Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

There appears to be a broad welcome for the general reforms to the Garda force. There has been a long consultation period in this regard. The Minister has allowed all interest groups to make submissions. He invited groups to come to see him. The Fianna Fáil parliamentary party had a meeting on the issue. It has allowed the Bill to develop in the Seanad and I hope it will develop again as a result of the contributions of Members of this House.

I will begin by commenting on the ombudsman commission proposal in Part 3. I want to set out the background to all of this. The gardaí are not ordinary members of the workforce, they operate in very stressful and often very dangerous circumstances. As such, motivation and morale is a key issue in carrying out the job successfully on behalf of the people. When they put themselves in harm's way, they must feel they are doing so for a good reason, that they will have the support of the State and that they are appreciated to a certain extent. It is sometimes too easy for people to criticise the entire force when the problem may lie only with the misdemeanours of a few people.

Having made that general point, we should remember this aspect in the context of the proposals on the ombudsman commission. Its primary function will be to deal with complaints by members of the public relating to the conduct of members of the Garda. It will replace the existing Garda Complaints Board established in 1987. The public did not perceive the board, rightly or wrongly, as being transparent, impartial and fair in all its dealings. In some circumstances that may well have been the case. The example to which Deputy Crawford alluded identifies that there are shortcomings in the operation of the board.

The appointment of Nuala O'Loan in the North has inspired a certain amount of impetus in this area. The events of May Day were also influential. It would be unfortunate to think the events in Donegal would be used to piggyback reforms of the Garda. I am not sure if that is entirely the case, but there has been an upswell of interest in reform of the Garda in the last while.

Deputy Howlin published a Bill in 2001 on the question of an ombudsman, proposing a single individual as ombudsman. I do not have a problem with the appointment of three individuals as opposed to one. That indicates we would be dealing with three full-time individuals who would be applying their minds to this issue. As we now have a larger population, inevitably we will need more people dealing with complaints that will be made to the commission.

It is important the three people who will be appointed will be of the highest calibre, held in high regard throughout the community and that they will operate independent of the State and the Government. They will have to inspire confidence not only among gardaí but among members of the public. Nuala O'Loan has confidently taken on that role in the North in recent years. We need people of that calibre for those appointments.

The Bill seems to suggest that judges of the superior courts might be appointed. There is a need for more judges of the superior courts as opposed to seconding them to do full-time jobs elsewhere. We need to look elsewhere to appoint members to the commission.

It is also important that the Minister puts his mind to ensuring there is wide publicity of the existence of the office. It is essential that members of the public are aware that this complaints procedure is available to them, is straightforward, that there is no intimidation and they would be able to approach a Garda station or the ombudsman commission directly to make such a complaint.

I wish to briefly deal with the sections. Under section 75, if a complainant approaches a Garda station directly and makes a complaint, which in normal circumstances would be an appropriate complaint for the ombudsman commission, it appears the complainant may have to indicate to the garda that he or she wished to have the complaint forwarded to the ombudsman commission. Section 75(2) states that the complaint may be made directly to the ombudsman commission or by stating, giving or sending it to any member of the Garda Síochána at a Garda station, or to a member at or above the rank of chief superintendent at a place other than a Garda station, for forwarding under section 77 to the ombudsman commission. In other words, a member of the public may not be aware of this and I am concerned that a garda may simply take the complaint and it may wither because the member of the public failed to indicate that it was for forwarding to the ombudsman commission. If he or she fails to use that language or to make that clear, the complaint could wither and the 12 months period during which summary prosecution can be brought might have elapsed. My reading of that subsection might be incorrect, but that is an observation with which the Minister might deal with if he can.

Under section 81, in regard to informing the person complained of, the Garda Commissioner must make sure that evidence has been preserved. This is a good measure. However, a time limit for informing the person complained of should be inserted. Natural justice would require that the person complained about would be informed with all due dispatch in a reasonable time. Inevitably, these matters will come before the courts and a judge will decide on a case by case basis what is a reasonable period of time. However, we should set down clearly that the Garda Commissioner has a specific period of, say, two to four weeks to ensure that evidence is preserved before the person concerned is entitled to have the complaint about him or her explained.

I have a concern regarding section 86 which appears to provide for a circular type of lengthening of the complaints procedure. Section 86(10) states that following a review of the matter, the ombudsman commission may request the Garda Commissioner to review the investigation of the complaint and to report back to it concerning any further action that he or she proposes to take in the matter. We do not want complaint procedures hanging over members of the Garda Síochána for long periods — they should have a beginning, middle and end. That subsection appears to allow for an investigation to drag on indefinitely. We must have confidence that the complaints procedure system will work well and that it will not be allowed to operate in an open-ended way.

