Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

I welcome this timely and necessary Bill. I have full confidence in the members of the Garda Síochána. As a person who has been in public life since 1995, my experience, virtually at all times, has been that the gardaí whom I have met in the discharge of my duties have acted with diligence and integrity, on many occasions, to their own detriment. We are lucky to have men and women of the highest calibre in the Garda. The question which arises, however, is not the integrity, general ability and dedication of individual members of the Garda Síochána but the management, direction, policy, philosophy and effectiveness of the force as an organisation. We must make this distinction.

There are caveats to my first statement. As with all sections of society, not all gardaí have covered themselves in glory. In every walk of life, there will always be people who do not adhere to the highest standards. Like many others, I read the first interim report of the Morris tribunal which deals with the explosives module. It opens one's eyes to learn that in one part of our island Garda practices were not of the highest standard.

I commend Mr. Justice Morris for the excellent work he is doing. The position in which Mr. McBrearty finds himself demands attention. Although I am not necessarily calling for a precedent to be made in his case, the House must recognise that the McBrearty module is the cornerstone of the Morris tribunal, which will find it difficult to continue with the level of probative excellence required, evident in the explosives module, unless Mr. McBrearty is provided with proper legal representation. I understand the position in which the Minister finds himself and I am aware the matter has been the subject of a High Court decision. For this reason, I do not wish to be pre-emptive as there may be good policy reasons for the Government's inability to assist Mr. McBrearty at this stage.

Nevertheless, some mechanism must be found to address the issue because if the current module of the tribunal were to continue without proper representation for Mr. McBrearty, questions regarding the fairness of its hearings could well arise under the European Convention of Human Rights. I do not wish to interfere in the process. Mr. Justice Morris is doing a good job and is constrained by the fact that he must implement the law. While we must respect the decision of the High Court, the Government needs to closely examine this matter. I apologise for digressing but debate on legislation on the Garda Síochána is an appropriate forum for placing on record my views on the matter.

While the vast majority of members of the Garda Síochána are of outstanding integrity, the force as a whole and its effectiveness, training and so forth need to be scrutinised. When the spotlight has been placed on the Garda, it has been found wanting in several areas and continues to face major challenges. In recent days, for example, several Deputies have raised the issue of anti-social behaviour, about which, as a Deputy, former councillor and Lord Mayor of Dublin, I am well aware. In addition, the Garda must contend with organised crime, white collar crime, international drug and people trafficking gangs and crime cartels. It is not equipped, trained, organised or engineered to face up to these challenges with the same degree of professionalism as the criminals and must go further in pursuing a vision of excellence. I welcome the legislation in so far as it will advance this process.

While the Bill contains several important features, sections 11 and 13 on the appointment of the Garda Commissioner are critical. The Commissioner should be appointed by the Government and, with his or her assistant commissioners, held ultimately responsible to the Government because it is responsible to the House. I do not believe in establishing immutable quangos with no responsibility to anybody, including this House, as we have seen in other sectors.

I ask that consideration be given to establishing a policing board or authority. Why is such provision missing from the Bill, given that the need for a policing board has been recognised in Northern Ireland? Why do we not have a board of seven or 11 people, even on a consultative or advisory basis, who could reflect minority interests, the urban-rural divide or gender divisions? Such a board, consisting of people from different backgrounds, could consult, advise, monitor and assist the Garda Commissioner and his staff. Without some form of board or authority, the Commissioner acts on his or her own. The Minister, the Commissioner and then the Garda Síochána operate a kind of vertical transmission of power and authority without, for want of a better phrase, any horizontal involvement by the stakeholders in society. This is missing from the Bill. Perhaps the Minister might consider the insertion on Committee Stage of some form of advisory or consultative board for the Commissioner, much as the RTE authority assists the director-general of RTE. Such a board should not become part of the chain of command, but should be there to be of assistance.

I strongly support the idea of volunteer members. I am glad to see the new idea of joint policing committees and the involvement of local authorities. Since the foundation of the State, this has been the biggest gap in our policing. This was not always the case and if one looks back to the 18th and 19th centuries, one sees much greater involvement by local communities with magistrates and local policing. For some reason, when we adopted our model in the 1920s and 1930s, all local involvement was eradicated. As an aside, we also had real meaningful local involvement in the health sector, in local health committees until they were abolished in the 1970s. At present, we again see the evolution of a superstructure system without the real involvement of local communities. I welcome the section which will involve local authorities. Local authority members are in the best position of anyone to know what is happening in local authority estates. Councillors are the people who genuinely know what is going on at street level. It will be of enormous benefit to have them, along with officials from the county, city and urban councils, politicians and police officers sitting together.

Section 41 is very important. It pertains to the liability of members of the Garda Síochána while performing their duty. I am not certain that this is covered by the Bill. I do not believe that the Garda Síochána should be fettered in the performance of its duties. It would be a bad day if every time a garda lifts his or her baton or tries to move someone on, he or she would be amenable to being sued or complained against. There is a danger that we will reduce the Garda to an inefficient force that is afraid to assert itself. Sometimes the Garda Síochána has been afraid to assert itself to the correct degree. Naturally, if an individual garda breaks the law, he or she must be amenable to the law. The Garda Síochána is not above the law and gardaí must work within it. That said, there is a very fine balance between doing so and the avoidance of fettering or restraining the Garda Síochána If one crosses that line, one might end up with an ineffective Garda force. I am somewhat concerned that this is not covered by section 41 of the Bill.

The Garda Síochána ombudsman commission is cental to this legislation. It is overdue and has been relatively well drafted in the Bill. I applaud the fact that no past or serving member of the Garda Síochána can be a member of the commission. It is important that the commission should be an independent body that will exercise its powers independently of the Garda Síochána. The power of search of Garda stations is too cumbersome. The idea of being obliged to give notice to the Garda Commissioner and the Minister rules out the possibility of emergency raids on Garda stations where bad things might be happening. Given the subject matter of the Morris tribunal, it appears they were. There must be a facility whereby the Garda ombudsman commission can enter a Garda premises quickly in an unfettered way without providing the Garda station with advance notice. This facility is available elsewhere in that the High Court can order what is known as a quia tenet injunction or an Anton Pillar order to search a premises. The European Commission has the power to do so under the competition rules. European Commission officials can enter any business in the State under EU competition rules. Why must a Garda station be sacrosanct and above this sort of examination? I agree that such searches should only be carried out in exceptional cases.

Section 105 pertains to the proposed Garda Síochána inspectorate. In general, this section is too weak and needs to be beefed up. There are only a few paragraphs on the matter. It does not appear to take the idea of an inspectorate seriously. An inspectorate is an essential part of any large organisation, leaving aside the Garda Síochána. It is very important in terms of keeping up standards within a force or 12,000 or 14,000 officers.

In a general sense, I welcome this Bill and its main thrust. We need an efficient workmanlike Garda Síochána which is fully equipped to meet the crime and public order challenges of the 21st century. We do not need the Garda Síochána to be constrained, shackled or fettered. It should be able to go about its business without fear or favour and without the fear of being sued over the slightest matter. Gardaí should not be subject to frivolous or vexatious complaints and I notice that this is one of the grounds on which complaints may be overruled. However, where gardaí transgress, they must be amenable to the law and of all the sections in the Bill, the ombudsman commission is particularly important. This will go a long way to restoring public confidence in the Garda which, on an individual basis, is very much deserved. It contains some of the finest public servants in the country.

See this speech in context