I welcome the Taoiseach back to the House. We are dealing with No. 2, motion re the terms of reference for a commission of investigation.
Commission of Investigation (Certain Matters relative to An Garda Síochána and other persons) Order 2014: Motion
I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Commission of Investigation (Certain Matters relative to An Garda Síochána and other persons) Order 2014,
copies of which Order in draft were laid before Seanad Éireann on 15 April 2014.
At its meeting on 25 March, the Government considered very serious matters relating to An Garda Síochána. The implications of these were potentially of such gravity that the Government decided to establish a statutory commission of investigation to examine all matters of public concern relating to the issue.
In the context of ongoing legal proceedings in a particular case, it was learned that a system was in place in a large number of Garda stations whereby incoming and outgoing telephone calls were recorded. From the information available, the practice of making recordings was in place for many years and was discontinued in November of 2013. It is now public knowledge that the case in question is the Bailey case.
Subsequently, at its meeting on 1 April, the Government decided to appoint Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly, currently serving as a judge of the Supreme Court, as chair of the commission of investigation. The Government also decided that An Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice and Equality should ensure the retention and preservation of all tapes; complete a full inventory of all tapes; and devise arrangements to ensure that tapes can be accessed, as required and in accordance with the law. The Government also decided to establish a new Cabinet Committee on Justice Reform to oversee the development of proposals for an independent police authority, and other associated reforms to the policing and justice system.
It is imperative that we, as a society, have full public confidence in, and support for, An Garda Síochána given the very difficult and important job that it does. We, therefore, wish to see a full public debate on the issue of policing and justice reform and the Government will bring forward proposals for a public consultation process on the issue in the coming weeks. The Government is strongly committed to these reforms and intends to have new structures, including the appointment of a new Garda Commissioner by open competition and the establishment of a new independent policing authority, in place later this year. Further evidence of this commitment is the establishment of the Cooke and Guerin inquiries, both of which are due to report very shortly.
On 8 April, the Government published detailed terms of reference for the commission, which incorporate the views conveyed by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality in its letter to me of 3 April. The terms of reference of the commission are to investigate and report on the operation of An Garda Síochána telephone recording systems and on the following matters in particular: (a) to identify all Garda stations in which telephone recording systems, to record calls other than 999 calls to the emergency call answering service, were installed and-or operated by An Garda Síochána between 1 January 1980 and 27 November 2013 and to establish an inventory of those Garda stations so identified to include: (i) the date of initial installation, where such installation occurred at a date between 1 January 1980 and 27 November 2013; (ii) to report whether any such installations were already in existence on 1 January 1980; (iii) the duration for which telephone recording systems continued in operation in each such Garda station; (iv) the date on which telephone recording systems were terminated or removed from each such Garda station; (b) to establish the immediate circumstances surrounding the installation of telephone recording systems operated by An Garda Síochána at the said Garda stations and to establish what authorisation was sought or obtained by An Garda Síochána for such installation and, including the funding, installation, maintenance and-or upgrading of those telephone recording systems, to include the public procurement procedure followed in 1996 and further in relation to the installation of the NICE recorder system in 2008; (c) to establish how the said telephone recording systems operated by An Garda Síochána were managed and to establish what use, if any, was made by An Garda Síochána of any information collated by the said telephone recording systems; (d) to identify the organisation and structures in place for the installation, operation and management of the said telephone recording systems and in the storage, access, analysis and use of any information obtained from them; (e) to investigate and report on the level of knowledge of the existence, operation and use of the said telephone recording systems within An Garda Síochána; (f) to investigate and report on the level of knowledge of the existence, operation and use of the said telephone recording systems within the Office of the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Department of Justice and Equality, the Office of the Attorney General, the Chief State Solicitor's office, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission; (g) to establish whether the installation, operation and use of the said telephone recording systems was authorised by law; (h) to establish whether any telephone conversations between solicitors and their clients were recorded by the said telephone recording systems; (i) to establish whether any information obtained from the said telephone recording systems by An Garda Síochána was used by it either improperly or unlawfully and, in particular, whether any recordings as may have been made by An Garda Síochána of solicitor-client telephone conversations were used for any purpose whatsoever; (j) to establish where the recorded information obtained from the telephone recording systems operated by An Garda Síochána was stored since the creation of same and to establish how such information was accessed and analysed by An Garda Síochána; (k) to establish whether any of the recorded information has been destroyed; (l) to establish any instances during the relevant period where the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions made use of the data and information produced by the said telephone recording systems for any purpose; (m) in particular, to identify and review all recordings in the possession of An Garda Síochána emanating from the Garda telephone recording system at Bandon Garda station or otherwise, which relate to the Garda investigation into the death of Sophie Toscan du Plantier and to establish whether those recorded phone calls, and any other acts or events in the course of the said Garda investigation, disclose any evidence of unlawful or improper conduct by members of An Garda Síochána in connection with that investigation; (n) to investigate and report on the furnishing to the Minister of a letter dated 10 March 2014 sent by the former Garda Commissioner, Mr. Martin Callinan, to the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality; (o) to investigate and report on the sequence of events leading up to the retirement of the former Garda Commissioner, Mr. Martin Callinan, on 25 March 2014; (p) in the event that any matter arises from the Report of the Inspector of Prisons Judge Michael Reilly pursuant to section 31 of the Prisons Act 2007 into all the circumstances surrounding the recording of telephone conversations between prisoners and their solicitors, which appears to require further investigation in the public interest the commission may investigate and report on same; and (q) to report on any other matters of concern arising from its investigation of recordings to and from Garda stations and to make any further recommendations as it sees fit.