When I heard Deputy Crawford's comments, I recalled that a complaint brought to the Garda Complaints Board in May 2003 has not yet been dealt with. We must properly resource the ombudsman commission and, thereby, demonstrate that we are serious about its role. A long-drawn out investigation does nothing to instil public confidence in the complaints procedure, to build morale among members of the Garda Síochána or in regard to the specific complaint.

The Garda Complaints Board has a staff of 20 and a budget of €1.5 million. Section 64 provides for the transfer of such staff to the ombudsman commission. However, we need more staff and more funding. This Bill provides for the commission to have extensive powers. Section 66 provides for the employment of outside assistance. If a serious complaint is made, as in the Donegal case currently being dealt with, there is a potential that somebody from outside the jurisdiction would be called in to oversee a long investigation. Such a long investigation could put a serious dent in a budget as small as €1.5 million.

When Michael Mills was Ombudsman he made complaints regularly that he could not discharge his functions properly with the funding and resources he had to hand. If we are serious about this legislation and if we want to restore public confidence in the Garda — some Members have complained of a lack of confidence — and to restore Garda morale, funding is an absolute prerequisite for the successful operation of the Bill when enacted.

I favour the six month window in which to make a complaint. That allows for a cooling off period if a complaint has arisen due to a clash of personalities, which is often the case. It allows sufficient time for the person concerned to reflect on the matter and consider whether he or she wishes to go through with making a complaint. There are mediation facilities under the Bill, which are welcome. The Bill provides that this period can be extended by the ombudsman commission. I would have thought it was necessary to set an upper limit on that time extension. Given that under section 96 one has only 12 months to bring summary proceedings, the upper time limit that applies is six months because there is no point in making a complaint if the time allowed for bringing summary proceedings has elapsed, although my reading of that section may be incorrect.

Section 91 is worthy of comment. It provides for powers to search a Garda station. It does not seem to restrict what parts of a Garda station can be searched nor does it provide that anyone must be informed what the search is for. The section refers to an authorisation to search rather than to a search warrant but all judicial rules and rulings on search warrants should still apply.

At a meeting of the justice policy group of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party views were mixed on the volunteer members of the Garda Síochána but I welcome the idea. The existing neighbourhood watch and community policing models are inadequate for localised, low level anti-social behaviour. Everyone in the House has had regular complaints from people in suburban areas about low level crime and the incidence of anti-social behaviour, almost all of which takes place on weekend nights between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. It happens all the time and affects people's quality of life. It is at least a nuisance, if not worse, and if we are to be serious about a voluntary force, that is the area in which it can be used. This type of crime does not require high level policing.

The Garda Commissioner will make proposals on the volunteer force training but I understand it will have the same powers as the gardaí. Is that necessary? Why is it necessary for a volunteer member to be able to take intimate samples in the way a professional garda can do? Why is it necessary for them to be able to discharge an arrest or search warrant? Their powers should be at a lower level.

The Lord Mayor of Dublin, Councillor Michael Conaghan, produced a report this week on policing in which he referred to community policing fora. Deputy Gregory expanded on the issue and highlighted some of the weaknesses of those types of fora and I echo his comments. There should be something more serious than these fora for low level anti-social behaviour and the volunteer force would be ideally suited for that purpose.

The Minister should have an influence over what the Garda Commissioner does because that will lead to greater democratic accountability. There are malpractices, particularly in rural areas, where gardaí do other jobs such as farming and rarely investigate small-scale crimes or complete their shifts. Such problems must be addressed. There is no point talking about extra resources or gardaí if the existing resources are not efficiently used. The Committee of Public Accounts will now also have the power to talk to the Garda Commissioner as the Accounting Officer for the Garda and that will be helpful.

The court presenter system must be expanded. I did not do much criminal work as a barrister. Most of my work was in the District Court, but I was always struck by the large number of gardaí standing around on a routine basis in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court and the waste of time and resources involved. The system should be expanded because there is no need for these gardaí to come in, claim overtime and waste resources waiting for a traffic fine or a minor offence that does not require the high level of expertise of a fully trained garda.

The joint policing committees, a recommendation in the Lord Mayor's report, are to be welcomed, although it is not necessarily a good idea for Members of the Oireachtas to serve on them. That is not a proper function as we move away from serving on health boards and local authorities. Also, many local authorities do not overlap with Garda divisions. The fire in St. Brendan's school in Bray occurred in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county area which is covered by the gardaí in Bray and County Wicklow. It is a technical difficulty and the Minister will be able to address it.

I hope the Minister's detailed consultations will continue and I look forward to Committee Stage of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context