Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I will go into it in more detail on Committee Stage. I have no problem with reserve members under the control and supervision of existing members of the Garda Síochána operating in crowd marshalling on All Ireland Final day. Depending on the degree of training, they could even form part of a visible presence in the community. I do not want, however, inadequately trained people to have the power of search and arrest, the basic power of the Garda Síochána.

Some people have suggested that the additional powers granted to the Minister in the Bill turn him into the chief of police. At the moment, the Minister and the Garda Commissioner liaise and consult on an informal basis. The Minister has no statutory role of influence over the operations or focus of the day to day activities of the Garda Síochána and this Bill radically changes that. The Minster will have a substantive role in directing the gardaí and must approve substantive aspects of policing.

The setting of Garda priorities, the Garda strategy statement and the annual policing plan must be submitted to the Minister for approval and the Minister can issue directives. The Minister mentioned a directive on foot and mouth disease in his speech, something to which no one would object, but how far will these directives go? Does this power offer the potential to politicise the activities of the Garda Síochána? The Minister may say that is not his intent but laws are not the Minister's intentions, they are the contents of the legislation. Is there a danger that the gardaí could be made act at the whim of a political master?

The Minister was good enough to refer to the fact that I have some experience in this area when I resumed my role as Fine Gael spokesman on justice. I recall a Taoiseach and a Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey and Seán Doherty, and the activities that occurred at that time, the difficulties with various Garda files and phone tapping. I must bear that in mind when I look at the powers being granted to a Minister under this Bill. I have many criticisms of the Minister but I do not question his basic integrity when it comes to administrating the powers in the Bill, and I would have no difficulty in discharging those powers. We are not inserting powers for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, however, or for Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, we are inserting powers for whomever may in future be Minister. There was an abuse of this position in the past and we must bear that in mind when considering these powers.

For the first time, the Bill will place the involvement of local authorities in policing matters on a statutory basis. Interaction between local authorities and the Garda Síochána is long overdue and Fine Gael has advocated it for some time. If communities are to experience a long-term reduction in crime, local authorities must take on a dedicated oversight role in policing matters, providing a forum for gardaí and local authorities to exchange views and co-ordinate their activities to bring real benefits to local communities. It will provide an opportunity for real interaction to bring back a sense of ownership to a public that has become dissatisfied with and distant from the criminal justice system. There is a rift in the relationship between the public and the Garda Síochána and I hope this provision will reverse that trend, a trend that arises from the fact that people do not even bother reporting crime in many cases any longer. My only criticism is that this process does not go far enough. It should extend below local authority level and involve local communities with the Garda Síochána.

With regard to disclosure to journalists, I accept that the Minister has made substantial changes from the original head 26 of the scheme to the Bill. The offence of disclosure now only arises where the information disclosed has harmful effect and the Minister's definition of harmful effect is broad. The change is an improvement but it may not have gone far enough. I will go deeper into this on Committee Stage but there should not be a free flow of information between the gardaí and journalists. As a lawyer, I was used to the notion of confidentiality and, in general, the gardaí should treat matters arising in the course of their jobs as confidential. On the other hand, a free flow of information between the Garda Síochána and journalists could be of advantage to the Garda because journalists turn up information or leads that might be of use in Garda inquiries. I would not, therefore, want to preclude discussions between the Garda and journalists. There needs to be a balance and a middle line between allowing discussions that may be of benefit to the Garda Síochána in carrying out its job and ensuring that serious confidential matters are not disclosed. I would like the Minister to consider a new approach involving a code of ethics by which members of the Garda would be bound, rather than the creation of a criminal offence that could lead to 12 months in prison on summary conviction or seven years on indictment. One would also need to provide for a breach of such code of ethics, which could be dealt with under the Garda Síochána disciplinary regulations. That would not be such a heavy-handed approach but would cover the position even better than the amended approach now proposed by the Minister.

The Garda complaints board has been the focus of consistent criticism for some time and does not now enjoy the confidence of the public. This is in no way intended to reflect negatively on the members or staff of the board. They performed as best they could under the regime under which they had to operate.Their hands were tied to a great extent and consequently the body failed to function as an effective, independent arbiter.

The case for appointing an ombudsman has been well made and I do not propose to go over that. I have had an opportunity to examine the Garda complaints board's annual report for 2002. In that year the board received 1,405 complaints and at the end of the year it had 841 cases on hand and only 13 cases had been finalised by the tribunal. These figures do not reflect well on its operations. I am, therefore, all for a new approach and I favour the ombudsman model.

The Minister is proposing an ombudsman commission composed of three persons to be appointed by the Dáil. The example of a police ombudsman of which we are most aware on this island is the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, Ms Nuala O'Loan, a single ombudsman. I have been to see her in her office and have met some of her staff. I have seen the manner in which she operates and it seems to be very effective. Why do we need three ombudsmen when Ms Nuala O'Loan does the job very effectively on her own? That is an issue to which I would like to return.

