general election.
If there was an appetite for the truth, we would get an independent inquiry and nothing less. If we want to have a police force that we can be proud of, one that operates in a transparent manner, and is accountable for everything it does, we will also need to begin the process of depoliticising An Garda Síochána.
The Garda Síochána Act 2005 explicitly allows the Government to make appointments at superintendent level and above. There is no specification of any qualifications or criteria. The Government can literally appoint whoever it likes without any accountability. In addition, the grounds on which the Government of the day can also seek to remove the senior officers that are at the heart of Deputy Ross’s Bill are flimsy. One could ask whether it is really any wonder that we have such a dysfunctional system, as has been exposed recently, when such a system prevails at the higher echelons. It is perfectly understandable that anyone who wants to rise to those ranks must, in order to get there, curry favour with the political establishment of the day so that they might end up in the right place to get the nod when the time is right. The other side of the equation is that once they get there, the tendency is to reward their masters, those who put them there in the first place. That is incredibly unhealthy in any system which purports to be democratic.
We made the point many times during the recent controversies that much of what happened could not have happened without the dysfunctional relationship - a lawful one - between the former Minister for Justice and Equality and the former Garda Commissioner. It is not that the former Minister for Justice and Equality did nothing when he received the complaints – he did. He went to the Commissioner, asked him what was the story and the Commissioner said, “Don’t worry about it Alan. There is nothing to worry about,” and the former Minister said: “That is grand.” That was a hugely contributing factor to the problem. The politicised nature of the relationship between the Government, and the Garda Commissioner being only accountable to the Minister, was very much epitomised by the “Prime Time” debacle with the former Minister revealing information about Deputy Wallace in order to score political points. It was information he could not have come by accidentally and which could only have been found by a trawl at the behest of the Minister. Deputy Shatter has been found guilty of breaking data protection law in that regard but it is worth making the point.
Accountability is at the heart of the Bill. That is an issue on which we have all focused. Nobody disputes that is necessary. The Government’s response to that is at last we will get an independent Garda authority which will oversee the functioning of the force. I put it to the Minister that such a move on its own is not enough. If we simply put an authority at the top of the force as it is now, rely on those who are currently in management positions to continue to rule the roost and do not have a change in the mechanism for appointments, the problems will replicate themselves. When we say what is necessary is a Patten-style commission, we do so not because we think the Patten inquiry was brilliant and that there are no problems in the police force in Northern Ireland – there absolutely are – but because we need to go back to the drawing board and look at what are the objectives of a modern police service. Now is a completely different time from when the Garda Síochána was selected. One could ask how people should be recruited to the force. The top echelons set the scene and are very influential in picking those who are further down the ladder in terms of who can go forward for promotion. Recruitment and training must be addressed if we are to have an acceptable police force.
I tried to raise the issue of politicised policing with the Taoiseach in the context of the policing of the Corrib gas site.
He either was unable to or did not understand the point or was unwilling to answer it. Instead, he tried to divert the issue by talking about the merits or otherwise of the Shell project, when the question I posed to him was about the policing of it. He spoke about local people protesting as if there was a difference between what the former justice Minister, Deputy Shatter, called tourist protestors and locals. The point, however, was there were no local protestors but local residents who got in the way of a multinational. There is something utterly wrong in An Garda Síochána basically being an organisation for hire to act at the behest of a multinational. There is something utterly wrong in up to 30 gardaí intimidating an elderly woman and her husband to get a pipe down a narrow road when there was no one objecting. All human rights organisations have pinpointed these problems exist.
This Bill is a positive contribution and brings our attention to the top echelons of the force. We have been on record, and will do so again, as stating very few of those in the senior ranks of the Garda will make the grade of a reconstituted force, given that many of them have been involved in some of the most appalling miscarriages of justice and have stood over bad practices.
I call the Minister for who is sharing time with Deputies Durkan, Kyne and Harris.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Public Sector Management (Appointment of Senior Members of the Garda Síochána) Bill 2014, introduced by Deputy Ross.
The House will not need reminding of the many issues which have arisen in recent months relating to the Garda Síochána and the administration of justice. Last week, we saw the publication of the Cooke report; last month, the Guerin report was published. We know of the many various allegations by Garda whistleblowers, as well as the public disquiet regarding the penalty points system. Regrettably, as a result, we have witnessed an erosion of public confidence in the work of the Garda. It is essential in a democracy that the public has full confidence in how the Garda carries out its functions.
