Mr. Bob Collins:

The authority does not favour the board as it is represented in the Bill. As I said, the authority sees real value to the Commissioner and An Garda Síochána in having external expertise. That is the kind of arrangement envisaged in 2005 Act but was never acted upon. That was 16 years ago. The Commissioner has made some reference to it but from the authority's perspective the risk is there will be a confusion of interlocking engagements. If the Commissioner has uncertainty as to whom he is accountable, there will also be uncertainty as to who ultimately is responsible for some of the elements. There is a difference between accountability and giving account. There is a risk the internal board, the Garda board, will have an oversight role that either duplicates or gets in the way of the oversight role of the proposed new PCSA. As I said, there is value in having external expertise available to the Commissioner across a range of areas. The authority has identified a number of those areas which are significant for the life of the organisation and which are essential to its effective performance and are not just back-office or administrative issues. They are crucially, critically, central to the quality of the policing service. That value is unquestioned. It is about the interposition of that board and the potential dilution of the clarity of the oversight.

My final comment on this is the authority from its inception has made it absolutely clear it does not want An Garda Síochána to create material simply for our existence. It is giving the authority access to material that is already there. There has never been a suggestion that the authority wanted to be part of the executive management of An Garda Síochána, let alone micromanage it. That is not our role. I do not think anybody could point to any instance in which that has happened. The board has a real value but there are real risks in the way it is constituted in the heads.