Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

My colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, stated Sinn Féin's view of the existing case for fundamental Garda reform and welcomed on behalf of our party the opportunity to comment on this long-overdue, if flawed, Garda reform legislation. Deputy Crowe addressed the need to replace the Minister's proposed ombudsman commission with a single Garda ombudsman with equal powers to that in the Six Counties in keeping with the Good Friday Agreement strand three commitments to equivalence in human rights protections between both jurisdictions. Deputy Ferris reviewed the shortcomings of the Minister's proposed Garda inspectorate in Part 5 of the Bill and argued the need to establish a policing board for civilian management oversight, also equivalent to that proposed for the Six Counties under the Patten reforms.

I propose to deal exclusively with the Minister's proposal to establish joint policing committees as set out in Part 2, Chapter 4, sections 30 to 34, which deals with co-operation with local authorities and arrangements for obtaining the views of the public. If we want the policing service in this State to rank among the best in the world, and why would we not, it is essential that it is made accountable to the local communities it serves and works in partnership with them. It is that simple. The Sinn Féin proposals for the establishment of community policing partnerships at district level are the fundamental linchpin in our Garda reform package. It is this element on which the objective of restoring confidence in the Garda will either succeed or fail.

I do not overstate the case. One can see from the extensive response from across the State to the recent call of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for submissions on community policing and the similar response to the earlier Lord Mayor of Dublin's commission on crime. Our party was represented on that commission by the Sinn Féin councillor, Christy Burke, and Dublin Sinn Féin made its own submission. While not all our recommendations were adopted exactly as submitted, I welcome that Sinn Féin's influence is evident in the commission's conclusions.

Deputies on all sides of this House know too well the widespread concerns about street violence, drug-related crime and anti-social behaviour that is not criminal but disruptive. People feel vulnerable in their homes and communities. This is not right. Everyone should have an equal right to security and this should not be dependent on one's wealth or social status. People deserve to rely on the Garda for assistance and protection. However, the reality is that very many, particularly in working class housing estates, do not even bother to report now because they believe that help will not be forthcoming. That is an indictment of the present situation and this legislation must contribute to changing it. A significant lack of policing obtains in working class estates, particularly in my constituency. I negotiated with the local superintendent to try to have additional foot patrols rather than just a motorised presence in these areas. We had a measure of success for a short while, but unfortunately all of that ended. There is also a significant unacceptable response from the gardaí when they are called. For example, I have had many representations from constituents who phoned the Garda who complained that it took up to two hours for a garda to arrive. In some cases there were four or five hours of a delay and on a few occasions there was no response at all. That is most unacceptable. It is a problem that simply must be resolved.

I have an interesting example of a large public housing estate where there were Garda patrols for a short while. We were trying to negotiate with the superintendent to resolve some of the policing issues. In fairness, he responded somewhat in terms of sending people along to meetings of community groups and residents associations to try to discover the issues first-hand. Apparently, however, he did not stick with that, whether because of the manpower shortages, as he claims, or whatever. Let us contrast that scenario with a recent incident where some youths from the estate threw stones at motorists on a nearby roadway. The Garda response was swift and they offered a solution to the problem. They suggested that they would erect a large fence around this significant housing scheme of 800 houses. Is that collective internment? Is that Guantanamo Bay? Is that a proper solution in such circumstances? It is not. That is a ridiculous response, altogether.

Again, in a number of these housing estates there is the whole issue surrounding youths standing about drinking alcohol at corners or on the green areas. Now it is illegal to do that. Legislation and by-laws from the local authority are in place and yet the gardaí do not confiscate the drink from the youths. I can understand this when it gets late into the night because it would create a riot at that point. However, one patrol car earlier on in the late afternoon or early evening, with proper manpower to confiscate the drink from the youths at that stage, would obviate the need for four patrol cars coming out in the middle of the night to try to deal with the consequences of the binge drinking that had been going on all day. There is also an issue as regards shops being permitted to sell alcohol. In areas such as this not many shops sell alcohol and it is quite easy to identify them and to whom they are selling. Unfortunately, as well as the major social issue involving the shop owners, there is a policing issue, too, to be tackled.

Every village and town in the State knows only too well about the whole issue of drugs. In most of these communities we know who the drug dealers are. I do not expect the Garda to intern them but why do they not look for evidence? The public at large sees what is going on and a significant number of people are more than willing to co-operate with the Garda in terms of ending the scourge of drug dealing, particularly in large working class areas, and everywhere else as well. The problem is in every town and village and yet it is not being dealt with. My constituents regularly ask me "why?" Truthfully, I cannot tell them why there is not a far greater crackdown on that type of activity.