The Government has, therefore, rightly taken action to ensure these issues are dealt with in an independent and impartial manner that commands public confidence. The allegations about penalty points have been referred to GSOC, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, for independent investigation. The Garda Síochána Inspectorate has prepared a report on reform of the fixed-charge penalty system and its recommendations are now being implemented. I acknowledge the contribution made by Deputies opposite tonight to raising these issues. Today, the Garda announced it has commenced implementation of the inspectorate's short-term recommendations which will be welcomed by the public because they provide far greater clarity than there has been before. The inspectorate's report highlighted the significant changes necessary in this regard. A commission of investigation, headed by Mr. Justice Fennelly, has commenced work in examining the issues relating to the recording of telephone calls at Garda stations and associated matters. The Government commissioned a report by Sean Guerin into the way in which Garda whistleblower allegations regarding crime investigations were handled. The Government also commissioned a further, now-published, report by Mr. Justice Cooke into the claims of unlawful surveillance of GSOC. We will discuss that report in the House on Thursday and I look forward to having a detailed opportunity then to address matters raised about it tonight.
One by one, in each case, the Government has put in place a mechanism for an authoritative examination of claims and allegations, so the facts can be discovered, the truth established and necessary action taken. The Government also recognises, however, that the issues and failings identified are resolved is more critical. A whole process to implement these recommendations is required to deal with this wide range of issues. We need not only to address specific difficulties that arise, but also to identity the kind of longer-term reforms that will ensure continued public confidence in the Garda Síochána, as well as in the vital policing and security service it provides. The Government has, therefore, initiated a comprehensive programme of reform to address the wider systemic failings in the areas of policing and the administration of justice, including those which have emerged from the Guerin report. I reject the claim by some Members opposite that it is only piecemeal reform. Any fair analysis of the range of actions taken by the Government will agree it is a comprehensive programme of reform.
The spectrum of issues that must be addressed is complex and deep-rooted ranging from high-level issues such as oversight, change management and the role of whistleblowers to local administration and internal communication, as well as matters of basic policing, performance and human resources. The Guerin report identified clearly a wide and disturbing range of issues such as the supervision of probationary gardaí and the taking of evidence. These serious issues demand a response from the Garda.
A new Cabinet committee on justice reform has been established, the first time such a high-level committee has been established. It is headed by the Taoiseach and comprises the Tánaiste, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, myself, as Minister for Justice and Equality, and the Attorney General. This committee is overseeing this comprehensive programme of policing reform. As part of this programme of reform, an independent Garda authority is to be established by the end of this year. Future appointments to the position of Garda Commissioner will be by way of open competition. I remind Deputy Ross that I have stated in several fora, including the Dáil, that this position will be advertised in July as an open competition and advertised internationally. I also hope the new Garda authority will have a role to play in that appointment.
The Garda Inspectorate is to carry out a comprehensive inquiry into serious crime investigation, as well as management and operational issues arising from the findings of the report by Mr. Guerin. As was acknowledged on the radio this morning, I had a long meeting with the Garda Inspectorate on the work it is doing. It will work on the issues identified in the Guerin report and report back to me.
The Government has agreed to establish a further commission of investigation as recommended in the Guerin report. On foot of last week's publication of the Cooke report, the Government will now proceed to consider the terms of reference and formally establish the commission. An independent expert review of the performance, management and administration of the Department of Justice and Equality has been established. No one can question the credentials of the range of expertise I have appointed to the review group. It has begun its work. Amendments to the Protected Disclosures Bill will be enacted to enable a Garda whistleblower to report his or her concerns to GSOC. New legislation will be introduced shortly to strengthen the remit and powers of GSOC. While the then Government in 2005 responded to the findings of the Morris tribunal, it is clear the subsequent legislation introduced then is inadequate and its failings have come to the fore. While I do not have time to go into it tonight, I have outlined several areas where the GSOC legislation will be reformed in the near future.
When the Garda authority is established later in the year we will have an opportunity to examine further changes to how GSOC operates. For the first time we will establish an independent Garda authority. This will undoubtedly be the most significant change in oversight of the Garda Síochána since its foundation. As I stated, I acknowledge change was introduced in 2005, but deeper reform is now necessary and the Garda authority will be central to this.
