Vol. 635 No. 2
5 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will implement the recommendations of the Criminal Law Review Group on not allowing suspects in respect of serious crimes to escape justice on technical evidentiary grounds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13141/07]
The exclusionary rule is the rule that defines the circumstances under which a court will exclude evidence on the grounds that it has been obtained in violation of the accused's rights. This issue was examined in some detail by the Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group chaired by Dr. Gerard Hogan.
Customarily, the common law did not have an exclusionary rule and the courts allowed evidence to be admitted which had been obtained as a result of, for example, an illegal search, provided the evidence was otherwise admissible and relevant. Following the 1960s Supreme Court decision in the O'Brien case, the exclusionary test to be applied can be summarised as follows: evidence obtained as a result of a conscious and deliberate violation of the accused's constitutional rights is not admissible in evidence, unless there are extraordinary excusing circumstances. This remains the essential test today. If unlawfully obtained evidence does not fall to be excluded under this test, the court will then have a discretion whether to allow the evidence to be admitted.
The question of extraordinary excusing circumstances has not been an issue that has arisen frequently before the courts. Likewise, whether the right that had been infringed was a constitutional right or a common law right has not been a matter of great debate. The question as to what is meant by "conscious and deliberate" has, however, been hotly debated. The Supreme Court decided the issue in the case of Kenny in a manner that involves a significant extension of the exclusionary rule.
It is, however, interesting to note that the decision of the Supreme Court in Kenny was not a unanimous one. There were two strongly dissenting views to the three majority judgments.
One of the central problems of a strict exclusionary rule is that it does not allow the trial judge to weigh the public interest in ensuring that constitutional rights, including public rights, are protected by agents of the State as against the public interest in ensuring that crime is detected and punished and that the constitutional rights of victims are vindicated by the courts. Neither does a strict exclusionary rule allow the courts to have regard to whether a defect in a warrant is caused by factors outside the control of the Garda Síochána.
It is against this rule that the Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group developed its recommendations. The group considered three alternative approaches: a constitutional amendment, statutory regulation and the statutory provision of a list of factors which a court may take into account in deciding whether to exclude evidence.
The group measured these three options in detail. The recommendation by the majority of the group can be summarised as a desire to see a situation where the court would have a discretion to admit unconstitutionally obtained evidence or not, having regard to the totality of the circumstances and in particular the rights of the victim. It should be noted that the chairman of the group, Dr. Gerard Hogan, senior counsel, did not concur with the majority recommendation. His dissenting view is appended to the Report of the Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group, which was published by me on 23 March.
During the course of the Committee Stage debate on the Criminal Justice Bill 2007 last week, I debated the exclusionary rule with Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and Ardagh and others before this House.
I know the rest of my answer will appear on the record. This is a very interesting topic but it is not one that is easily remedied on the hoof, so to speak.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
As I stated last Thursday my belief is one that would support the minority judgments in the Kenny case. The minority, or discretionary, view in the Kenny case was that a balance had to be struck between rights rather than a rigid view being taken. I would prefer if that view were reflected in the law. The question is how we can achieve this. We should think carefully in undertaking a possible constitutional amendment on such a complex issue. In the first instance, the approach should be to see whether a change in jurisprudence emerges following use of the appeal provisions in Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. However, as was noted in last week's debate, that appeal procedure depends on a suitable case emerging that would lead to reconsideration of the law in this area. If not, the other options would then have to be examined and considered, including the question of legislation.
As a continuation of an amendment I tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill I wish to raise the following issues. Does the Minister accept that the public interest is not served and the mood of the public is aggravated by people who are charged with serious offences getting off on technical grounds? Does he accept that there is an onus on us to find a way to ensure justice is done? A person with a fair defence is entitled to an acquittal but without one, he or she should be convicted. It is up to us to put in place measures that ensure that a fair result emerges.