The commission shall exercise discretion in relation to the scope and intensity of the investigation it considers necessary and appropriate, having regard to the general objective of the investigation.
In particular, the commission shall have the discretion to decide to limit its investigation to samples of recordings in the light of what is disclosed as the investigation progresses.
The commission's terms of reference, as approved by Government, envisage a final report to the Government no later than 31 December 2014, subject to section 6(6) of the Act. I am aware that there have been calls for earlier reports on some elements of the investigation, in particular the sequence of events leading up to the retirement of the former Garda Commissioner. However, it is important to recognise the independence of the judge and, therefore, the Government believes it is more appropriate to give the commission full flexibility on the nature, timing or sequencing of any part of the investigation.
The staffing requirements of the commission will reflect the scope of the terms of reference and the ambitious timescale involved. The exact requirements of the commission will become clearer once the commission is established and begins to scope out its work in more detail. The appointment of staff and their terms and conditions will be subject to approval by me, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. In addition to direct staffing costs, set up and ongoing costs will arise in regard to the establishment of the commission's office, ICT and administration, travel and subsistence, etc. Specialist expertise may also be required given the subject of the investigation.
Based on an initial assessment, a cost of €2 million is deemed a reasonable estimate for 2014 and it is proposed to provide for this from the Vote of the Department of the Taoiseach. This estimate is based on the assumption that the commission completes its work by the end of 2014, as specified in the terms of reference. If it were deemed necessary to extend the commission's work beyond that date, then further staffing and other costs will arise.
In addition to salary and administration costs, third party costs are also likely to arise. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, following consultation with the commission and with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, I will have guidelines prepared concerning this area. The extent and timing of any such costs are difficult to estimate at this stage.
My sole interest in addressing these matters, which is why I have come to the Seanad and which are rightly of deep concern, is to establish the truth. It appears that the practices which will be investigated by the commission may have been going on for 30 years. The establishment of the commission of investigation is the most appropriate, timely and cost effective way of getting to the truth. The commission's comprehensive terms of reference will ensure that all relevant issues are investigated in a thorough and timely manner and I commend the motion to the House.
I welcome the Taoiseach. We support the establishment of the commission of investigation. However, I do not accept the Taoiseach's explanation as to why this investigation cannot be done on a modular basis. Many of the issues raised, such as the illegal taping and the Bailey case, are of public concern and require an investigation such as that which the Taoiseach outlined. However, in regard to terms of reference (n) and (o), the Taoiseach could clarify the information, the timeline and his involvement in respect of the forced resignation of the former Garda Commissioner, Martin Callanan. That does not require a commission of investigation. This is a €2 million cloak around one issue in which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, found themselves embroiled and this is a way to get out of it, namely, by sending it to a commission of investigation along with everything else. That said, we will support the motion.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach a few specific questions on terms of reference (n) and (o). Why is it that one month after only the second Garda Commissioner in the history of State was effectively removed from his post, the Taoiseach has not outlined his involvement in that matter? As I said, that issue does not have to be part of an investigation. The Taoiseach outlined very serious matters which should be part of the investigation but I believe, as do my colleagues, that the issue relating to the resignation, retirement or forced retirement of the former Garda Commissioner could be dealt with by the Taoiseach this evening.
I have a couple of specific questions in that regard which the Taoiseach may be able to address. The Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, sent the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality to the Garda Commissioner's house on 24 March. What did they ask the Secretary General to say to the former Garda Commissioner? Did they tell the Tánaiste on 24 March that they were sending the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality to the former Garda Commissioner's house? What was the Secretary General asked to say? Was he instructed to say anything in particular to the former Garda Commissioner? Was the Garda Commissioner effectively told at that Monday evening meeting his position was untenable? Apparently, it was a courtesy call, which I do not believe.
What I find even more remarkable today, having read reports in the Irish Examiner, that the Tánaiste is demanding answers on the circumstances of the former Garda Commissioner's resignation. To me, my colleagues and many people outside this House, that is incredible because surely the Tánaiste should just ask the Taoiseach and his Cabinet colleague, the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, about the circumstances of that Monday evening courtesy call by the Secretary General to the former Garda Commissioner.
The Attorney General telephoned the Taoiseach on the Sunday about the taping concerns. I agree with the Taoiseach that they were very serious concerns but why did it take him until Monday evening to tell the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter? Are we meant to believe that at the Monday evening meeting, which the Taoiseach had with the Minister, the Secretaries General of the Department of the Taoiseach and Justice and Equality and the Attorney General, that he did not discuss the former Garda Commissioner's letter sent to the Department of Justice and Equality which apparently was not passed on to the Minister? At that Monday evening meeting with all of these people, what was discussed if that letter was not discussed? As a citizen - forget about the fact I am Senator - I genuinely cannot understand this. The Attorney General knew about these taping concerns at least since last November. Am I meant to believe that the Attorney General never once mentioned this to the Minister for Justice and Equality, even though she sits at the Cabinet table?
