Ceann Comhairle,
The controversies of the last few months have been challenging for the Gardaí, challenging for the legal system and challenging for the Government. Many of the issues which have caused this controversy have their roots in the events and practices of the past, long before this Government came to power. Nonetheless it has fallen to this Government, of which the Labour Party is part, to deal with these issues. My priority as leader of the Labour Party has been, and remains, to see to it that we get to the facts as quickly as possible; that the parties involved, including the whistle-blowers, are dealt with fairly; that we rectify the injustices of the past, and put in place structures which will serve our citizens and the Gardaí into the future.
On behalf of the Labour Party, I am pleased to support the resolution before the House which sets out the Terms of Reference for the investigation to be carried out by Mr. Justice Niall Fennelly.
There are three principal elements in the Terms of Reference. If the Terms are agreed by this House and by the Seanad the Commission will be asked to investigate and report on:
· the operation of the telephone recording systems by the Gardaí and the prison service.
· the specific implications of the tapings related to the Garda investigation into the death of Ms. Sophie Toscan Du Plantier in West Cork in December 1996 and related matters and
· the sequence of events leading up to the retirement of the former Commissioner of The Gardaí, Martin Callinan.
Ceann Comhairle,
I first became aware of the widespread recording of telephone calls to and from Garda Stations on the morning of Tuesday 25th March last when the Taoiseach made me aware of information which had come into his possession. I was shocked by what I was told, and I had no hesitation in recommending to colleagues that a Commission of Investigation be established to established what happened and why.
Since the cabinet decision many more facts have come to light. We now know something of the scale of the recordings and the Garda stations in which they occurred. We know something of the circumstances in which new equipment was purchased just a few years ago in order to continue and update the practice. We have also heard from some of those who were involved in operating the system.
But there is still a great deal that we do not know. We do not know for sure what the intended purposed of the recording system was. We do not know if recordings were used during the course of criminal investigations. In fact we know very little about the use, if any, which was made of the recordings. We also know little or nothing about the content of the tapes.
These are just some of the questions which we are asking the Commission to investigate. They are important questions. It is important from a historical perspective that we should know what happened in the past – the timeline, the sequence of events.
It is also important that get an assessment of the implications for the operation of the criminal justice system. We need a dispassionate assessment for prosecutions taken or not taken.
The Terms of Reference also invite the Commission to express a view as to whether the recordings were authorised and whether the making of recordings in these circumstances is lawful. It may be that the facts disclosed to the Commission will allow the judge to come to clear decision as to whether the recordings were lawful. It would be wrong for me to express an opinion on that matter and I will not do so.
That said, it is clear that this is an area where there is a great deal of grey and not so much black and white.
We live at a time when a great many organisations and individuals create, capture and store a great deal of information about the everyday lives of almost every one of us. Banks, supermarkets on line retailers, travel companies – all of these and many more can create an accurate picture of our lifestyle with minimal effort.
It is a stark fact that Internet providers and telecommunications companies have assembled more information about each of us individuals than is known to our closest friends. Does the accumulation of this information amount to surveillance or bugging? Or is it just part of providing a service to customers?
Much of this information is doubtless of no consequence. On the other hand, some information might well be useful in determining whether criminal proceedings should be taken – and later in proving or disproving guilt.
The use of electronic records in the legal system and in crime prevention is laced with difficulty and dilemma.
To what extent is the State – and in most cases this means the Gardaí – entitled to infringe on the individual’s right to privacy in order to prevent or prosecute crime? Just when is the accumulation of personal information lawful and when is it unlawful? Is it even reasonable to look to distinguish between the two? These are big questions and they are infinitely more pertinent now, in this age if information, than they have ever been before.
The Oireachtas looked to grapple with these issues most recently when the Criminal Law (Surveillance) Act was passed in 2009. A lot has happened in the interim, not least in the development of technology. In my view it would be timely to review the operation of the Act and other relevant legislation and practice.
The second issue dealt with in the Terms of Reference is the investigation into the tragic death of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier.
The House will be aware that no prosecution has been taken in respect of the death of Ms. Du Plantier. However some ancillary matters have been dealt with before the courts, including an application for extradition by the French authorities and civil cases currently in hand. At various intervals we have seen press reports which allege activity on the part of the Gardaí which, if true, would be very disturbing. As a result of discovery made during the course of civil proceedings we know that recordings were made in Bandon Gardaí Station which are relevant to the investigation of the death of Ms. Du Plantier.
On foot of such information as is already in the public domain, the Government has decided that further investigation is needed. Specifically, the Commission will be asked to establish whether those recorded phone calls, and any other acts or events in the course of the Gardaí investigation disclose any evidence of unlawful or improper conduct on the part of the Gardaí.
It is time that the Garda investigation is subject to the light of public scrutiny. There are too many unanswered questions; too much innuendo. It is time for a full accounting in respect of the Garda investigation and I hope that the Commission can be of assistance in establishing the facts.