I set out the background to the Government's programme of reform because the Bill put forward by Deputy Ross seeks to address one single aspect of reform, namely, the way in which appointments are made to the top ranks in the Garda Síochána. It is important to appreciate how individual reforms, such as the way in which the most senior members of the force are appointed, must be designed to fit properly in the new policing regime and oversight architecture. Anybody examining this topic this evening would have to agree we should not be bringing forward reform in a piecemeal manner but in a way in which the various aspects of reform compliment each other. This is the general difficulty I have with the Bill. It puts forward a proposal on the appointment of senior members of the Garda Síochána, but does not take into account how this might fit the wider reforms under way.
Taking the proposed independent Garda authority as a key example of these reforms, as far as I can tell from comments to date it enjoys a broad measure of support across the House. I intend to bring forward the necessary legislative changes later this year so the authority can be in place by the end of the year. This is a very challenging timetable but I intend to make it a top priority. While the details of its functions will need to be fully worked out as part of this legislative process, and I look forward to discussing the details in the House, one of its more obvious potential roles will be to have involvement in the process of appointment of the most senior members of the Garda Síochána. In saying this I do not anticipate any decisions by the Government and still less of the House and serious consideration will need to be given to the issue and precisely what the nature of the involvement of the new Garda authority will be, but broadly comparable bodies, such as the police authorities in the North or in Scotland, have an important role in senior police appointments. I note the study trip undertaken by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality to examine the police authority models in these areas and their role in senior police appointments. The joint committee has also held hearings. We await the outcomes of these hearings, on which I will receive a report shortly. We also await the deliberations of the committee following its trip to examine how police authorities operate in other countries.
The issue of the functions of a new Garda authority and the question of its role in appointing senior Garda members will also be the subject of discussion at the consultation event which I will convene on Friday in Farmleigh, where key stakeholders will spend the morning discussing the new Garda authority. A wide range of stakeholders will attend the event and all of the members of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality have been invited. The outcome will certainly form part of a very important consultative process with a wide range of relevant stakeholders.
The Bill takes no account of the forthcoming Garda authority or the extensive consultations under way involving a wide range of voices. Instead the Bill proposes a prescriptive approach to a singular area of reform, isolated from consideration of other reforms. The Bill proposes a free-standing system of appointment to the senior Garda ranks by a new public appointments board, following an open competition conducted by the Top Level Appointments Committee, and involving the approval of this House in the case of the Garda Commissioner or a recommendation by an Oireachtas committee in the case of other senior ranks. I find it very difficult to see how the House could be asked to establish such a system on the eve of the introduction of proposals for an independent Garda authority. The Bill effectively states that the new independent Garda authority will have no role in the most senior Garda appointments. Leaving aside the detail of the Bill, it is premature to ask the House to take a decision now which would anticipate its decision on the role of the authority, and to take this decision in advance of considering the outcome of the substantial process of consultations now under way, including the valuable and important work of the joint committee, the consultation event taking place on Friday and the other work I have referenced.
If we look at the detail of the Bill, there is also the question as to whether a key element of it, namely a requirement for the approval of the House for the appointment of a person to the post of Garda Commissioner, is in any event the right approach. At the outset of my remarks I recalled the controversies which had arisen about the Garda Síochána, and the potential damage which the resulting political controversies could inflict on what is a vital public service. I explained how the Government had taken decisive steps to resolve these controversies in a way which was evidently independent and impartial, and which would command public attention and respect. However, one could argue that the Bill, in requiring the approval of the House for the appointment of a Garda Commissioner, would put politics right back into policing as opposed to an independent Garda authority taking the decision. By all means let us debate this at the proper time when the legislative proposals for the Garda authority are before the House, but surely we cannot introduce such a measure, with such potentially far-reaching consequences, in the Bill.
I also find it odd that the Bill, although it is designed to deal with senior Garda appointments, provides for the extension of the remit of the proposed public appointments board to other sectors within the public service. We should recall there is already a structure set out in the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act for appointments to large parts of the public service. It is also the case that the 2004 Act, which provides for the Public Appointments Service and the Commission for Public Service Appointments, can be extended to other public sector bodies by ministerial order. I would have thought that proposals for such a major change to public service appointments generally should be debated fully in their own right and not tagged on as a single section in a Bill dealing with Garda appointments.