The majority recommendation of the Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group, chaired by Dr. Gerard Hogan, was to introduce a change and this has given us a lead. I note the dissenting view of Dr. Hogan and respect it as it relates to a concern about constitutional difficulties that may arise. Does the Minister agree that we must find a way to change this rule within the constitution? If necessary we can follow the recommendations of the debate last week that any such Bill be a single issue Bill and perhaps be referred by the President for constitutional proofing under Article 26.
Does the Minister accept that we should examine this matter in a broader way than the narrow confines the report of the Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group allow? We should examine the situation in Australia and I am indebted to the Oireachtas research service for finding these details. In Australia a discretionary approach is taken, in the United States a good faith exception exists and in Canada there is a three pronged approach involving a trial fairness test and other elements. The broader international context shows that this issue does not affect us only, solutions have been found in other countries and we can learn from them. I want to see a political commitment to a solution from all those with an interest in this issue and I want to see that solution put into effect as soon as possible in the next Dáil, whichever parties are in Government.
I agree with the Deputy and the minority view in the Kenny case. I am bound, as is every citizen, by the majority view of the Supreme Court but, had Deputy Jim O'Keeffe or I held the swing vote things might have gone the other way. However, we were not there and other people decided the case the way they did.
The decision certainly would have been different.
Is the Minister applying for a job?
That is another solution; we can map out the Minister's future.
I do not mean to put that thought in anyone's head. The Deputies should take a look at the rule on unforeseen consequences.
I once defended a person and the garda applied for a warrant for St. Audoen's House, an apartment complex, but the District court clerk, misreading the garda's handwriting wrote it out for St. Andrew's House and the case collapsed on that point. The garda knew what apartment they were going to, the clerk did not know the difference between the two and the case was thrown out on the basis that the garda did not have a valid warrant to search the apartment in St. Audoen's House, though they were acting in good faith.
Most people feel this is not a common sense approach. The American approach is better. Whether a person acts in good faith is of critical importance. Getting from where we are now to that point poses a challenge to us and I feel the best solution would be a single section Bill to begin in the next Dáil. This would require a good deal of care to ensure there are no unforeseen consequences but it would crystalise the issue. If the Bill was narrow, carefully planned and well balanced we could bring this matter back before the courts again. The exclusionary rule does not arise every day in the courts but it has a chilling effect. When mistakes are discovered the Director of Public Prosecutions is faced with the dilemma of dropping an otherwise perfectly good prosecution. In the case of Judge Brian Curtin the DPP was subject to judicial criticism for ploughing on in the face of a defect. This issue could be addressed on a cross-party basis in the next Dáil if there is cross-party consensus.
6 Mr. Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the decision of the Supreme Court to increase to €4.7 million compensation paid to a person (details supplied) arising from what the court described as the outrageous conduct by gardaí to the person; if the Garda will issue a formal apology to the person; his further views on the observation by the court that no explanation had been provided as to the way a person in authority later very cynically arranged for an offer to be made to the person that, on condition of dropping their appeal, they would secure early release; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13253/07]
There is no doubt that the circumstances giving rise to the judgment in question constitute further evidence of an extremely disturbing picture of misbehaviour by some gardaí in County Donegal in the 1990s. Anyone who strongly supports the Garda Síochána, as I and the vast majority of Deputies and citizens do, is entitled to express and feel a great sense of shock, disappointment and dismay at what happened to the person to whom Deputy Howlin refers. While the two members who were central to this case, one a superintendent and the other a detective garda, have either been dismissed or resigned, the case shows more clearly than perhaps any other the need for the radical reform which was facilitated and underpinned by the historic enactment of the Garda Síochána Act 2005.
The Supreme Court was unequivocal in its condemnation of the disreputable conduct of the two members of the Garda who were central to this case. I am heartened, however, that the court acknowledged that the manifestly egregious behaviour of the two gardaí in question should not be let cast aside our respect for the dedication shown by the vast majority of members through the years. It is important that I should make this point because I am aware that many exemplary members of the Garda Síochána feel betrayed by what the Supreme Court characterised as the "gravest dereliction of duty and abuse of power that one could ever fearfully contemplate would be engaged in by servants of the State and officers of law and order." In addition to the formal apology already offered by the State in the context of proceedings, the Garda Commissioner has written to the individual in question offering an apology on his behalf and that of the force. I understand this apology has been wholeheartedly accepted.