Of course, I am very conscious that the person who murdered Sophie Toscan Du Plantier is, in all likelihood, still at liberty. I am also conscious that her friends and relatives, not least her parents, Georges and Marguerite Bouniol, continue to grieve for her and thirst for justice. This new investigation will not bring Sophie back; it will not bring the person who murdered her to book. But I hope it will answer some of the questions, which they and others have been asking for many years now.
The third issue to be dealt with by the Commission is the events leading up to the retirement of the Garda Commissioner. I fully accept that the retirement of the Garda Commissioner is a matter of great consequence and it is clearly in the public interest that the matter be teased out in full. Many of the facts have been put into the public arena by the principals concerned or others acting on their behalf either directly or indirectly. But it is important that all of those concerned be given the opportunity to account in person for their actions.
Let me be clear. This is an important issue. The Commissioner of the Gardaí holds one of the most important positions in our democratic state. The public is entitled to know why he left office earlier than he originally planned. The public is entitled to the full facts.
Of course, as Deputies will know, members of Government who were party to these events have already given accounts of what they knew and did in the period leading up to the Commissioner’s retirement. I have already stated publicly that I accept what colleagues have said on these matters and I am happy to rely on the accounts given.
I fully expect that, when he has heard from all the parties, Mr. Justice Fennelly will be able to set out the sequence of events in full so that the public can make their own judgment.
Ceann Comhairle,
Ireland has changed a great deal in recent years. For many decades we lived in a society where the authority of people in positions was rarely questioned; where the pillars of society commanded respect and obedience without debate. This is no longer the case. People no longer accept that the priest, the politician, the teacher or the Garda is entitled to tell them what to do purely by virtue of the position they hold. The Garda of previous decades could expect that his or her authority would be accepted without question; that his/ her instructions would be followed; that his/her judgement would be respected and that his/her way of doing things would be afforded a measure of latitude.
The Garda in today’s Ireland inhabits a completely different environment. An environment where trust must earned; where tolerance and patience must be exercised; where professionalism is expected at all times and where mistakes must be accounted for. It
is also, in many ways, a much more hostile environment. An environment of competing criminal gangs which use violence without hesitation; an environment where the abuse of drugs eliminates all standards of decent behaviour; an environment where a gang of robbers will kill a Garda in the course of their criminal activity.
The changed nature of our society and the changing nature of crime has required a radical shift in policing. The Gardaí are now better trained and better resourced than ever before. And the statutory underpinning of the Gardaí has also changed. In bringing forward the Gardaí Siochana Act of 2005 the then Minister for Justice Michael McDowell looked to put in place what he described as a template for policing in the 21st century.
There is much that is good in the 2005 Act and the Labour Party supported many of its provisions. The Act put in place the Garda Ombudsman Commission, the Garda Inspectorate and the Local Policing Committees. All of these have contributed to making the Gardaí more open and accountable but in one important aspect, the Minister failed to act. He refused to put in place a mechanism for civilian oversight of the Gardaí. He refused to address what many of us see as a crucial weakness in our system- namely the relationship between the Minister for Justice and the Commissioner of the Gardaí.
Section 80 of the Garda Siochána Act (2005) states:
“The Garda Commissioner shall account fully to the Government and the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for any aspect of his or her functions”
The result of this provision is that the Gardaí account to the Minister largely in private and in secret. The Minister represents the views of the Gardaí to the Dáil and the Commissioner defends the policies of the Minister, and the Government, in public. The closeness of the relationship is born of a time when the security of the State was under threat. Those days are gone and the 21st century demands a wholly new model.
Since 2000 the Labour Party has argued the case for a Garda Authority, a Policing Board if you will, which will exercise many of the powers and carry many of the responsibilities currently vested in Government. My colleagues Brendan Howlin and Pat Rabbitte have both articulated the case for a Garda Authority on innumerable occasions over the last decade and more. It is with some satisfaction that we welcome the decision of Government to set up an authority. It is a pity that it has taken so long. It is a pity that the decision was resisted by others for so long. But better late than not at all.
The new Garda Authority should set priorities for the Gardaí and assist in drawing up plans for policing. It should hold senior Gardaí to account for the implementation of policy. It should act as an interface for the community as a whole.
Let me be clear. I want to move to a position where the policies and priorities of the policing service are set by the representatives of the community as a while and not just the Government of the day. Of course, the view of Government should weigh in the mix but it is only one view. The service exists to serve the community as a whole and it should be accountable to the community as a whole.
I am very happy that Government has agreed to set up a Garda Authority before the end of the year and I look forward to playing my part as a member of the Cabinet Committee which has been put in place to oversee the introduction of the Authority. There are open questions which we will debate over the coming months and we should take the opportunity to engage in public debate in relation to these questions:-
· What role should the Authority have in appointing the Commissioner and other senior Gardaí?
· Who should sit on the Authority? Should Public Representatives sit on the Authority and if so in what numbers?
· How should matters of national security be dealt with?
In all of this I want to emphasise one critical point. This is not change for the sake of change. It is not simply a question of adding one more institution to the several which already exist. It is, in fact, a radical overhaul of our system of policing, a change which will be good for the Gardaí, good for politics and above all good for our citizens.