While supporting the broad thrust of the investigation, what the Taoiseach and the Government are telling the people about the circumstances of the forced resignation of the former Garda Commissioner is just not credible. For whatever reason, the Taoiseach has decided time after time to circle the wagons around the Minister for Justice and Equality in respect of whose Department four separate inquiries are taking place. The Taoiseach chairs a sub-committee of Cabinet to oversee what is happening in justice. Why does the Taoiseach not provide clarity on the timeframe and the circumstances around the forced resignation of the former Garda Commissioner because he was involved? That does not require to be part of this investigation. If the Taoiseach believes it does, then he should allow it to be done on a modular basis because, as he rightly says, he wants to get to the truth. The Taoiseach is in possession of the truth in respect of a major part of this and I ask him to state it in the Seanad this evening.
I welcome the Taoiseach to address the House on this very important issue. I greatly welcome the establishment of this commission of investigation and commend the Taoiseach for his swift and decisive action in establishing it. As an organisation, An Garda Síochána has always enjoyed public confidence and is held in high regard among the people. However, recent revelations and events have raised some serious questions. The people want answers to these questions and it is our responsibility, as a Government, to seek to provide them.
I hope the establishment of the commission of investigation, with its comprehensive terms of reference as outlined to the House by the Taoiseach, will provide the necessary answers and explanations to the questions raised concerning the recording of telephone conversations at Garda stations. While we all support the Garda for its work on our behalf, no one would wish its members to engage in any improper or unlawful acts, although I am not suggesting this was the case.
The decision of the Government to keep hold of all the tapes and establish an inventory in order to make appropriate arrangements for them to be available to the commission, with the formation of a Cabinet committee on justice reform to oversee the process, is also to be welcomed.
In any functioning democracy, the good standing of its police force is essential. The public need to have full confidence in the work of An Garda Síochána, given the central role the organisation plays in society. In my view, every State organisation should be subject to periodic review, not only to ensure that it meets the needs of the public but also to ensure it is being run appropriately. I hope the membership of An Garda Síochána engage fully with the process, because they are in the best position to inform, advise and offer recommendations for change.
This investigation, along with the Guerin and Cooke reports, provides a great opportunity to address the overall architecture of policing. It will also improve oversight, and confidence in oversight, about which the public have doubts. This is far too grave and serious an issue to be subjected to political point-scoring, although I suggest this is what has occurred.
I am confident that the commission of investigation will provide all the answers to the questions asked by Senator Darragh O'Brien, for instance. The Minister for Justice and Equality is a reforming Minister who has introduced significant reforming legislation since his appointment. These reforms will continue when he introduces the DNA database Bill and the Irish human rights and equality commission Bill in this House next month.
I commend the Taoiseach for his decision, which we should all agree is the best way of seeking the answers to the questions that many of us are asking.
I welcome the Taoiseach. Three years ago the Irish electorate voted for this Government because they wanted a new form of political and administrative governance that offered transparency and open communication with the public. They voted to bring a new system of governance to the State that would move beyond the scandals and corruption that were endemic in the past.
In the light of the unfolding of the multiple dimensions of this current crisis regarding An Garda Síochána, various Departments and State bodies and offices, it is vital that the Government demonstrate an energy, an alacrity and a commitment to dealing with these issues immediately and with all the resolve necessary and transparency expected. There is a lot of disillusionment and a sense that the expectation of a new form of governance has not been delivered and that the people's hopes have been bruised.
The Taoiseach's decision to establish a commission of investigation with terms of reference of such breadth, including some suggested to him by the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, of which I am a member, is to be welcomed. The commission of investigation is vital to restoring public confidence in An Garda Síochána, which has taken a considerable blow in recent months, and is also vital to supporting and ensuring strong morale within An Garda Síochána. The commission of investigation is critical in demonstrating the Government's commitment to transparency, openness and accountability in the State. For that reason, it should be given all necessary resources and be concluded as quickly as possible.
The breadth of the terms of reference should allow the commission as much scope as is needed to investigate all the details of the recordings and other issues, some details of which may only come to light through the inquiry. That is the reason point (q) of the terms is particularly welcome. For example, the inquiry must be empowered to establish the lines of responsibility and knowledge within An Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice and Equality with regard to the recordings. I say this because the focus appears at times to be more on the Garda, yet it seems implausible that the authority to undertake recordings was restricted to An Garda Síochána and undertaken solely at its initiative without reference to the Department of Justice and Equality. Such independent action by An Garda Síochána seems all the more unlikely given what we have seen about the proximity of the relationship between the Department and Garda management.
I welcome the establishment of the commission of inquiry and the breadth of its terms of the reference. I acknowledge the Taoiseach wishes to establish the truth. Even at this late stage it is critical that the terms of reference be amended to ensure the transparency, urgency and open communication with the electorate that the Taoiseach promised. I urge him to consider my suggested amendments. There should be maximum transparency and the inquiry should be held in public, except where there are clear, identifiable and justifiable grounds for not doing so, which should be limited and explicitly stated. This was also recommended by the justice committee. The terms of reference should be amended to prioritise the sequence of events leading up to the retirement of the former Garda Commissioner, the handling of correspondence and information by the Department of Justice and Equality and the administrative procedures in place within the Department governing the transfer of knowledge from officials to the Minister. Further, the commission should publish an interim report on these matters within a period of eight weeks. This, too, was recommended by the justice committee. Eight months is too long a period for the public to wait with regard to these two issues. If administrative and governance problems exist they need to be discovered as soon as possible and fixed as soon as possible.