The Deputy asks my view about an offer which was made by "someone in authority" to the person in question to the effect that if he dropped his appeal the State would not proceed with the six outstanding charges pending against him and he would be transferred to an open prison and released early. My understanding is that while the existence of this offer only came to light during the civil proceedings, the name or status of the person in authority who made the offer was not disclosed. The implementation of any such offer, which in my view would have been gravely wrong, would require the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions as regards the prosecutorial aspects and agreement of the Minister as regards the aspects relating to imprisonment.
My personal attention was not drawn to this matter until the Supreme Court issued its judgment on 21 March 2007. The Supreme Court states the offer was made in October 1995 when neither I nor my immediate predecessor was in office. While I am not in a position to comment on the state of knowledge of the Minister of the day, I would be very surprised if the then Minister was aware of or approved the making of such an offer. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has no responsibility or authority in respect of the prosecution of criminal offences and was not party to the original prosecution or the appeal in question. I have been informed by my officials that from the checks made within the time available, there is no evidence in the Department that either the Minister of the day or officials were parties to, consulted about or even aware of the making of an offer of this type.
I have asked the Garda Commissioner to conduct inquiries into this matter to ascertain if there was any Garda involvement. Decisions relating to the prosecution of criminal charges are a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and I am not in a position to make any comment on that aspect. I will, however, ask the DPP to ascertain whether any such offer was made by or made known to any person acting on behalf of the DPP. I will also ask the Irish Prison Service and the probation service to make inquires into the making of such an offer, which I regard as a very serious matter.
I welcome the Minister's full response. It is almost necessary to preface all questions of this type by stating, as the Minister did, that the great majority of gardaí are fine, upstanding, hard working, diligent, law-abiding people who do the State a great service. While I do not believe it is necessary to make this statement every time we comment on these matters, I do so because it reflects the general view.
We have given extraordinary powers to the Garda Síochána, and the House will later discuss a Bill which will give it further powers. We must, therefore, have confidence that these powers will never be abused in the manner indicated by this awful case.
Since I tabled the question I listened to Mr. Shortt speak on radio when he said he was very moved to receive a personal letter from the Garda Commissioner. This was a welcome step. Since the apology from the State, to which the Minister referred, was, to use Mr. Shortt's word "dragged" from the State's legal team during the court proceedings, will the Minister take this opportunity to make a full apology to the Shortt family on behalf of the State for the egregious wrong done to them and the terrible suffering they endured? Such a gesture would help the process of healing, understanding and moving on.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, argued that a countervailing check is required to the practice of giving particular weight to the evidence of members of the Garda Síochána. Robust mechanisms must be in place for this purpose and the requirement set down by the Chief Justice, that the Oireachtas take all necessary steps to ensure, in as far as is practicable, that such deliberate abuse of power is not repeated and is prevented, must be met by the House and the Minister.
On the offer of early release from prison made to Mr. Shortt, I welcome the inquiries the Minister is undertaking of each of the arms of the State which may be in a position to shed light on the matter. I am confident the Minister of the day did not have knowledge of the offer and I accept the Minister's word that officials in his Department were not aware of it. We need to know the source of this offer, which placed pressure on a person who had been cruelly damaged by the State and its agents.
It is of some note that the judgment of the Chief Justice states: "Who was involved in making this offer of a "deal" to the plaintiff and how the fulfilment of a promise to drop outstanding charges and ensure early release could have been achieved was never explored or explained in the evidence." I am totally in the dark, as was the Chief Justice when he wrote the judgment, as to precisely what were the implications of that evidence.
In case my earlier remarks carried a different implication, I do not suggest that the then Director of Public Prosecutions was party to such an offer and I would be very surprised if that were the case. This begs the question as to who was behind the making of such an offer.
