Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I was pleasantly surprised to be in the House when Deputy Crowe from Sinn Féin delivered a panegyric on the Patten report. The Minister of State was not present to hear it.

I felt as if I was sitting in the Reichstag in 1930 listening to a member of Hitler's Nazi Party praising the contribution of the Jewish community to German culture over the previous century. The level of hypocrisy and cant he enunciated, in the course of which he conceded that Garda Jerry McCabe made a positive contribution to policing while being murdered by members of the Sinn Féin organisation — otherwise known as the Provisional IRA — was a democratic dénouement such as I have not experienced in a long time. I bring it to the attention of Members who were not here at the time and refer them to the written record in case they do not believe me.

In principle I commend this measure which has been a long time coming and contains some positive elements but does not go far enough. One of the great achievements of the new State in the 1920s was to introduce unarmed "civic guards", as my mother called them, against the background of the politicisation of the RIC as an instrument of an oppressive State prior to 1920, and during the War of Independence and the Civil War. Many people perceived the RIC as an embodiment of armed state terrorism.

One cannot praise highly enough all the people who made that a reality. Deputy Costello cited Commissioner Michael Staines, the first Garda Commissioner, "The Garda Síochána will succeed, not by force of arms or numbers, but by their moral authority as servants of the people." This quote also features on our policy document of 2000. The perception and wisdom behind that observation, uttered so many years ago, is as relevant today as it was then.

On occasion I have had to work closely with members of the Garda Síochána whom I admire as individuals and as an organisation. I admire the way in which they have consolidated their own working arrangements and shown solidarity with one another, through support systems such as their credit union, medical scheme and sporting facilities. This is testimony to an extraordinary level of energy, skill and creativity which has endowed their members and the wider community.

My criticism is constructive rather than denunciatory. Of all the institutions of State the Garda Síochána is the only one that has not been significantly reformed since 1923-24. We have reformed political parties, amended the Constitution and overhauled different areas of society. This Bill attempts to go part of the way to renew the Garda Síochána but it does not go far enough. The Bill contains two core elements, the creation of an ombudsman and an inspectorate.

I do not agree with Deputy Carey that the Patten report was intended for a different kind of social institution. Chris Patten brought together a group of internationally respected consultants and authorities in the area of policing, including a person deeply involved in the reorganisation of the New York Police Department, and a Member of the Oireachtas, Senator Maurice Hayes. Mr. Patten had varied political experience, having been Governor of Hong Kong and prior to that a member of the British Cabinet.

The report contained 175 recommendations of which between ten and 15 related to the peculiarities of the divided society of Northern Ireland. At least 150 of the recommendations were consultancy advice for what constitutes good policing practice in a modern state. We need good policing practice because bad policing practice is synonymous in the minds of many with oppression by a "police state".

Citizens must have a sense of comfort, ownership and equality with their local police. In general, that has been our experience but as our society changes that relationship will change too. The police must respond to reinstate the balance that existed hitherto. This Bill will not achieve that.

The Labour Party wish to see a Garda authority included in the Bill. This should comprise representatives of civic society, drawn either by nomination from this House or through the social partners but in an objective manner. For example, An Bord Pleanála has been depoliticised and the Minister no longer appoints its members.

The relationship between the Garda and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not sufficiently open, comprehensive or pluralist to restore the balance of trust between the Garda Síochána and the citizen. There are historic reasons for that. The Minister argued in the other House, and Deputy Carey repeated the argument today, that because he is accountable to this House for the police force the establishment of an authority alongside him, the Commissioner and the operational force would diminish that reporting relationship. The logic of that, when carried to its conclusion, is to suggest that because the board of the Industrial Development Authority is responsible for the operation of the authority its existence in some way diminishes the accountability or reporting relationship between the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment with this House. That comparison reveals the weakness of the argument by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The authority would have a broader social composition and a different relationship with the Garda Síochána from that of the Department. It would therefore be able to say many things that need to be said to the Garda Síochána in private at a monthly board meeting. The revelations of the Morris tribunal show that all is not well in the Garda Síochána. I regret that the Minister has not taken up the proposal we and others made for a Garda authority in 2000.

Ordinary law-abiding citizens experience horror at the prospect of making a complaint to the Garda. For example, recently I received a telephone call from a constituent in his late 60s whose son had got into trouble with the Garda. He said his son was no saint and probably was at fault in this incident. The gardaí beat up his son and when he went to complain about this he could not find anyone with whom he could talk in the local Garda station. There was no one available to sit down and discuss what happened, even when he was prepared to accept that his son had contributed to the late-night fracas. Instead his complaint resulted in a series of summonses and charges against his son. This man, who attempted to go to the complaints board, got absolutely no satisfaction whatsoever. However, to go back to my first point, his sense of the positive relationship he felt he had with the local gardaí had been forever irreparably damaged. If we do not reform radically and ensure the processes of resources and transparency are provided for the new inspectorate and complaints system, the erosion of that relationship, which has commenced, will continue to do great damage to the fabric of our society. I urge the Minister to elaborate on Committee Stage how he intends the provisions of the complaints procedure to function.

I have some reservations about the ombudsman structure. I like the idea of it being a three-person body rather than a single individual. There is a certain strength in that, even though our proposal was for a single ombudsman. Unless it has the resources and objectivity to investigate complaints in a manner similar to Nuala O'Loan in Northern Ireland, it will not restore the sense of trust which is necessary in Ireland to get the kind of relationship citizens, the State and the gardaí as an organisation need. For example, if the structures that exist in Northern Ireland were transposed to here, when the unfortunate incident occurred in Abbeylara — it was an unfortunate incident for all concerned — the police authority in Northern Ireland would have arrived on the scene and preserved it independently of the local gardaí, which did not happen. There must be operational independence if the ombudsman structure is to be effective. I hope the Minister will outline precisely how he proposes to do that.