I propose an amendment with regard to open communication, in that interim reports should be produced by the commission, as I have already mentioned, and that the commission of investigation report should be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and published. There should be a timeframe of a maximum of 30 days after its receipt by the Taoiseach. Because the Commissions of Investigation Act does not explicitly require publication, the publication of the commission's report should be included in the terms of reference. If the Oireachtas and the public do not have the report of the commission in as timely a manner as possible, how will the people and their representatives know what is wrong and be able to engage in a proper public debate about what reforms are necessary? I welcome the Taoiseach's announcement about the other debates on policing and wider justice reform.
The amendments establishing transparency, urgency and open communication are critical if the Government is to deliver on its promises to the electorate.
I welcome the Taoiseach. I wish to share my time equally with Senator Susan O'Keeffe.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the terms of reference of the commission of investigation and also the appointment of Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly. We welcome the fact that the commission will investigate three key areas: the widespread and long-running practice by An Garda Síochána of operating telephone recording systems; the implications of the tapings into the tragic death of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in 1996; and the sequence of events leading to the resignation or retirement of the Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan.
As Senator Katherine Zappone said, the justice committee - of which I too am a member - wrote to the Taoiseach on 3 April. We are delighted to note that the matters we sought to have included in the terms of reference are included in terms (n) and (o) - that is, the progress of the letter dated 10 March 2014 sent by the former Garda Commissioner to the Minister, and the events leading up to the retirement of the former Garda Commissioner. We are glad that both of these have been incorporated, but we also asked that these two matters in particular be front-loaded and dealt with in the early course of the work of the commission of investigation and within eight weeks. The members of the justice committee are disappointed that this requirement was not included in the terms of reference of the commission. We accept that the judge is independent in the conduct of the inquiry and that he will, of course, make a decision as to whether it be held in private or public, but it is our view, at least in respect of these two matters, that the hearings should be held in public. The committee will be expressing that view to the Taoiseach and to Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly.
As other speakers have said, it is vital that we seek to restore faith and trust among the public in An Garda Síochána. The events which led to the establishment of the commission of investigation will lead to a great improvement in governance systems in An Garda Síochána. I particularly welcome the Government's commitment to establishing an independent policing authority, which has been a long-standing Labour Party policy. Deputies Anne Ferris and Seán Kenny and I, as the Labour Party members of the justice committee, last week published a framework document for the shape of such a Garda authority, which would at last provide a buffer between the Minister and an Garda Síochána. In our view this will greatly improve the governance of An Garda Síochána.
I welcome the Taoiseach. I also welcome the commission of investigation under the stewardship of Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly, the Supreme Court judge. For Senator Darragh O'Brien to call it some class of cloak is just ridiculous. I do not believe any Government would normally subject itself or allow or encourage a Supreme Court judge to sit over an inquiry for such a length of time. That is certainly no cloak.
It is welcome that a timeline has been set. As someone who spent part of my life investigating all kinds of things, I differ from Senator Ivana Bacik in thinking the timeline to the end of December is appropriate. As someone who had the costs, length and complexity of a tribunal laid at my feet as if I were to blame, I know something about these things. However, by December, I hope there will be a report and an extension will not delay it too much longer. It is important that the sequence of events leading to the departure of Martin Callinan are included, that the recordings relating to the death of Sophie Toscan du Plantier are analysed and that any other acts that reveal unlawful or improper conduct by An Garda Síochána will also be investigated. This is long overdue. The original authorisation of the taping and its continued use and updating of the equipment should also be examined.
I welcome the urgent approach being taken to the establishment of an independent policing authority. I am firmly of the view that rank and file gardaí know that this, ultimately, will help them in their work. A high-level committee is also obvious evidence of the commitment of the Taoiseach to this matter.
The task of GSOC has been a difficult and lonely task. It endeavoured to play its role in changing the culture of An Garda Síochána by encouraging greater transparency. It was very clear at the meeting last November of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, of which I am a member, when Martin Callinan gave evidence. He said:
[i]t is the case that I am required by law to assist the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and so I have no choice but to provide that assistance. As to whether I would wish it were different, yes I would.
When that is the mood music at the top of an organisation, why are we surprised there is a culture of secrecy? Any policing authority put in place must be accompanied by training and retraining of gardaí to help change the culture from within the organisation, not solely from without and not relying entirely on such an independent policing commission, although I do not need to underline its importance.
I am disappointed by one thing. I would have liked the commission to take a look at the procedures run by An Garda Síochána for the surveillance of mobile phones of those it believes may endanger the State and how it seems to be able to add new mobile phones to an existing order. Those newly-added numbers belong to other people whose identity is known and against whom An Garda Síochána is unwilling to look for such an order to tap their phones. Journalists are one such group and others fall into the category. This was not an issue when we only had landlines but technology has moved on. This is a matter that requires urgent attention and the logs of numbers held by An Garda Síochána for such surveillance would reveal numbers for which no authorisation was given.
I warmly welcome the Taoiseach. The assistant commissioner, John O'Mahoney, reassured us there is no question of what has been described as a culture of non-enforcement of penalties being tolerated by An Garda Síochána but we must wonder how it comes to pass that there are now three separate inquiries into the activities of gardaí. How has it come to this? I believe that it is mismanagement. A culture of cover-up has permeated successive national Administrations but I expected more from the Taoiseach and this Administration. In the past few months we have seen attempt after attempt on the part of the Government to hide from the reality of the multitude of problems that have emanated from the mismanagement of the powers entrusted in our gardaí. Despite these cover-ups failing time and again, the response to every new fact has been further cover-up. Considering the very limited scope of the terms of reference for this inquiry, I must ask the following questions. What about the other recording facilities in Garda stations? Have they ever been misused? Why have they been so deliberately excluded from the terms of reference of this inquiry? When the culture of using electronic surveillance within the prosecutorial service is so strong that the Director for Public Prosecutions would think to attempt to introduce surreptitiously recorded conversations as evidence in a criminal case, surely it is plausible some others within the service - broadly defined - would have thought to use other recording facilities in the Garda stations in a similar fashion. Would it not be better to exclude them, if they are rightfully to be excluded, from any suggestion that they were abused by investigating whether they had been abused? The alternative is to risk some further future scandal as more information about the practices of a minority of our gardaí leaks into the public domain.