On Deputy Howlin's first question, I completely endorse and repeat, in the same terms, what the Garda Commissioner said in his letter to Mr. Shortt. Everybody who has heard about these matters shares a sense of revulsion, shock and contrition that servants or agents of the State would behave in such a manner towards a citizen.
In fairness to the lawyers acting for the State in the case, whereas they may not have offered an apology readily, lawyers are normally sent in to defend cases rather that act as Ministers of the State in making apologies. I do not want my comments to reflect in any way on their competence or professionalism. I am sure they were doing as they were asked in a competent and professional manner.
I was in the Deputy's constituency the other day attending the conference of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors——
I attended last night.
——and there was a general feeling of revulsion among those present, who were almost sick to the stomach about the effect on the Garda Síochána of behaviour of this kind. It defies belief that people would do——
The effect on the Shortt family is more important.
Exactly. The Garda Síochána Act put in place a radically different approach to accountability from that found by Mr. Justice Morris when he conducted his inquiries into events in County Donegal. Apart from individual accountability and remedies and new disciplinary procedures, the Act also provides for the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Ample inquiries have been made in the case under discussion.
The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission will be a very significant countervailing force. However, if we invest members of the Garda Síochána with these very significant powers, which they must have in a sophisticated society, there is a correlative obligation of responsibility, loyalty, truthfulness and ethical behaviour that must be upheld to the highest standards. The vast majority of gardaí understand and acknowledge this and feel betrayed when one or two of their number departs, as in this case, in such a spectacularly criminal way.
At this late stage, can we explore the identity of the person who made — as was stated by the Supreme Court — a cynically arranged offer to Mr. Shortt on condition that he drop the appeal against his conviction in order to obtain early release? Will the Minister appoint an external person to make the inquiries to which he referred, rather than simply writing a letter, so he can come back speedily to Mr. Shortt and perhaps to the House to report on how those inquiries have advanced?
I do not want to add to the suffering of the individual who was so wronged by the State by dragging him into this matter. Clearly, the individual in question must know how the offer was communicated and who communicated it, if not who was behind the making of the offer. It may have come through lawyers but, as I do not know the facts, it is a matter I will have to examine.
Before I appoint people to make these inquiries, I should make preliminary inquiries to ascertain whether there is a simple explanation for this and whether a simple identification of who was involved is possible. Rather than establishing a formal inquiry, I would prefer to make informal inquiries to see whether I can get to the bottom of this allegation, which I regard as grave.
7 Mr. Cuffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if consideration has been given to expanding the Criminal Assets Bureau to include a local bureau in each of the 25 divisions of the Garda Síochána; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12992/07]
I refer the Deputy to my reply of 22 February 2007 to Priority Question No. 3 in which I dealt with this subject. I set out the following summary points in responding again today to the issue of a more localised Criminal Assets Bureau structure. I have no difficulty in principle with a proposal for more localised CAB bureaux but what must determine our attitude is an assessment of how in practice CAB can be best structured. I will first deal with any possible misconception that CAB's work is wholly centralised, without any connection or interaction with what is happening at local level.
I am advised by the Garda authorities that while the bureau requires a high degree of specialist staff for its functioning, CAB's operational success is very often intrinsically linked to information made available to it from local levels. This is facilitated in particular by the work carried out by the trained criminal asset profilers who have been appointed in every Garda division in the country. The background to this initiative is that since 2004, a programme has been in place whereby one member of the Garda Síochána from each Garda division is trained as a profiler in respect of criminal assets. The initiative was developed by the CAB in conjunction with the office of the Director for Public Prosecutions. A divisional asset profiler is now in place in each of the 25 Garda divisions and a full complement of divisional profilers is being maintained. Essentially, a key function of these profilers is to ascertain and build up information at local level and point out individuals at whom the bureau's work can be targeted. Such information is then investigated and followed up further by CAB.