The second area to which I want to refer is management efficiency, that is, the access we have to the gardaí and the gardaí have to society. Perhaps the Minister of State will correct my interpretation if I am incorrectly informed. My understanding is that when the Garda Síochána was established, the Dublin Metropolitan Police organisational structure was effectively butt-jointed to the RIC provincial structure across the rest of the State, and the number of Garda stations in the Dublin area, which provide a 24-hour, seven days a week service, has not changed since then.

The cost of running a 24-hour, seven days a week service is enormous and extremely inefficient. Dublin South East does not need six Garda stations within five kilometres of each other, open 24 hours, seven days a week. These stations were provided at a time when the gardaí's mobility was determined by how fast they could cycle a bike. It is no longer necessary to provide a 24-hour, seven days a week service. There is a need for a presence in the areas where the current Garda stations exist, but many people just go to the Garda station to get an application form or a passport form signed, which is a nine to five type service. This service does not have to be provided on Saturday and Sunday. Having spoken in the past to two Garda Commissioners, there are great internal difficulties in getting management and work practice changes within the Garda. If a Garda authority had the capability to discuss these matters, many of the necessary reforms in terms of the perception of the gardaí would be capable of being implemented and would have a positive effect. Many of the personnel who are tied up servicing these Garda stations could be out on the beat.

Is there a need for gardaí to retire at 57 years of age? On what basis is that positive? What was the original reason for gardaí being required to retire at 57 years of age? Given the collective wisdom these people have accumulated in the Garda force, including their knowledge of their local community, why are they forced to retire at 57 when they could be retained? They could move to a nine to five type operation. They could become community gardaí and carry out many of the duties that can be done by someone with that wisdom and experience. The cost of putting one on pension at the age of 57 is expensive. Someone of that age is likely to live much longer, because they may take up a second career, than someone who retires at 60 or 65. I would like the Minister to address why these gardaí, with their level of expertise and experience, cannot be kept within the service.

Questions must be asked about the number of gardaí who are tied up in courts for whole sessions. Is there a better way of dealing with this issue? Is there a way in which this garda resource can be pooled? There may be reasons of natural justice and legal requirement which would render that suggestion non-viable. For people like me, and others, who have some management experience of examining different operations, it appears there are many practices in the Garda that need to be addressed. The wage structure is distorted in that the basic salary of a garda is quite low but the take-home income is augmented substantially by a whole set of provisions, allowances, overtime rates and so on. This is all fine and dandy when one is working, but when one retires, one's pension is based on the basic salary, which is far less attractive. Perhaps it is time for a major review of that structure so that the flexibility of working practices, which is clearly required, could be obtained.

The third point I would make on that aspect of policing is similar to the point made earlier by Deputy O'Dowd, namely, the need to examine the rostering structure. Does the timetable have to remain as it was 30, 40 or 50 years ago in light of the patterns of behaviour, particularly at week-ends. As many as 2,000 people could be in Camden Street at 3 a.m., many of whom may be obnoxious, unruly, drunk and terrifying to any young garda or couple of gardaí who may be sent to try to stop some ruckus developing into a major incident. This aspect of policing would terrify me. If there is occasional over-reaction by individual gardaí to threatening circumstances, while I do not condone it, I can certainly understand it. There is nothing more frightening than such a large crowd, particularly at that hour of the morning.

Is there a need to maintain the existing levels of rostering and patterns of deployment of gardaí, which were established in a much different time, to deal with patterns of social behaviour at week-ends, not just in Dublin but throughout the country, as Deputy O'Dowd said in regard to Drogheda and Dundalk? I do not think so. I do not know if the Bill will give the Minister and the Commissioner the power to bring about these changes. A Garda authority would have the capability to raise these issues. Perhaps in the comfort of a dialogue between it and senior Garda management, it could put forward proposals that would bring about the changes that are clearly needed.

I support Deputy Carey who praised my colleague and friend, the Labour Lord Mayor of Dublin, Michael Conaghan, for his initiative in setting up the commission on policing in Dublin and for taking the comments and submissions of people from across the city. It is a very good report which I commend to the Department, the Commissioner and the Garda Síochána. The report has many insights, some of which are not comfortable to hear. However, these are the insights we must listen to the most whatever our organisation or walk of life. Michael Conaghan and his team have done a particularly good job in putting together a report which reflects the concerns of the people of this State at the turn of the century.

There is a serious mismatch between the necessity to have good community policing and the way in which the community garda is treated by middle and senior management within the Garda force. This issue arose at a Labour parliamentary party discussion some weeks ago. For example, there is an impression that the community garda is moved on once he or she gets to know the people in their locality, that there is no accumulation of knowledge, wisdom or expertise and that the job is regarded as temporary to move in and out of on to something else. I would like to know if that is an incorrect impression. Perhaps a coherent management case could be made for a permanent section of community policing within the Garda Síochána. It would be a wider specialised group than the special detective units and others. People could make a career in community policing within the force, not necessarily moving from one set of duties to another.

The Garda Síochána will provide professional argument and statistics to disprove my next observation. The sight of gardaí on the street provides a level of comfort for many people who do not need the gardaí and are not at risk or being robbed. This is particularly true for those who feel vulnerable, which is half the population of this country. Most women feel vulnerable on frequent occasions when out on the street or on their own. Most men find this hard to hear, but I invite them to talk and listen to women. Seeing a garda on the street provides a level of comfort. It is irrelevant whether one needs the services of the garda. Seeing a fire escape in a building also provides a level of comfort, but how many people have ever had to use one? However, it is comforting to know that the provision and safeguard is there.

See this speech in context