The Bill deals with an important issue, which is the process of making appointments to the most senior positions in the Garda Síochána. I welcome the debate, but I cannot welcome or support a proposal which is premature and being put forward in isolation to the other vital reforms which I mentioned are taking place. I want to emphasise this is not because I wish to avoid reform; it is quite the contrary, and the point is that significant reforms are under way. As I stated, and I will not go into the detail again, the Government has already announced that there will be an open competition for the post of Garda Commissioner. The Government has already announced plans for a new independent Garda authority, to be in place very shortly. By any measure I believe these are some of the most important reforms to the Garda Síochána ever proposed.
I look forward to the debate on these proposals, and the contribution of all Deputies, but the discussion on the process of Garda appointments needs to be part of a wider debate. We need the process of Garda reform to be comprehensive and cohesive. We need to consider all aspects of this reform. We need to ensure, as far as we possibly can, that we get it right. This Bill does not achieve this and I therefore regret that I cannot support it.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this important legislation. I welcome the announcement by the Minister in her speech to the effect that the various reforms put forward in Deputy Ross's Bill are being acted upon by the Government.
It goes without saying that if one examines the activities of various police forces throughout the world in recent years there have been numerous occasions where reform was required and this is no exception. This should not be taken as a blanket overall castigation of An Garda Síochána. It is hugely important that the general public, wherever it may be, has absolute confidence in its police force at all levels. At all times the general public needs to be reassured that the police force acting on its behalf acts with its full authority and support and is independent of any type of manipulation from any quarter. This is not to suggest for one moment that the Garda has been manipulated in any fashion by anybody.
Certainly, during my time in this House I have seen members of An Garda Síochána work solidly on behalf of the State to protect it and as I have stated previously, on many occasions they paid the ultimate price for so doing.
In a number of situations over the past 25 or 30 years, members of An Garda Síochána in the front line or the front row had no option except to do their duty and when called upon to do their duty, they did it. Moreover, they did it without fear or favour and many were injured or maimed and many paid the ultimate price. Members should not have a debate of this nature without recording their appreciation to An Garda Síochána for the tremendous work it has done in difficult times over a difficult era when there were many challenges both within and without. Consequently, it goes without saying that the reforms now proposed are not by way of criticism but are by way of consolidation and by way of providing confidence among the public on the extent to which the modern police force must be independent and in respect of what is required in the modern era.
It also is no harm to remember that in recent years, almost every aspect of society has been challenged. Every profession, including politics and elsewhere, has been challenged and various issues have arisen that have not shown various professions in a good light. As a result, it has been necessary to undertake reforms that are taking place. Moreover, it is appropriate that they should, because without such reforms there will be a continued lack of confidence in the system. While it is easy for everybody to point his or her finger and to state everything was meant to be changed, things have changed fairly dramatically within a short time. Although the extent of the change has not yet been fully perceived, it is taking place. As for those who suggest the changes did not take place quickly enough, I note the resources necessary to bring about all those changes are not as evidently available as they appear to be in some quarters of the House.
I refer to the reforms required in An Garda Síochána back in 2005 and as the Minister has just indicated, those reforms did not go to the extent they should have gone at that time. In fairness to members of the Garda Síochána at all levels who did the job at huge personal cost to themselves many times over those years, Members should not fail to recognise the sacrifices they made. They made huge familial and personal sacrifices and did their jobs well. Members have often spoken about those people who intoned to Members privately the things they perceived to be wrong within the administration. Sometimes they were right and perhaps sometimes they were wrong but the time now has come for an overall evaluation of the structures, which is good. Moreover, it should be and will be comprehensive to restore public confidence in the administration of justice. There are many other aspects of the system that require reform. While I have no doubt but that this will happen, in my short contribution I can only express my hope that at the end of the day, confidence will be restored in An Garda Síochána and those gardaí who have done their jobs selflessly throughout the years will be vindicated.