In the course of investigations, gardaí, generally speaking, should be encouraged to be on the lookout for assets that appear to be the proceeds of crime. For example, when they apprehend a bank robber and search the house, they should be on the look out for assets that look like the proceeds of crime or documents that suggest involvement in crime.
There is an appetite for this task. It would be wrong for Deputy Cuffe to take the view that CAB is simply operating in a goldfish bowl in Dublin, and does not have local eyes and ears, which it does — it has a formalised system of local eyes and ears. It also has the backing of the entire force and interacts with other agencies within the force. It does not operate in isolation.
Should we not go further than this? In the past five years Ireland — the cities of Dublin and Limerick in particular — has seen a phenomenal rise in organised gang-related crime. Fuelled by the massive amounts of money to be made from the trafficking and sale of drugs, gangland crimes have resulted in a dramatic increase in gun-related murders. We need to send a clear message to the members of criminal gangs that crime does not pay. Unfortunately, at present crime pays handsomely here. A few weeks ago, the Minister will have heard in this House, stories of criminals claiming social welfare payments while driving around in SUVs. These are the ones who are the driving force behind the gang-related violence we are currently experiencing.
There is no doubt CAB has done good work in recent years but, by its nature, it is a centralised and limited operation, notwithstanding the trained criminal assets profilers. It is time to consider the establishment of sub-offices throughout the country. In the United Kingdom the Serious Organised Crime Agency works closely with the police force with regard to intelligence and operations at national level as well as the work of police forces at local level. This link at local level is not strong enough in the Irish situation.
Does the Minister agree that the setting up of local bureaux in some or all of the Garda divisions would send a strong message to the criminal community that CAB is not only interested in high-profile drug barons in Dublin but that it and the Garda Síochána is fighting organised crime in every corner of the country?
I would not like Deputy Cuffe to create the impression that CAB's activities are confined to the city of Dublin, which is not the case. It is active and pursues the proceeds of crime throughout the country. For example, it has been very active on a number of occasions in Deputy Howlin's constituency and has recovered very large sums of money. It is not the case that CAB members are somehow sitting in Harcourt Square, thinking only of high profile Dublin people.
The Deputy makes the point that the more CAB can do throughout the country, and the more it can operate on the basis of local information, the better. I have conveyed these views to the Garda Commissioner and the head of CAB, who are responsible for the day to day operation of the Garda Síochána and CAB respectively. Contrary to what has been said in Deputy Howlin's constituency in the past couple of days, I am not micro-managing the Garda and am not in a position to direct it in one direction or another. The Garda Commissioner decides on the deployment of resources. Nonetheless, I have given him every encouragement to expand CAB and my Department has made available civilian accountant and forensic accounting experts to help the bureau with its work. Nobody should think there is any holding back by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the funding or resourcing of CAB.
This one practical measure could have more impact on organised crime here than all the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill currently being railroaded through the House. Infringements of the right to silence and extending the maximum periods of detention will not make this kind of crime less lucrative. However, if we can get hold of criminals' SUVs, cash and other property, we can certainly make it less attractive.
It is not a choice between one and the other. I welcome the support for the Criminal Justice Bill of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors and most of the political parties, with the exception of the Deputy's party and Sinn Féin. My views are not unusual on these matters, although I might sometimes find myself lonely on the matter in some newspaper columns. The inspector of police has also stated that, in her view, it is appropriate for gardaí to have measures of this general type at their disposal.
She also endorses some interesting increases in resources.
She is there because I pushed through the Act to create that position. Let us remember that.
The Minister will recall it was announced by his predecessor.
8 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the establishment of an independent Garda authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13142/07]
I am not in favour of establishing a separate Garda authority as I believe we have a fully independent and democratically accountable Garda authority already, in the form of the Oireachtas.
The Minister was not in favour of a Garda ombudsman either.
