David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)

The section refers to the law on defamation. Is there any redress if someone makes a statement? Members of the public have redress in that they can complain to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges but in this case I am not sure if any such redress is possible. I am not a solicitor or barrister but reading this from a layman's point of view, it appears that someone could possibly make a statement and not have it challenged. Are there procedures built in so such a statement could be withdrawn or challenged, or to allow for a person to ask for redress if the statement was later proven wrong? This point might be worth considering on Committee Stage. It is important that we ensure there are no abuses or, if there are abuses, that people have a means of seeking redress.

The Bill sets up the ombudsman's commission, which is important. There are three members on it. I know there has been much debate about whether there should be one or three members. What happens if there are three members and two agree on a decision while the other disagrees? Does majority rule or must the decision be unanimous? That is not clear in the Bill. Could that lead to difficulties at a later stage? Is there a chairman of the commission or are all three members equal? How are their meetings to be convened and run?

Over my years in this House we have had chairpersons of such bodies who have certain responsibilities and roles to play in convening and so forth. That does not seem to be the case in this instance. I would like that matter clarified because it is not clarified in the Bill. Does the commission have to act as a unanimous body or can two members of it take a majority decision? That needs to be clarified.

The removal of members of the commission is mentioned. They can be removed for stated misbehaviour but it does not say in the Bill what such behaviour is, who decides what it is, how or by whom it is to be adjudicated. Would someone have to be brought before a court of law and found guilty of stated misbehaviour? Who states what the stated misbehaviour is? Where is it stated? All this may be in the Bill but I have not seen it.

Section 58 speaks of certain types of people debarred from being members of the ombudsman commission. However, it does not say that a person with a criminal record cannot be a member. It might be useful to insert that provision. It may not be the right thing to do but we have inserted that provision in other instances.

The other interesting bodies being established are the joint policing committees. Going by my first reading, the mechanism for setting these up is a little woolly. My colleague asked earlier if the town councils, no matter how large or small, were to be included. I believe they should be, in some way or other. It is not made clear if it is just county and city councils which will be involved. These committees also run the risk of being very big, which worries me.

There has been a debate about the role of Members of the Oireachtas. All Members of the Oireachtas in the particular area should be ex officio members of the committee. That might be a way of dealing with the matter. I agree with what many Deputies said. Members of the Oireachtas are being shoved aside and excluded from many areas, which is wrong. We have a mandate. We are elected to speak in this House, which is linked with many bodies in the State. If it is the case that an Oireachtas Member in an area is a "member of", that means the others are excluded. There may be a way of solving this issue with an ex officio mechanism.

The local Garda inspector or superintendent has an important role to play in interacting with the local authority, whatever it might be, but particularly with town councils. It is in urban areas that we have many difficulties with anti-social behaviour and so on. It is not clear in the Bill if the local authority could invite the Garda superintendent or authorities to meet it. That would be important. I am not saying the local Garda superintendent would be summoned before the council. That would be a bit strong, but perhaps the local authorities might invite the Garda superintendent or inspector to discuss a particular issue. A series of anti-social issues might, for example, be building up in a town and the local authority might feel it important that the local Garda superintendent be invited to discuss the matter before it. We need to introduce that more formal type of arrangement because it gives people a voice through their elected members at local level to interact with gardaí on general policing policy. This more formal interaction happens in other countries where local police chiefs work with and come before city councils. There is another role for joint policing committees where members of community groups, voluntary organisations etc. can interact with gardaí in a more informal capacity.

There are perhaps two roles for the committees. My understanding of the Bill is that the joint policing committees as envisaged bring these roles together as one. We need to separate them. We should have formal interaction with the local authority and a more informal working relationship with local communities, including members of the local authority.

In some areas there is an anti-Garda ethos and one of today's newspapers reported on that. Previously I worked as a teacher in a school where we used invite members of the Garda into the classroom. They came in, often dressed informally, interacted with the young teenagers and answered their questions. Their visits were important because they bridged the gap between the formal garda and the young citizen. A particular result of these visits was that a young girl rang the Garda station to speak to the female garda who had visited the classroom. This girl was being accosted inappropriately on her way home in the evenings. As a result of having met the garda informally in the classroom, the girl felt she could ask to speak to her and have the problem dealt with, and it was dealt with in a professional manner. This sort of relationship must be developed between gardaí and our young people.

Section 29 deals with the importance of the Irish language. To my shame I am not fluent in Irish. I wonder whether the Official Languages Act applies where a person goes into a Garda station and wants to conduct his or her business as Gaeilge. A question struck me when the Bill was passing through the House; if a person is arrested, is the arresting garda obliged to caution him or her as Gaeilge as well as as Béarla? I am not sure about that. If a person wants to interact with gardaí as Gaeilge, has he or she a right in that regard? If the garda did not have competency in Irish, would there be a difficulty? We could tie ourselves up in knots and red tape, but this is the time to raise these issues and tease them out.

I agree with Deputy Hoctor that it is important that there is adequate training for members of the joint policing committees. We need more debate and clarity on the issue of volunteers. The volunteers will have the same powers and role as gardaí, but I am not sure whether they will have the same training as gardaí. How will they deal with cases where they must go before a court to give evidence or where they have to arrest people? How will these volunteers be recruited? The word "volunteer" implies they will not be paid, but they will probably have expenses of some sort. Will these issues be teased out? Will the volunteers have Garda uniforms?

I raise these issues on account of my experience in An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil, the reserve army. That force did not have anything like the interaction with the public that these volunteers will have. It is important, however, to ensure when people are put in uniform they are properly trained and resourced and that they have proper back-up. Their role must be thought out fully. If they are to have the same role as gardaí, they must be subject to the same restrictions and responsibilities. The Bill indicates these volunteers will not be community police as such, a different concept. They will be volunteers who will form a reserve police force. Will they be paid when they go on duty?

The Bill also addresses the issues of the inspectorate and the ombudsman commission. There has been much debate on this. I agree there is a need for both roles. If there is a conflict between the inspectorate and the commission, which will have supremacy? If, for example, the inspectorate says gardaí may use a certain procedure, but the commission finds human rights will be affected by that procedure, who will adjudicate on the issue? This matter must be clarified as it is not clear in the Bill as it stands.

I welcome the opportunity of being helpful and making these general points. Section 38 provides for the annual report of the Garda Síochána to be brought forward. I understand that it will be laid before the House five months after the year ends. That time should be reduced to maintain confidence. There is much good in this welcome Bill, yet it is important to have debate on it. The ombudsman commission is a good and welcome idea. It is important that citizens are made aware of the commission, its role and authority so that they know how to proceed if they want to make a complaint. I wish the Minister and the Bill well and look forward to further debate on Committee and Report Stages.

See this speech in context