The obfuscation of the truth and the slow emergence of the facts provides an acidic drip, drip, drip of information that is steadily wearing away the genuine and well deserved high esteem the people have for An Garda Síochána. So many of them have put their health and lives on the line to defend our rights. The Taoiseach, personally, must take some of the blame for this as his is the Government overseeing this and not managing it well. The Taoiseach's Government has transformed discreditable behaviour on the behalf of a minority of gardaí into what has become a systemic crisis for the force. The Cabinet has overseen this and handled it badly. We expected more of the Taoiseach than this and I expected more.
Ours was a generation that knew the arms crisis, knew the bad old days of Charlie Haughey and the activities of former Minister Seán Doherty - Lord rest him - at their extremes, which saw the bugging of journalists for political gain, and lived through incidents that were grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented. Our generation knew the potential for harm to the Republic when a Government, instead of acknowledging uncomfortable facts, instead puts up a hedgehog defence that sees internal critics as traitors and external critics as enemies. What did the Government do? The record so far is to put pressure on the Smithwick tribunal to end its inquiries early, to dismiss the concerns of the whistleblowers and, more reprehensibly, to issue statements made at multiple levels - administrative and political - of the Government to undermine the good names of these whistleblowers.
I publically thank the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, who said what needed to be said, who said what should have been said by senior members of the Government many months earlier. He is a credit to the Fine Gael Party, to the Cabinet and to our medical profession. There was the leaking of confidential information about the Deputies who supported the whistleblowers. There was the Taoiseach's misinterpretation of the Garda Act regarding GSOC. At every opportunity to hide, there has been hiding, at every opportunity to evade, there has been evasion. This is not what the electorate expected of the reforming Government. Those of us who endorsed the Taoiseach, and supported his candidacy for high office, believing that he would be a reforming Taoiseach, did not expect this.
The official version of events that the former Commissioner retired for family reasons only hours after meeting the Taoiseach's representative, drags this mess into less and less credible territory. It is not credible that the long-recognised practice of improper taping in Garda stations, which Martin Callinan attempted to bring to the attention of others, was the proximate cause for his apparent dismissal. Every time there has been a partial acknowledgement of the reality of the Garda behaviour, some other fact comes into light and there is something else beneath this surface. How does the Taoiseach answer the charge that will be levelled by the people, cynical as they are about politics, that what differentiates any Irish Opposition party from an Irish Government party is merely the opportunity that a particular tribe will have to further the interests most closely associated with it and to damage those who are not loyal members of the tribe? In the remaining two years, I urge the Taoiseach to recapture the zeal of reform that swept him into office, to put the protection of whistleblowers front and centre and to acknowledge that people who disagree with him are not necessarily his enemies but people whose point of view should be esteemed and sometimes acted upon.
I propose to share time with Senator Paul Coghlan.
I welcome the Taoiseach to the Seanad to discuss this vital issue. Whatever criticism, both valid and otherwise, has been levelled at Government in the past months about its response to the various issues surrounding An Garda Síochána, it is to the Taoiseach's credit that when he took the decision to set up a commission of inquiry under the auspices of Mr. Justice Fennelly, he proposed terms of reference that are comprehensive and exacting in nature. I also welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has involved the chairperson of the commission in the drafting of the terms of reference to ensure he has the requisite tools to perform his task. The only criticism levelled to date is the length it will take the commission to report. However, eight months is not a long time to get to the bottom of the very serious issues involved. No one would be in favour of a truncated inquiry that did not deliver comprehensive answers to very troubling questions.
I particularly welcome the Government's decision to ask Mr. Justice Fennelly to report on the Garda's handling of the Sophie Toscan du Plantier murder investigation. Given what the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality has said about the content of the recorded telephone conversations in Bandon Garda station during the investigation, the various other accusations levelled and the rumours abounding in public and in private, the results of Mr. Justice Fennelly's investigation will make for very difficult reading. The saga has dragged on far too long and it is positive, no matter what the outcome, that the Government is willing to get to the bottom of it.
I know that the Taoiseach is willing to listen and while I have the opportunity it would be remiss of me not to, in a constructive way, suggest that, in addition to the very welcome announcement of a new Garda authority, a few other matters relating to An Garda Síochána could be considered. Has the Taoiseach considered the method by which gardaí above the rank of inspector are appointed? I fully accept that, historically, it was necessary for senior members of the national police force to be committed to the Free State and, therefore, a certain degree of political oversight in promotions was required. I understand, however, that two years ago the Government made a decision to civilianise the human resources element of An Garda Síochána. This decision should be activated immediately as it will go a long way to bringing transparency to the appointment and promotion process within the organisation. In the light of recent events, it would be a welcome move in terms of ensuring transparency.