The perceived advantage of a separate authority is that it interposes an additional layer of independent accountability between the political process and the management of the Garda Síochána. The idea of such an authority makes perfectly good sense in the context of the UK regional police structure where there is no corresponding regional democratic unit, and in Northern Ireland, where there were and still continue to be unique requirements associated with the need for confidence building in a cross-community environment.
One important point about the Northern Ireland policing board which is often overlooked by persons who suggest a similar authority for the Garda Síochána is that the Patten Commission recommended a majority of members of the board be elected politicians in Northern Ireland. It is not an independent policing authority in any conventional sense, but is, in its majority, a representative, political group with a minority of non-political people on it. Therefore, when people here suggest we get rid of ministerial accountability and do what was done in Northern Ireland, nobody is suggesting that Deputies should constitute a majority on an independent policing authority. I do not think it would be appropriate they should.
Second, we do not have an example anywhere in the world of a national police service being subject to an independent authority. This just does not happen in the common law world. For example, the Met in London is directly responsible to the Home Secretary and to Parliament and the same applies to the RCMP.
The RCMP is an independent police force.
The Garda Síochána is our intelligence service. It would be unspeakable and an error of monumental proportions to put that away from Government. I appeal to the two parties opposite to consider my final point very carefully, namely that our Constitution requires the executive powers of the State to be answerable in the House to the public representatives here.
The Minister should say that to the Minister for Health and Children.
That is a very good point. The executive powers of the State are required by our Constitution to be the subject of accountability in the House. That is the reason Ministers for Justice have statutory functions with regard to the Garda Síochána and are called to book here in the House when something goes wrong. The Deputies opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say I am not doing my job and at the same time say somebody else should make all the day-to-day decisions separately and independently from me. They cannot have it both ways.
We know the Minister likes to manage.
There is a profound constitutional question with regard to a proposal that the executive function of policing the State should be hived off from Government and given to something like the RTE authority or the Health Service Executive. That is a profoundly erroneous proposition. It is one put forward by the Labour Party about 20 years ago on two separate occasions in Government, but it was never progressed because it is a fundamentally suspect, unprecedented and unwise proposition.
I have the authority of the Government to establish——
The Minister said the same about the establishment of an ombudsman commission.
I said nothing of the sort about an ombudsman commission. I have the authority of the Government to establish an all-party policing and security committee. That is the appropriate way for the House to act. Members of that committee and the members of the Northern Ireland policing executive should form an all-Ireland policing forum. That is the way forward. I have established, in the legislation we will debate later this afternoon, an executive advisory board to bring in outside executive schools to assist the Garda Commissioner in the governance of the Garda Síochána. That is the right way forward and I emphatically reject the notion that it would be in any way an advance for democracy, civil liberties or anything else if the Minister in my position in a future Dáil was to stand here and say he or she could not respond to the question as to why the Garda did A, B, or C because the decision was made by a group of people independent of the Minister and over whom he or she had no control.
Does the Minister accept the current system does not work properly and we must, therefore, look for a new system? Furthermore, does he accept that the suggestion that ultimate authority lies with the Oireachtas may be fine in theory, but does not work in practice? Does he not recollect that only last week the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, which represents the Oireachtas, dealt with a series of Votes dealing with justice worth €2.5 billion? For a variety of reasons, mainly due to the time available to the committee, these Votes were dealt with over a period of only one and a half hours. This is not effective accountability. Does the Minister accept it is possible to have an independent Garda authority, which could do good work, and still have a Minister accountable to the House? Does he accept that this does not preclude the establishment of an all-party Oireachtas security committee, something for which I have been calling for years? These are not mutually exclusive.
We should start from the position that the current system does not work properly and look for a new and better way to work. I have listened to the Minister in the past and raised issues such as no anti-stab vests for gardaí, no proper training procedures or indoor ranges for training on firearms. His normal response is that the Garda Commissioner has all the resources he needs and that he will get whatever he asks for. We know this is complete baloney. We also know the Commissioner cannot stand up openly and say it is baloney and that it is not possible.
