It is a pity this debate has been structured in this manner. I telephoned the Office of the Government Chief Whip this morning to inquire whether the main spokespersons might have more latitude. The debate is scheduled to continue throughout the day and there do not seem to be queues of Deputies wishing to speak. It is regrettable that the main spokespersons are confined to 15 minutes each.
It is even more regrettable that the Minister's contribution consisted largely of a politically partisan broadcast with a view to damaging the reputation of two eminent public representatives, namely, Deputy Howlin, who will speak for himself, and Mr. Jim Higgins, MEP, a colleague of mine and former member of the Fine Gael Front Bench. It is particularly regrettable that the Minister did not concentrate on the major consequences of the tribunal's findings, including the changes undertaken by the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Michael McDowell, and the need to ensure further changes by way of regulation and legislation. What is most important is that the lessons learned are acted upon.
The findings of the Morris tribunal have shocked the nation and become the catalyst for historic change within the structures of the Garda Síochána, a body that has done a fine service for the State since its establishment in the 1920s. The Morris tribunal revealed that for many years, County Donegal was a place apart. Much has been made over the years of the centralist nature of government in this State and the associated structures of governance. The negatives of an over-centralised state are exposed dramatically in the Morris reports. The Donegal described is more akin to an independent republic than a fully integrated part of a larger state apparatus. It is obvious that during the period under investigation, Dublin headquarters had other priorities and that this arrangement suited both parties. The Morris tribunal has underlined the importance of a clear chain of accountability and discipline from the top to the bottom of the Garda Síochána — from the furthest geographic reaches of north Donegal to Garda headquarters in the Phoenix Park. The people of Donegal have the same rights and entitlements as their fellow citizens in other counties and the need for vigilance in this regard has been highlighted by the eight Morris reports.
The scale of the corruption exposed by the Morris tribunal is truly shocking. It is of fundamental importance in a healthy, functioning democracy that citizens enjoy a relationship of trust with the guardians of the peace. A small number of gardaí in Donegal abused that trust and, in doing so, unfairly damaged the reputation of the entire Garda organisation. Among the key findings of the tribunal was that some gardaí in Donegal used bogus informers, coerced witnesses and planted guns and other explosives. Some lied at the tribunal to cover for their own actions or those of corrupt colleagues. The tribunal found that during the period examined, it was almost impossible to sack a member of the force. Insubordination and indiscipline were widespread and Garda headquarters were neither sufficiently informed nor sufficiently vigilant. The tribunal also concluded that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform failed to put correct procedures in place and that there was an almost total lack of accountability.
A terrible, unforgivable wrong was done to the victims of Garda corruption in Donegal. However, from their horrendous ordeal has emerged a different type of Garda force. A key development was the creation, under the Garda Síochána Act 2005, of the Garda Ombudsman Commission. The commission is required and empowered to ensure matters are investigated independently even in cases where no complaint has been made but where it appears a garda may have committed an offence or behaved in a way that would justify proceedings of a disciplinary nature.
The Commission describes its mission in terms of providing an "independent and effective civilian oversight of policing". It undertakes to deal with the public's complaints concerning gardaí "fairly and efficiently so that everyone can have confidence in the complaints system". Moreover, the commission seeks, in the course of its work, to "retain the trust and goodwill of members of the public as well as members of An Garda Síochána". I can understand how the establishment of such a body might have alarmed certain individuals or groups who feared the commission might conduct some type of witch hunt against them. However, the commission has shown both common sense and fairness in the conduct of its work to date. I commend the commissioners and their staff on this work.
The commission is coping with a large workload. I understand it has been seeking to focus on complaints of a larger scale as smaller complaints are time consuming and something of a drain on resources. However, I caution against a narrowing of the commission's remit. The previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, received representations from the commission on this matter and undertook to review the legislation with a view towards introducing amendments that would allow for certain complaints of a less serious nature to be returned to the Garda Síochána for processing. I am not sure whether this is a wise proposal. What is the view of the Minister in this regard?
The basis for my caution stems from my work as a public representative. I am sure I am no different from most of my colleagues in receiving from time to time complaints from members of the public about relatively minor issues involving members of the Garda Síochána. It is difficult for public representatives to address these matters as the automatic instinct is to direct people to the statutory structures put in place by the Legislature to deal with complaints in this area. If the role of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is restricted, it will be difficult for people who believe they have a grievance, justified or not, to achieve closure or to maintain trust in the system. I understand that such cases can be demanding in respect of time and other resources, but in a democracy it is money well spent to have in place procedures to deal with such issues.
Independence must be ensured and the relationship must be at arm's length at all times. I am sure many of these minor complaints can be dealt with in a relatively time efficient fashion but it is important that people have somewhere to go if they have a problem, and that the place is independent.