I welcome the publication of the Bill, as I would welcome the publication of any Bill that generates debate, and I congratulate Deputy Ross on its publication. I welcome the Minister and wish to take this first opportunity to congratulate her officially on her appointment as Minister under challenging circumstances in the year that is in it. One could say that 2014 will go down as the year of Garda scrutiny. I wish to take this opportunity to commend those who have brought issues to the fore within the Garda over the past six months and earlier, some within this House as well as the whistleblowers themselves, who have done the State justice in speaking out and highlighting their issues of concern within their serious and challenging occupation in the context of the protection of the State and one of its most important institutions, the Garda Síochána.
It is right for the Garda, as for any State body, to have standards and that every effort is made to hold up gardaí to those standards. It also is right for Members to acknowledge the majority of excellent members of the Garda Síochána, who do an excellent job day in and day out in difficult circumstances and challenging environments throughout the country. They have become demoralised by all that has gone on in recent times and it is important to acknowledge the role they play in protecting families and the State on a daily basis. I also wish to acknowledge the changes enacted in 2014 with regard to the Department of Justice and Equality and the Garda Síochána. I refer to the publication of the Guerin report on whistleblowing, the Cooke report on the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, bugging, the Finlay commission on taping and the proposed establishment by the Government of an independent police authority. The latter will deal with many of the items and issues highlighted and detailed in the Bill that is being drafted at present. I certainly will welcome the publication of that Bill, what it entails and the overall establishment of the independent police authority.
The Government has stated previously that the new Garda Commissioner is to be appointed by way of open competition, which is a welcome, progressive and inclusive step. As to whether this should be extended to other roles, as outlined in the Bill before Members, is a question for debate. As for suggesting the existing structures are not fit for purpose, however, one must consider what evidence there is that a new system would be different. Second, one must consider whether all the fault that has been experienced in the past six or 12 months can be put down to the existing structure or the appointment system in place at present. The Garda Commissioner has a difficult job and has a responsibility to the public ultimately, as well as to the rank-and-file members of the Garda. It is a challenging balancing act between ensuring one has the public's full confidence and having that responsibility to members of the Garda. I will not say it is a responsibility to protect them but to ensure that where allegations arise, members are not hung out to dry. Any Commissioner is only human and whether appointed through the existing structures, the system outlined by Deputy Ross or the planned open recruitment system that is to be initiated for the new Commissioner, ultimately he or she will have decisions to make. Like any human, mistakes can be made and perhaps he or she could say or do something he or she will regret.
However, there is no reason to believe that any of the actions that took place over the past six months would have been different under a Commissioner appointed by a different system. Decisions are made by humans. I could make a decision that would be different from that made by Deputies O'Mahony and Harris or anybody else. Ultimately, it is the individual himself or herself, the role he or she plays and the powers he or she has. A Commissioner should have a good working relationship with the Minister. They should not necessarily be best friends but should have a good healthy regard for each other's positions and roles. A Commissioner must be willing to investigate complaints from the public and from the Garda. I have spoken previously in this Chamber with regard to my hope for whistleblowers, which is that any future whistleblower will be treated properly by any future Garda Commissioner. I commend the Bill on its publication in terms of the debate Members are having. I certainly welcome the setting up of the independent Garda authority, as well as the initiatives taken by the Minister and her predecessor in recent months to sort out many of the problems that have arisen within the Garda Síochána.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and on the debate generated by its publication and tabling in this Chamber. I welcome and it is important to acknowledge - as sadly, others have failed to do - the work that already has been undertaken by the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, in her short period as Minister for Justice and Equality. The Minister has a record of reform that can be seen clearly in her work in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the passage of the children's referendum and the establishment of the Child and Family Agency. I have no doubt but that she is continuing that reforming attitude in her new role. It is important, however, that any debate should take place with a holistic view of the issues and challenges facing An Garda Síochána and broader society in terms of how it interacts with the justice system. A root and branch examination of the matters that have come to public light is clearly needed and action is needed on foot of those examinations. Hence, there is the Guerin report and the Cooke report, as well as agreement by the Government on a commission of inquiry into various serious allegations. In addition, an expert review of the Department of Justice and Equality is under way, as well as agreement to establish a new Garda authority for the first time in the history of the State.
I have heard accusations in this House tonight and in recent days and weeks that the Government's approach is piecemeal. That does not stand up to any level of fair and objective scrutiny. In fact, it lowers the standard of debate and it demeans it to a soundbite rather than substance. The Government is addressing all issues in a methodical and thorough manner. Many Members on all sides of the House have shown a constructive attitude, an acknowledgment that things need to change and an acknowledgment that there is a significant body of work to be done.