We should, therefore, create an interposing body, the composition of which can be open to discussion. I do not see it as one that should be overloaded with politicians, but they should not be automatically excluded nor be in the majority. I am not sure there should be any politicians on it.
The Minister might have the time next year to be involved on it.
It would have civilians who would, ultimately, be nominated by the Minister, subject to scrutiny by an Oireachtas committee. Does the Minister not accept that in those circumstances, setting his face against it as being "not a satisfactory system" is the wrong way to go about it? He should join with those parties currently in Opposition in seeking a new and fresh approach that will bring about a better result for everybody, the Garda, taxpayers and the general public.
No, I emphatically do not — that is the short answer. I am amazed to hear Deputy Jim O'Keeffe say, having espoused the notion of an independent Garda authority, that he does not yet know whether elected public representatives would be part of such an authority or in what numbers. This is astonishing. The Deputy has obviously not even consulted with those in the Labour Party who were the real ones to draw up this policy to discover what they have in mind.
I make this point strongly. The transformation taking place in the Garda Síochána is a major revolution in accountability.
The change has been dragged out of the Government.
No, it has not been dragged from the Government. I am implementing and doing it.
Ten years late.
For somebody who was in a party that 20 years ago was going to establish an independent authority, I do not think the Deputy can say that what I have done in five years is wrong.
The other point is that we are part of a Dáil that is entitled to accountability from the Garda Commissioner, who is now the Accounting Officer for the Garda Síochána. There is and will be provision in the about-to-be-formed policing committee for him to be directly amenable to questioning on the performance of the Garda Síochána by a dedicated committee of the House. That is a major step forward.
On accountability, it has been suggested by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe that it is illusory for me to say I am making resources available. I want it on the record that I have never refused a Garda Síochána application for expenditure for investment in resources.
I have made tranches of money available to the Garda, and asked if it can use it. The Commissioner is a fine man who would stand up to me and say I was letting him down financially if he thought that was the case. Neither the Department nor its Accounting Officer has ever stinted the Commissioner on money. The opposite is the case. We resource the Garda and emphasise in various ways that the resources it needs are available.
The Commissioner has loyally served the Garda and he does not think up ways to throw money around. He is careful as the Accounting Officer and I appreciate the care he shows in custody of the resources he has. It would be wrong for the House to draw the impression that I veto projects. I must tolerate the impression that anti-stab vests are not there because I say we cannot afford them.
Why are they not there?
That is not the case.
They are coming on stream only now.
Why do gardaí not have them?
We have had no answer on the issue of resources, on the delays in recruitment, the personal protective vests or the fact that the gardaí have no proper training facilities in firearms.
Rubbish radios.
Who is responsible? Does the Tánaiste accept responsibility? A yes or no will be sufficient on that question or will the Tánaiste run away from that?
Who is responsible?
I am running away from nothing.
Does the Tánaiste accept that he is responsible for failing to give the Garda proper resources?
If the Deputy sits down I will answer him. For the past four years I have been pushing the Garda radio project with vigour and determination. I have had to negotiate several public procurement hurdles and roundabouts——
The Minister has failed.
The record shows that I have been pushing that project forward as the Deputies can find out for themselves if they make a freedom of information inquiry.
It has failed.
It has not.
The Tánaiste has been captured by bureaucracy.
Some things take time.
The Tánaiste could not order a radio in four years.
It was not a question of ordering a radio.
The Tánaiste could not order a radio——
Ordering was not the issue.
What was the issue?
It was a procurement issue in respect of a contract for all the blue light services for Ireland which will be fully interoperable with the UK and Northern Ireland systems.
We accept that the Tánaiste has good intent but he has failed to deliver.
I have delivered; the sad fact is that the Deputies did nothing on this matter when they were in office.
The Tánaiste has seen nothing yet.
The Tánaiste talks about accountability but he is never accountable.
The Deputies did absolutely nothing.