Has the Taoiseach considered whether the new authority could be mandated to investigate whether the Garda requires what the Defence Forces term an "officer corps"? While I recognise the value of coming up through the ranks, this pathway can result in an element of institutional inertia and a lack of new thinking. It is also the case that the current system of promotion through the ranks can be seen to be, even if it is not so, a form of favouritism or clientèlism.
I fully support the terms of reference outlined and the Taoiseach's firm resolve on the issue. While nobody has emerged particularly well from recent events, bar the two Garda whistleblowers, perhaps, in the end, some good might come of it.
I, too, welcome the Taoiseach and thank him for his overview of the work of the commission. We can have immediate confidence in the appointment of Mr. Justice Fennelly, a very senior member of the Supreme Court and a man totally above reproach. The terms of reference are comprehensive and I hope the deadlines can be met. They will be reviewed in due course. This is necessary for An Garda Síochána. We have seen the events in County Donegal. Human nature being what it is, there are, unfortunately, some bad apples everywhere. An Garda Síochána is, however, a great force.
This commission and its work in the interests of the citizenry constitute a total commitment to the openness and transparency Senator Katherine Zappone mentioned. The Cooke and Guerin reports will be published shortly. I also welcome the open public competition to which the Taoiseach has committed for the appointment of the new Garda Commissioner.
What my good friend Senator Darragh O’Brien has said as ever totally lacks objectivity and impartiality. What happened following the meeting to which the Taoiseach referred was a communication courtesy that involved several people and the Senator is wrong to try to read more into it.
The Senator cannot be serious.
Senator John Crown fell slightly into the same trap. He referred to Mr. Justice Smithwick. I can assure him he had all the time he needed and produced a fine report. He never quibbled about the extensions he had sought and that were granted. We can have every confidence in this work and look forward to its bearing fruit.
I thank the Taoiseach for coming to the House. When he took office, he promised a democratic revolution. He also promised transparency. He was going to learn from the mistakes of the past, reinvent the country and make a covenant with the people to tell them the truth. Did the Secretary General telephone the Commissioner on the Tuesday morning and ask him to reflect on his position? I think Senator Paul Coghlan believes no one was asked to reflect on anything.
I said it was a communication courtesy, which it was.
If the Senator had the same level of communication, he would not be Government Whip for much longer.
In respect of the democratic revolution, it seems the whistleblowers are punished, not protected by the Minister for Justice and Equality. We have spin but not substance.
The Senator knows all about spin.
The Senator should allow Senator Mark Daly to speak.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for the protection against the Government Whip. Kerrymen can be quite tough on each other.
In the first four months of this year four Bills have been passed. At that rate of going, we will pass 12 Bills in the entire year. Does that sound like a democratic revolution? Perhaps the next person on whom the Taoiseach should focus is the Chief Whip in the other House. Four Bills in four months is not acceptable.
We welcome the establishment of the commission of investigation.
They saw what the Senator did with his motion. He could not have it backed.
We question the terms of reference in getting to the truth of the issue of a Garda Commissioner being asked to consider his position. Who applied the pressure and when?
That is the Senator’s interpretation.
The Senator should allow Senator Mark Daly to make his contribution, without interruption.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for his assistance in making sure Senator Paul Coghlan-----
The Senator likes to wander, as the Cathaoirleach well knows.
I thank the Cathaoirleach and the Senator for his valuable contribution. I would like him as Whip to reflect on the democratic revolution - four Bills in four months is simply not good enough.
I have never been found lacking in my commitment to democracy.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Taoiseach. This has been a very disturbing period in the administration of justice. Public confidence has been fundamentally undermined by the Government’s incompetence in overseeing all of these episodes. With regard to the administration of justice, the allegations in respect of the Office of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, being bugged were very serious. Unfortunately, however, on the day after the matter was reported in The Sunday Times the Taoiseach misquoted the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and said GSOC had a requirement to report to the Minister. Straightaway the tone was set and in the language used, the victims were turned into the villains.
The Taoiseach robustly refused media calls for an independent inquiry and the matter dragged on for another week. Finally, he opted not for an inquiry but for a review by Mr. Justice John Cooke who will report soon. In particular, he did not opt for a commission of investigation into something fundamental to our democracy. When it came to the dossier handed to him by the leader of Fianna Fáil which contained the very serious legacy allegations from the Garda whistleblower, Sergeant Maurice McCabe, the Taoiseach again opted for a review, not an inquiry, this time by Mr. Sean Guerin, Senior Counsel. This review is also ongoing.
When it came to the matter of the tape recordings, however, the Taoiseach went immediately for a commission of investigation. There are suspicions that this is an attempt at distraction from the core issue, another emerging scandal, one of the biggest in the history of the State, the Ian Bailey affair. Very soon investigating officers from the French authorities will come to the State to investigate witnesses. This is outrageous interference in the criminal justice system that the Taoiseach is tolerating, even though he knows that the basis of the case and for external investigating officers in coming to our jurisdiction is flimsy at best. This is based on Garda files that are fundamentally flawed, as proved by the report from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2001, of which the State has been aware for all these years. That was the basis on which the Supreme Court refused to extradite Ian Bailey. We have all that information, yet the Government is allowing the French authorities to come here and carry on. It is a fiasco.
This involves allegations of Garda behaviour very similar to those that emerged during the Morris tribunal, but it is worse because the State apparatus has stood over this for far too long. The various Ministers responsible for the justice portfolio, Attorneys General and the Department of Justice and Equality have stood over it throughout the years. While the incorporation of the Ian Bailey tape recordings from Bandon Garda station into the commission’s terms of reference is welcome, we need a dedicated commission of investigation into the affair.