To simply pick off one issue of how senior gardaí are appointed and to endeavour to deal with it in isolation from the many other necessary developments, most particularly the establishment of a new Garda authority, would be foolhardy. We need to look seriously at how senior Garda appointments are made and to that end I welcome Deputy Ross's debate on the issue and the decision by the Government that the next Garda Commissioner will be appointed by way of open competition. However, we need to look at issues of oversight, appointments and transparency together. We need to work constructively to ask how a Garda authority would function, what is best international practice and what is best for Ireland and our culture. The stakeholders consultation this week on Friday is an extremely useful and important event. We have to bring the broad range of stakeholders with us. It is a much more inclusive and thorough way of going about business than stand-alone legislation which attempts to place the issue of appointments in a silo.
To deal with appointments alone in this Bill in the full knowledge of the reality that the establishment of a Garda authority is under way makes a mockery of consulting stakeholders and it also has an implication with which I am not comfortable. Deputy Kyne touched on this in his contribution. It has an implication that appointments and the appointments structure is at the root of the problems and the challenges. I say to Deputy Ross that there is no evidence to support that argument. There is no evidence to suggest that if another group of human beings, if another group of politicians around a table or another Commissioner or grouping or body of individuals had arrived at a different appointment that the culture in the Garda Síochána, the systems and the safeguards, would have been different. The Guerin report is a compelling read and one must presume it indicates some systemic issues within An Garda Síochána. The issues to which the report refers are very basic ones relating to training, education and facilities in Garda stations. They have very little, if anything, to do with the manner in which a person is to be appointed. It is not to suggest that the appointments system does not need to be examined but rather it is an acknowledgment that they will be looked at and an acknowledgment that we must examine all the issues facing An Garda Síochána and our justice system in a holistic fashion. That is why I think the Garda authority is a really exciting development. The justice committee has begun undertaking work and consultation on how such an authority works in other jurisdictions, and this is to be welcomed.
Sadly, there have been some slurs made in this House that have cast an aspersion on all members of An Garda Síochána. I am sure that is not the intention of any Member of this House. It must be remembered that in the history of the State, 85 gardaí have died in the line of duty. We must remember that while not perfect and no different from this institution, and while An Garda Síochána has had bad apples in it, this does not take away from the work of its members who get up every day and keep our society safe and tackle subversiveness.
It is a difficult time to be a garda. We owe it to citizens of this country, including members of An Garda Síochána, to deliver a thorough, comprehensive, fair and thought-out inclusive response to the issues that have emerged rather than having a knee-jerk reaction. We must get this right because we owe it to every citizen, including every member of An Garda Síochána and every courageous whistleblower who has come to the fore in recent weeks and months. I commend the Minister on her work. I welcome the debate on this Bill but in my view its approach is one of isolation rather than inclusiveness and it needs to be looked at in the context of the Garda authority.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this timely debate. The Minister has outlined the significant issues which have arisen in the administration of justice. This Bill deals with a central proposed reform of the Garda Síochána and is to be welcomed.
I agree with the principle of an independent system for appointments but Deputy Ross's Bill misses the point which has been debated in this House over recent months. The Members of this House all agree on the need for the establishment of an independent policing authority. The provisions in Deputy Ross's Bill would deny an independent policing authority the main function to support and sustain its independence which is the appointment of the most senior person in An Garda Síochána and his or her senior management team. The Bill does not make any sense. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that she will oppose it because my party will also oppose it.
There are currently a number of vacancies in the highest ranks of An Garda Síochána: the Garda Commissioner, Deputy Garda Commissioner, an assistant Garda commissioner vacancy and three chief superintendent vacancies. There is spare capacity at the top of An Garda Síochána and the right people must be found to fill those vacancies. The Minister addressed the issue of the appointment of a Garda Commissioner. This is the subject of my priority parliamentary question to the Minister next week and the Minister in her contribution tonight has addressed my question in part. I suggest the Minister should consider delaying the appointment until an independent policing board is established. The Minister has an ambitious timeline for the establishment by the end of the year of a fully independent and functioning policing board and it is good to aim for targets. However, what we learned on our trip last week is that Scotland established an interim independent policing board and this policy has some merit which the Minister may wish to consider. It may not be helpful to the person who is appointed as Garda Commissioner for a four or five year period if he or she is appointed in advance of the new independent policing authority. Either position might be weakened in that situation.