What is the best way to respond to this crisis in confidence to ensure that the security needs of communities are met and that the resources the taxpayer pays into the policing service are spent in a responsible and effective way? I submit that it is not the Minister's ill-conceived anti-social behaviour orders nor his proposed extension of Garda powers, but the proper, accountable use of existing powers and crime prevention through adequate social investment, appropriate deployment of Garda resources, and the fostering of local community co-operation on policing matters that will make a difference. Certainly the community is up for it. Above all, this must be founded on a relationship of accountability and mutual trust, established at the most basic level of all, the beat level.

Sinn Féin therefore recommends the establishment on a statutory basis of community policing partnerships, CPPs, at Garda district level throughout the State to increase Garda transparency, to promote community trust and co-operation, and to hold the gardaí fully to account to the people they serve. The relationship of accountability between district superintendent and such community-policing partnerships should be analogous to the relationship we propose between the Commissioner and policing board. In this way, the community-policing partnership would have a liaison role between the district commander and the local community, and thereby become a mechanism for both community accountability and co-operation.

We propose that each local authority should establish community-policing partnerships, one per policing district, as committees of the council, on the following basis. The local authority should elect their members. The nomination process should be transparent and based on published criteria. As with the proposed policing board, the final composition should be one third elected representatives — of a cross-party nature — one third representatives from local statutory agencies, and one third from the local community and voluntary sector. Each component group should comprise at least 50% women and, with a view to increasing diversity and representation, reflect as fully as possible the actual composition of the communities in the district in terms of class, ethnicity, etc.

There should be monthly public meetings between the community policing partnership and the district superintendent, at which he or she should present reports and answer questions. The CPP members in turn should have the opportunity and responsibility to reflect community concerns and priorities, and to make recommendations. There should also be a mechanism for members of the public to address questions to the superintendent at the public meetings, through the CPP chairperson. The superintendent should be required to take CPP views into account when formulating or implementing policing plans and strategies for the district.

It is crucial that these community policing partnerships are based on an equal partnership approach between police and community. Their powers should not be unnecessarily limited. Appointments to the partnerships must be open to all without discrimination. They should be obliged by law to meet in public. They should provide a forum for public consultation at district level on annual policing plans. To improve transparency and public confidence, the Garda should make all requested information available for public scrutiny unless the CPP agrees that it is clearly in the public interest — not just police interest — to withhold such information. There should also be a requirement on Garda command to give after-the-fact explanations for actions of gardaí. Each CPP should publish an annual report, including recommendations, to which the Garda Commissioner should be required to have due regard in the operational management of the service. The Minister should also be required to take notice of CPP recommendations in the formulation of policy for which he or she has responsibility.

While the local policing forums that have been piloted in some areas of Dublin are a welcome step, they do not provide the right model for community accountability as they are not based on equal partnership. Existing policing forums should be converted into the new community-policing partnerships.

I welcome the Minister's recognition by inclusion of the provisions at Part 2, Chapter 4 that there needs to be some level of local involvement in policing matters. I acknowledge that he seems to have taken several of our recommendations on board, although he has diluted them. However, while the Minister's proposals on enhanced co-operation between local authorities and the Garda represent an improvement on the present situation, they do not meet the same standards of transparency and local democratic control and accountability as the community policing partnerships Sinn Féin proposed. The newly proposed joint policing committees still do not get it right.

Section 31 gives the Minister ultimate discretion in the establishment and composition of the committees. It also gives him the ultimate say on when they will meet in public and in camera. Section 32 prevents them from considering specific investigations or matters of public security. There is no provision requiring the Garda Commissioner or the Minister to take account of their views and recommendations.

Section 34 confers on the Minister ultimate control over any arrangement for obtaining the views of the public on policing. It is not the right formula to establish the committees at local authority level, with the establishment of more local community policing fora only as an option. It remains too centralised. Local accountability and community co-operation mechanisms must coincide with the structures of the Garda Síochána which often bear no relation to the local electoral area. Likewise, the Sinn Féin Party rejects the division level as too distant to allow proper democratic control.

The Minister's proposed model has also been criticised by the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. In their view the provisions of Part 2, Chapter 4 are too narrow in function and membership to put in place a community policing model. They argue the Bill does not allow for direct community input into policing priorities. Both have also complained that the committees proposed by the Minister will have no role in monitoring Garda performance or the protection of civil liberties. They point out that, whereas a proper community policing forum represents the community, the Bill only provides for local councillors to sit on the joint policing committees. The Irish Human Rights Commission has called for specific provisions on representation with the involvement of groups in communities with particular policing needs or which experience high levels of contact with the Garda. The commission has also called on the Minister to ensure these provisions are at least equivalent to those provided for in the Six Counties.

The Sinn Féin Party shares these concerns which will be addressed by our counter proposals. In view of the Minister's relative openness to strengthening his proposals for Garda reform, I hope he will accept our party's constructive amendments to strengthen the local democratic control and co-operation aspects of the proposed legislation. This will be necessary if our party is to support the Garda Síochána Bill.

See this speech in context