9 Mr. Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when the Judicial Council Bill is expected to be published; the consultation he has had with members of the Judiciary regarding the contents of the Bill; his views, in view of a recent case, that there is no procedure for dealing with breaches of conduct by judges apart from the impeachment process provided for under the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13254/07]
Work on the Scheme of the Judicial Council Bill is at an advanced stage of development in my Department.
Again.
No, that is still the case and remains so. The Bill as proposed builds on the report of the committee on judicial conduct and ethics chaired by the former Chief Justice, Ronan Keane. That report recognised the need for a procedure for dealing with complaints of judicial misconduct which, while serious in itself, might not warrant the ultimate sanction of impeachment by the Oireachtas.
Consultations on the proposed Bill have, as is usual in the development of any legislative proposals, taken place with the Office of the Attorney General. I have also considered it prudent, given the nature of the subject, to seek the observations of the Chief Justice. Since January 2005 I have been in dialogue with the Chief Justice.
Has the Tánaiste been in dialogue with him for two and a half years?
Yes. I have had several meetings with the Chief Justice on the matter and have put several models before him and asked for his views on them. I await those views and will act on them as soon as I receive them.
The Tánaiste will not be around to receive them.
This borders on the farcical. The original plan to deal with judicial misconduct and standards by this Administration, and its immediate predecessor, was to have a constitutional amendment in mid-2001. The present Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was, I think, Attorney General at that time or shortly thereafter. The referendum was to coincide with the Nice treaty referendum. That proposal was dropped in a fit of pique when it was criticised. I wrote an article on the subject for The Irish Times and the then Minister said he could not proceed with a constitutional amendment unless he had all-party agreement on it. He promised instead to introduce legislation.
The Government's list of legislation published in 2003 promised that the Bill would be published and every declaration, list and response to a parliamentary question since then has promised that it is coming. I have the last two responses to parliamentary questions, in which phrases such as "it is coming", or is "imminent" or "will be approved by Government shortly" or "will be published shortly" are used. The Tánaiste tells us he is in dialogue with the Chief Justice for further comment. He is running out of time. This seamless succession of Administrations has been in office for ten years. This issue has been on the front burner, notionally, since 2001. It is now April 2007 and nothing has been delivered. Dialogues, discussions and analysis to beat the band have happened, with no result. People want results.
We had a brief discussion about some of the matters touching on this issue. Since the events that gave rise to the urgency of this matter in 2001 we have endured the Curtin affair which highlighted the need for legislation in this area. We do not have it. Will the Tánaiste agree that for all his dialogue and promises and discussions he has produced nothing in this area for his tenure in office?
I cannot agree with that. I have produced a working model of a scheme and have asked the Judiciary to examine it and return to me. I have waited a long time for the response. This has been debated several times in the House and I am sure that the views of the Deputies opposite are generally appreciated but I have not received the response I requested.
The Tánaiste gives out about the judges in public and kow-tows to them in private. That is why he does nothing.
Has the Tánaiste effectively given the Judiciary the right to veto the proposal such that if it does not respond that is the end of the matter, sine die?
No that is not the case but, contrary to the impression that might sometimes be created, I like to consult with the Judiciary and on a matter of such importance I would be loathe to act unilaterally. For that reason I have since January 2005 sought to elicit its views on the issues involved.
Does the Tánaiste think that two years and four months is an excessive time to wait?
The Deputy is entitled to make a judgment on that matter.
I am asking for the Tánaiste's view.
I am giving the House the facts. Since January 2005 I have been seeking the views of the Judiciary at large. I do not know the extent to which consultation has taken place within the Judiciary but I am not in a position to tell the House that I have had the response I have sought.
That is not an excuse for inaction.
Does the Tánaiste regard a waiting period of two years and four months as excessive? What does he propose to do about it?
The length of time in question speaks for itself.
Has the Tánaiste asked the Judiciary for a response since then?
Yes.
How many times and when?
Often.
It must not be too pleased with the Tánaiste.
How many times has the Tánaiste gone back to the Judiciary in the two years and four months?
I have often raised the matter.