I agree with previous contributors that An Garda Síochána has experienced a battering, so to speak. We all interact with gardaí every day of the week and they are looking to us for hope. We must give them that hope and we must support them. I have always tried to temper my remarks. I agree we have to hold them to account and I agree we must criticise them - God knows they do not like taking criticism, just as none of us likes taking criticism. An Garda Síochána in particular does not like taking criticism. There needs to be a cultural change in An Garda Síochána and it is beginning to acknowledge the need for such a change. However, I do not agree with some of the points of view of other speakers who have thrown a wet blanket over the entire force, such as that there is a cancer of cronyism and that lots of things are rotten in the force. This is not helpful. I agree there have been problems with issues relating to whistleblowers and with meeting standards and malpractice. Debating those issues all over again will not move the situation forward. We have learned from them but some of the language in this debate is ill-tempered and is not justified. The message some people are trying to send in this debate is that those who have been promoted in An Garda Síochána did not merit their promotions. I did not hear any of those speakers offering any examples. They have no working knowledge of the system of promotion in An Garda Síochána nor of the competition process which brings candidates to the stage whereby they are politically appointed.
This brings me to my next point. Deputy Ross's Bill proposes that the Oireachtas appoint the Garda Commissioner, which is farcical. The Deputy should give us a break, especially as it coincides with the proposal to establish an independent policing board and remove politics from the appointment of senior Garda officers. We know where the sensationalism and populism starts on this issue but where does it end? On the one hand, it is suggested it is wrong for the Executive to appoint a Garda Commissioner, notwithstanding that the Government is accountable and may be, and often is, turfed out of office by the electorate. On the other hand, it is suggested that it would be right for 166 Deputies, or 158 Deputies in the next Dáil, to appoint the next Garda Commissioner. That position does not make sense.
We must adopt a model in which civic society, interest groups and people with appropriate qualifications sit on an independent policing board and drive forward the organisation. These individuals should recruit the chief executive officer of the board and the Garda Commissioner. This model would be in line with practice in the North and in Scotland and the majority of other countries where independent policing authorities appoint the chief of police. This is the model we should adopt. It does not make sense that Deputy Ross, who campaigns against quangos, is seeking to establish a new quango.
The Bill proposes the establishment of a system similar to the Top Level Appointments Commission, TLAC, which appoints senior civil servants. Deputy Ross has been vocal in describing the TLAC process as one in which insiders promote insiders. The hypocrisy evident on this issue shows no bounds. We must learn from the experience in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Last week, I and other members of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality visited both jurisdictions where we met representatives of the independent policing boards of Northern Ireland and Scotland. Before last week, I had not taken part in a single junket since entering local politics in 2004. However, I was so interested in trying to ensure this matter is dealt with correctly that I decided to take part in the visit to Belfast and Edinburgh and of course I lived it up during the two-day trip. We packed six meetings into one and a half days, during which we learned with great interest how the Northern Ireland and Scottish independent policing boards operate. Highly structured and transparent systems are in place in both jurisdictions for the appointment of senior police officers. As with Oireachtas committees, the independent policing boards hold regular public and private meetings and meet as full committees and sub-committees. They are able to challenge and hold the respective heads of their police forces to account. Further, because they made the appointment they cannot outsource blame for problems that may arise to a quango.
I am highly critical of the local appointments commission, which appoints powerful, influential but untouchable local authority managers who have substantial reserve functions. It is wrong that no one can query or criticise the work of city and county managers. They should be appointed by the members of the local authority they serve, just as an independent policing authority should appoint the Garda Commissioner.
While I am unable to attend the worthwhile consultation exercise planned for Farmleigh, I will send my researcher to the event. On our visit to Northern Ireland and Scotland last week, members of the joint committee learned that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Dr. Michael Maguire, had previously been the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland. In this State we have the Inspector of Prisons and Garda Inspectorate, while Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions have an inspectorate that covers the entire criminal justice system, including the courts and office of director of public prosecutions or equivalent. Problems have arisen in this jurisdiction with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We do not have transparent oversight of the office, nor do we know to what standards it operates. Rather than having separate inspectorates such as the Garda Síochána Inspectorate and Inspector of Prisons, there would be merit in establishing an overarching inspectorate for the entire criminal justice system. Such an entity would also tie in nicely to the proposed independent policing authority.