There are serious questions for the Minister for Justice and Equality to answer in respect of this affair. He has known this since early 2012, following the Supreme Court decision and his Department handing over the 44-page critique from the Director of Public Prosecutions of the initial Garda investigation. The critique apparently rips the entire investigation to shreds. The Minister has known about the issue for a number of years but stood back and let it continue. His Department and the Government are defending a civil case taken by Mr. Ian Bailey and his partner, Ms Jules Thomas.
The 44-page critique by the Director of Public Prosecutions given to Mr. Bailey's legal team and the Supreme Court, and which formed the basis of the court's decision to refuse to extradite Mr. Bailey, only came into the hands of his legal team because a previous Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Eamonn Barnes, realised there was a basis for a serious miscarriage of justice. He knew from 2001 about this ridiculous and appallingly flawed investigation, with all the emerging issues around witnesses being coaxed and cajoled into giving evidence. That was known about at the highest levels of administration of justice in the State, and it continues today.
The Taoiseach must intervene in this case by asking the Minister what he did through 2012. On three occasions in 2012, Mr. Bailey's legal team wrote to the Minister about the failure of the Garda to co-operate with the investigation by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. The Minister refused to intervene and ensure the documentation required by GSOC was given to the ombudsman, yet he intervened in the following year when GSOC made public its absolute bewilderment and frustration about the failure of the Garda to co-operate in the Kieran Boylan affair. He could have intervened in the Bailey case when the three letters were sent to him but he refused to do so. He also refused to intervene in sorting out the issue of Garda co-operation with GSOC and the implications of the Supreme Court case. He indicated he would consult the Attorney General but nothing happened. That is the real scandal. Tá tuilleadh le rá agam ach tá mo chuid ama caite. Tá súil agam go dtabharfaidh an Taoiseach aghaidh ar na ceisteanna atá ardaithe agam.
I welcome the Taoiseach to the Seanad and compliment him on the commission of inquiry and the proposed independent police authority and open competition for the new Garda Commissioner. Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly has been appointed to the process. Of the 17 letters of the alphabet used, 15 referred to the phone issues. The Law Society has indicated that a commission of investigation must undertake a broad analysis to ascertain why the telephone recordings were made and on what basis State authorities believed such recordings were lawful or warranted. How far into the system were the recordings known?
There are other aspects that must be considered, including the circumstances of the Garda Commissioner's departure and treatment of whistleblowers. The Garda Commissioner indicated he wanted to withdraw his remark about the whistleblowers but was advised from within the Department not to do so. That is a strange episode that should be examined. There is also the matter of the missing letter. A key point in the Smithwick tribunal was how two people lost their lives in Dundalk with haphazard organisation by the Garda. The fact that a letter addressed to the Minister took 15 days to reach him is important, and we must update procedures to ensure that does not happen again. We should also consider the treatment of Deputies Mick Wallace and Clare Daly in the penalty points issue, and many aspersions were cast on the Garda force as a result. There should be a report on the matter.
There is the opportunity for a new beginning, with new recruits coming into Templemore for the first time in several years. We have the opportunity to now draw on the wisdom of Chris Patton in Northern Ireland with an independent police authority, and I hope this will be a genuine new beginning. The aspects we have discussed should be included in Mr. Justice Fennelly's inquiries. I thank the Taoiseach for what he has done, as these issues have caused serious concern around the country. We have the chance to set things right so that people can be reassured when the matters come into the open; an independent police authority will be particularly helpful, and there should be a healthier relationship between GSOC and the Garda. GSOC seems to have been dismissed but it is an agent of the wider public and its treatment by the Garda was wrong. It has a superb tradition and a place in the hearts and minds of Irish people, but things have been going wrong in the Garda; therefore, the Taoiseach will have the support of many in the House when he tries to put them right.
I thank all Senators for their comments. I came as Taoiseach to deal with this issue - the terms of reference for the commission of investigation - because it is important. Ms Sophie Toscan du Plantier was murdered and the crime was never solved, her killer may well be at large. In the course of analysis in the process of discovery, it transpired there were recorded conversations at Bandon station. These have been transcribed and a number of them are stark and critical with respect to the case being pursued. Ms du Plantier's family has never had closure.
From this will arise a position where we will have an independent statutory Garda authority which will bring transparency, accountability and pride to the men and women who wear the uniform of An Garda Síochána in such a way that the citizens of our country can have faith and belief in the integrity and quality of what the Garda does. The decision referred to by Senator Naughton to civilianise the human resource management element of An Garda Síochána is important, although no more than the decision to have an open competition to fill the post of Garda Commissioner. I note the comments and actions of the interim Garda Commissioner in terms of her view of the force and the decision to send a private questionnaire to each of the 13,000 members. I remind Senator Darragh O'Brien that his party wanted to reduce Garda membership to 11,000. I also note the interim Garda Commissioner's comments about those with a dissenting or different voice in the force, and from all this will come a different An Garda Síochána in which there is pride and visible integrity.