I particularly welcome the power of the ombudsman commission in section 94(4) to initiate an investigation on its own initiative. However, I would like to see the scope of such investigations widened considerably so that the commission could examine more general policing practices.

There is a provision to allow the transfer of all the staff of the existing Garda complaints board to the ombudsman commission. Would this not tie the hands of the commission unduly? I am aware that many of the staff are very good at their jobs and very experienced, but is it fair to the new ombudsman commission to have no say in selecting its staff?

In the context of the commission employing gardaí, not alone must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. The lack of independence and failure of the Garda complaints board to adhere to the fundamental principle of nemo iudex has ultimately led to its downfall. Is there not a danger of repeating that mistake? It is not acceptable that members of the Garda be brought into the ombudsman commission to investigate other gardaí. That is an issue we must tease out in more detail on Committee Stage. The people who investigate our gardaí are policemen. If it is not appropriate to have gardaí investigating other gardaí. Can we not look beyond our own boundaries to the UK, specifically Northern Ireland where there is now a very fine police force in the PSNI? I intend to revert on Committee Stage to a discussion on what might best be done in this regard.

The Minister referred to the search of Garda stations but not in sufficient detail. I am not entirely happy with how he dealt with the requirement to give notice or the issue of security files. The Bill had provided that the inspectorate could search a Garda station on giving 48 hours' notice to the Garda Commissioner. In section 91, this has now been changed and the ombudsman commission must notify the commissioner and the Minister of its intent to search. Has the Minister achieved the right balance in the Bill as it is now amended? It is an issue that needs further teasing out. I understand that in the Seanad reference was made to a telephone call five minutes before an inspection. What would be the practicality of that? The Minister is now talking about judicial oversight. Is this before, during or after the telephone call five minutes before? The Minister has not dealt adequately with this issue and it is one with which we will have to deal in more detail on Committee Stage.

The Minister has made the point ad nauseam that the Garda serves two roles here. It polices the State but also acts as our intelligence service. I accept there is no separate MI5 and MI6 here. If the Garda's role in intelligence matters is of such a high level and is of such gravity, should we not establish a separate intelligence service? The issue is one to which we should return on Committee Stage.

The inspectorate is a late addition to the Bill and my initial reaction is to support the establishment of some form of inspectorate. It could help to bring about improvements in the Garda and will be appreciated by gardaí as time goes on. An issue that arises is whether we need two separate bodies, an ombudsman commission with three persons on it and an inspectorate. Is there not a case to be made for one outside body that would perform all the functions? Is there not a danger of duplication of effort? The issue has not been fully thought through or fully debated. The ombudsman commission will consist of three persons. The inspectorate will also be a three-person body, one of whom will be known as the chief inspector. It will look at and examine thematic policy issues, standards, practice and performance, benchmarking and comparable international policing experience. I raise the possibility of having one outside body to deal with the various functions.

There is a range of issues and much detail within and outside the Bill regarding the Garda Síochána that I would like to go into in more detail. We will have the opportunity of doing that on Committee Stage.

One aspect of the Bill I heartily commend is the provision regarding the annual report. It has annoyed me as a Member of this House over the years to see various official bodies producing annual reports often more than a year after the period they cover, when the information is historical and out of date. Annual reports are useful in so far as they give a reasonably current assessment of the state of operations. They allow for informed and constructive criticism. However, a report that is more than a year out of date is historical and is virtually a waste of time. I recollect at one stage tabling questions to all Ministers as to when the annual reports of the State bodies under their aegis were produced. There are still some appalling examples of annual reports being years out of date. I am glad the Bill provides for an annual report to be furnished quickly. The optimum would be that an annual report should be furnished before the end of the first quarter following the year it covers. The Bill provides that it be furnished four months after the year's end. I can go along with that. Much complex detail goes into that report which is very useful. I support that heartily.

Since assuming office the Minister has made provisional statistics available. That is a good practice but it is not much good when it is confused with the issue of an annual report a day later that contrasts with the figures in the provisional statistics. Hopefully the new provision will change that.

The Fine Gael Party will support the Bill. It does not go anywhere near tackling the broad objectives I have outlined. The objectives of Fine Gael for the Garda Síochána would be far more ambitious. We have a dedicated body of men and women in the force, new recruits coming in with enormous potential and we have people who are highly motivated. They are operating in an archaic system that is in need of radical reform from the point of view of employment, management and so on. This Bill will not achieve that objective. There are improvements and advances in the Bill but it does not cover the essential problems of the force, such as lack of resources, the lack of input to modern technology and the kind of things that will allow us to have what I want for the Garda Síochána, namely, the best police force in the world. This Bill is but a modest advance towards that objective and in so far as it is I am prepared to support it.

See this speech in context