I do not hold any brief for any of the incumbents or individuals who wish to be appointed to positions in the Garda Síochána. I wish the acting Garda Commissioner, Ms Nóirín O'Sullivan, well in her current capacity. There was a small hiccup at a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and in fairness to the acting Garda Commissioner, having been blind-sided, she put the matter right. She also made a positive start with the whistleblowers. Ms O'Sullivan and all members of An Garda Síochána deserve credit for the fact that crime statistics are moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, recent events have shown that crime is ravaging the streets of parts of Dublin. The shooting of a six-year old child in a botched, gangland hit in Ballyfermot and an attack on a 16 year old in Clondalkin at the weekend were unbelievable incidents for which there is no justification or excuse. Communities must not tolerate such acts and must support An Garda Síochána.
I ask the Minister to address one point made in a report published today by the Chief Inspector of the Garda Inspectorate, Mr. Bob Olsen. Garda transport is an old chestnut about which Deputies hear regularly because we meet gardaí every day. A multi-annual dedicated budget for fleet management is required in order that the Garda knows how much will be available for capital expenditure on the Garda fleet, which is currently not fit for purpose. As the Minister is aware, with the exception of Dublin and the east coast generally, the population is dispersed and predominately rural. We need a mobile police service to keep people safe.
The Bill is ill thought out and does not make sense given that those who support it also support the establishment of an independent policing authority. One cannot support this legislation while supporting the establishment of an independent policing authority without the most important function of a policing authority, namely, the power to appoint the most senior police officer.
I concur with many of the points made by Deputy Niall Collins. If the establishment of an independent policing authority were not imminent, the Bill would certainly deliver an improvement on the current position of having appointments made at Cabinet level by the Minister.
What is being proposed in this Bill is the establishment of a body where nominations would come before 158 Deputies following the next election and then there would be either agreement or not. If there were no agreement, there is another process to follow which is laid out in the Bill. If we were in a situation where there was no intention to establish an independent policing authority, one could certainly say that the Bill is a marked improvement on the current process. However, we are looking at the establishment of an independent policing authority.
It is the view of my party that an independent policing authority is the best way to deal with the issue of appointments of senior gardaí, whether Commissioners or assistant commissioners. We have seen it working successfully in the Six Counties. We have seen it working in Scotland. One only has to look at last week where a new Chief Constable was appointed to the PSNI who received unanimous support across both communities because of the independent and transparent way in which that process is outlined. Deputy Mac Lochlainn will focus more tomorrow evening on the particular thrust of the Bill which is the appointment of the Garda Commissioner and assistant commissioners.
Deputy Ross desires that this could be extended to appointments in other public areas and that would be done by ministerial order if the Minister so approves. That is not the correct way to do it. If we want senior appointments to public bodies to be free from political influence, what is proposed in this Bill will not do that. What Deputy Ross proposes in sections 3 and 4, in terms of possibly extending it to other bodies, would no doubt strengthen public accountability and transparency but the fact that it would still be up to 158 Members of this Chamber to ultimately vote and hire that particular person does not fully remove it from the political process, which is what we need to do.
My party wants to see public sector governance being completely modernised. Everyone is in favour of that. It must be fully transparent. It must be absolutely independent in all aspects of public appointments. Such appointments must be made on the basis of objective merit and qualifications following an open and public process, and it must be made entirely free of public control or interference. What this Bill proposes does not meet those standards.
The way to go is the establishment of a new public appointments commissioner to regulate a fully independent and impartial public appointments process, including not only senior public service positions but also positions in the management of other areas of the State, whether semi-State or public bodies, based on criteria which are agreed and in the public domain. Unfortunately, this Bill is putting the cart before the horse. The Minister has outlined that we will see the establishment of an independent Garda authority which will be fully independent from all political control and which will oversee the appointment of a Garda Commissioner and assistant commissioners. We need to see that sooner rather than later. I note there is a consultation day on Friday and it is the Minister's wish to see that legislation is brought forward and established as soon as possible. For those reasons, this Bill is ill-timed and, unfortunately, there are aspects of it which my party considers to be ill-thought-out as well.
Debate adjourned.