The fifth annual report of the now defunct Garda Complaints Board revealed that more than 80% of complaints made against the Garda were groundless. While some gardaí might well feel aggrieved when the GSOC investigates complaints they believe are groundless, the investigation allows the garda to be decisively cleared if innocent of the allegations made against him or her. The GSOC seeks to protect the good name of the Garda Síochána and to uphold the rights of the citizenry.
In its first year, the GSOC received 3,000 complaints, an onerous workload for a new body. While the commission was not fully resourced for some time after its establishment, it belatedly received an increase in its resources, which I welcomed. However, the Government must ensure that the commission's resources match its large workload. If it becomes paralysed by too many cases and insufficient staff, it will lose the goodwill of the people which it currently holds to good effect. The results of a recent survey reveal that the public has great faith in the commission. Some 83% of people believed it was independent, 50% believed it was effective and 48% believed it was efficient. The commission has earned this trust through its hard work.
In the context of the Morris reports and having regard to lessons learned and structures put in place, it is somewhat alarming that the GSOC has had to set in train a public interest inquiry in a case involving an alleged drug dealer from County Louth. I hope all parties will co-operate and that the commission's investigation can get under way as quickly as possible and it can carry out its work efficiently.
The establishment of a structure for Garda whistleblowers is also important in the light of the Morris tribunals. However, owing to the extremely sensitive nature of the role, it is difficult for the Oireachtas to scrutinise its effectiveness. Recently, the Minister, in response to a question from Deputy Rabbitte, informed the House that the external confidential recipient, Mr. Brian McCarthy, has, to date, been contacted in respect of three cases by people within the Garda regarding their concerns. In light of the serious revelations contained in the Morris reports, I am concerned about what kind of structures are in place for assessing whether the confidential recipient's office is functioning as well as it should. I would like the Minister to brief the House or the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on what processes are in place to monitor the implementation of the whistleblowers charter to ensure that it is working in the manner proposed and in the best interests of all concerned.
At a more grassroots level, the issue of community policing is a positive consequence of the Morris tribunal. In an era of rising crime levels, there is a need for a return to basics and community policing must be at the very core of the work of the Garda Síochána. Surveys of public opinion repeatedly reinforce the point that people want to see gardaí on the beat in their communities such as Tallaght, as referred to by the Acting Chairman, Deputy Charlie O'Connor. They want to know their gardaí and for them to be embedded in their communities. They quite rightly believe that their neighbourhoods are safer when there is a Garda presence, a view I share. I am concerned about the issue of resources and about a statement made this morning by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In an unprecedented and rather chilling warning, he stated that it will be impossible for his office to function next year if the proposed cutbacks proceed in the manner in which he and his office envisage.
I am concerned also about the establishment of the joint policing committees. It would be an unforgivable waste and missed opportunity if these descended into expensive talking shops. The aspect that allows public representatives and the Garda Síochána to communicate in a structured fashion is welcome particularly given that there is little or no formal interaction between the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Garda Síochána. It is disappointing there is no procedure in place to allow the Garda Commissioner to appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to discuss justice and crime matters. Merely discussing budgetary matters with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service is wholly insufficient. I would like to see a change in this area.
It is regrettable that Mr. Justice Morris indulged in criticism of former Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Howlin in his final report. The Minister was selective in his quotation of Mr. Justice Morris. He stated that the Deputies should have carried out inquiries, interviews, correspondence or meetings in relation to the allegations made before taking them further. It is surprising that Mr. Justice Morris would presume that Deputies have the resources to carry out such a project. The fact that it took the tribunal six years to get to the bottom of the allegations shows how complex the matter was.
I admire former Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Brendan Howlin for their courage in this matter and believe they acted at all times in good faith for the common good. It is arguable whether the Morris tribunal would ever have taken place without their efforts or if the sea change that has taken place in the Garda Síochána would have happened as quickly or been as straightforward.
In the context of the separation of powers spelled out clearly in our Constitution, I believe that it is inappropriate for Mr. Justice Morris to criticise in the manner in which he has Members of the Parliament given their role as public representatives and messengers of the people . Deputy Howlin spoke directly with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Can one think of a more important person to whom such information might be passed for the purpose of commencing an investigative process? It is regrettable that the Morris reports showed a lack of empathy and understanding of the difficult position in which both Deputy Howlin and former Deputy Higgins found themselves on that occasion. A mutual respect of the separation of powers between the different branches of State is essential in a democracy. It would be most unhelpful if either branch attempted to publicly undermine the other. Members of this House are always conscious of the need to ensure the separation of powers is to the fore of our minds in the context of all their public utterances.