Senator John Crown asked about the difference between Government and Opposition; I can tell him one difference. For a considerable period, Deputy Alan Shatter raised questions in the Dáil arising from the Donegal situation. It was ten years before the Morris tribunal was set up. One difference I can stand over is that two weeks from being personally informed by the Attorney General of what I considered a grave and serious situation, a commission of investigation was set up by the Government, with very comprehensive terms of reference, under the chairmanship of a sole member who is a member of the Supreme Court and a person of exceptional competence and experience. He is not and should not be subject to political overtures, political direction or political instruction. In consultation with the Attorney General and the sole member, the Cabinet has defined the parameters of the terms of the commission of investigation. As Senators Ivana Bacik and Katherine Zappone pointed out, on the recommendation of the Oireachtas committee dealing with justice, the four issues mentioned are included fully in the terms of reference for the commission of investigation.
It is difficult to know the truth in all these matters. When the evidence was presented to me in the Dáil and when one goes through the issues, many of these issues were dealt with by the Garda Commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions or GSOC, but I speak for none of those three. What does one do? Does one set up another public inquiry about each of these matters or does one get a criminal lawyer of exceptional experience, like Mr. Guerin, to go through the evidence and examine the issues dealt with by those independent authorities to see if another case is to be answered? I stated in the Dáil that if the findings of that analysis are that further work is warranted, it shall be done.
I say to Senator Darragh O'Brien that I have three dozen cases on my desk now of allegations from both members of the community and members of the Garda about actions and allegations that are very serious. I have no idea whether they are true or not. Some of them go back many years. I assure Senator John Crown that issues of concern are not confined to the justice profession. We have had to deal in the other House and in this House with issues relating to his profession that came to light 30 years ago and were never followed up. In fairness to the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter - nobody is perfect - he was the first one to point out and deal with the fact that GSOC did not have the facilities to do its job completely independently. He is the one who has now overseen the analysis of the situation by Mr. Justice Cooke. The results of the investigation by Mr. Guerin, SC, are awaited. The Oireachtas committee is conducting public consultation and examining the terms of reference and the views presented. In view of the exceptional capabilities of the sole member, the commission of investigation will endeavour to deal with the issue in the best way possible. These issues that go back so many years must be dealt with and it is entirely a matter for Mr. Justice Fennelly as to what he wishes to do with his investigation. I do not accept Senator Darragh O’Brien’s point, which he might make with the best intentions in the world, that it is for me or anybody else to attempt to give directions to somebody in charge of the commission of investigation.
I do not suggest that.
A point was made, possibly by Senator Mark Daly, that the Smithwick tribunal should be ended quickly.
It was Senator John Crown.
I assure Senator John Crown that the Government felt that it was important that because the tribunal had gone on for a considerable period that there should be an interim report on a regular basis from the sole member. That was not to interfere in any way with his right or responsibility to run the tribunal as he saw fit. I am pleased the final report was eventually produced. Some conclusions are being contested by members and former members of the Garda.
There are 41 Bills to be produced in this session of the Dáil. Two of those will become law before the summer. One deals with whistleblowers and the other deals with freedom of information. I say to Senator Mark Daly that, unfortunately, these were matters that had been around for a very long time. The legislative agenda of the Dáil and the Seanad is crowded enough. I accept and I would have liked to see a more even flow of legislation coming through in the first weeks but between the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the complex issues that arise in many pieces of legislation, the Senator's assumption that one might be able to produce the legislation by X date does not always stand up. We have changed the rules in that when heads of Bills are approved by Cabinet they then go to the committees for public consultation. There is engagement with civic society and the committees bring in the letter writers to the newspapers, groups, associations and organisations to give their view and to get the best analysis we can from members of the public on what is their country and the laws that should apply to them. To get that right takes a more comprehensive and thorough approach but it probably takes a little longer. The old way of dealing with legislation is no more. That in itself is an element of a democratic resolution of which I am very proud as so many new voices, issues and dissenting voices can be heard in the process of the analysis of legislation. Such things are important. The Bills on whistleblowers and freedom of information will come through the Seanad.
People can be criticised for failures to measure up to perfect management. I am not by any means perfect but I appreciate that what we want out of this is a Garda force that is respected, has integrity and is seen to be competent, professional and transparent in the way it goes about its work. The men and women who serve in that force need to understand and have a sense of pride in their work as the only barrier between criminal activities and law-abiding citizens. It is the responsibility of Government to see that they are given the facilities to do the job we charge them to do through many different sectors of society.
Senator Katherine Zappone mentioned transparency and urgency. I hope that in the analysis of the way he goes about his work, Mr. Justice Fennelly will move through the investigation in whatever way he thinks appropriate with as much speed as possible. Between the commission of investigation and the decision to have a new process for the selection and appointment of a competent person to be the Garda Commissioner - the Government decision was in fact was a joint proposition by both parties in government in 2006 - we will have a statutory independent authority for the future. Out of all of the culture shocks and very difficult, intractable and complex situations we will get a new regime in terms of the structure, running, presentation, personnel and movement through An Garda Síochána. We need answers to those questions from our justice system. If I were to read out what arrived on my desk in the past fortnight one would say it is very difficult to know whether the allegations made are true, false or will stand up. We must define who is responsible for determining that. I could come to the Seanad and say we need another half dozen inquiries but I must find the trail that led to these allegations to see whether they were investigated and if they stand up or not. It is all part of having clarity about the rights of citizens and the rights of people who serve in agencies, organisations and authorities as well to be able to do their job responsibly.
I commend the Senators for their contributions. The commission of investigation and its terms of reference are very forthright and comprehensive and they will allow Mr. Justice Fennelly to do the kind of job I know he can do in the interests of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Ar 10.30 maidin amárach.