Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

In supporting this amendment, I remind Members that the office of the police ombudsman in the North was established under the Good Friday Agreement. In this context, I ask whether the Minister's opposition to a similar office here means he is now opposed to the Agreement? I would appreciate clarification on this point. If the office of the ombudsman as established in the North under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement is good enough for the people there, why is it not good enough for the people of this State? It should be established here on exactly the same terms as it has been established in the North where, though only in its infancy, it has proved to work well.

One of the main reasons for the establishment of an ombudsman's office is for the purposes of investigation. The recent publication of the second report of the Morris tribunal indicates that such investigative powers are needed. We hear much talk in the media, in this House and elsewhere about the significant number of decent gardaí. I accept that readily and offer no challenge to the contention that substantial numbers of gardaí are decent and honourable people.

Such gardaí must also be protected and an ombudsman's office with full investigative powers is the best way of offering that protection. Rather then window-dressing and trying to delude ourselves in terms of duplication within this office, why not deal with the issue once and for all as has been done elsewhere on this island? It is somewhat strong to say the Northern Ireland model is perfect but it is certainly an excellent example.

The ombudsman's office should be empowered to investigate the use of resources in a general sense. For example, how can one justify the deployment of four detectives to monitor an Easter commemoration for two IRA volunteers shot dead by the Black and Tans in 1920? The attendees at this commemoration ceremony numbered between 18 and 28 and were all local people from a small community area in one section of Dundalk. This gathering warranted the attention of four gardaí in a car.

There is no sense in this. An ombudsman's office should be able to investigate on foot of a complaint into such gross misuses of resources as occurred in this instance. There are countless other past examples in terms of journalists' telephones being bugged and all types of other shenanigans that have gone on in this State for long enough. If there is anything to be said for the decent and honourable gardaí it is that they should be protected. They are entitled to the best protection possible through the establishment of a proper ombudsman's office with singular responsibility in terms of where the buck stops.

There may be some improvement in terms of the identification of one person of the proposed trio with more power than the others. The original suggestion involving a type of committee without a head was absolutely ludicrous and would seem impossible to operate. It was a daft proposal. The new regime proposed by the Minister represents a slight improvement but it falls way short of what he knows would best suit the needs of this State and of the Garda, which protects the citizens of the State. It is not too late for him to change his mind on this and we will not think any worse of him for doing so — it could be argued that there are some who could not think much worse of him anyway.

If the Minister is to represent his office, the Garda and the best interests of the people of this State, if not this island, this is his chance to deal with the ombudsman's office once and for all in the proper way. I commend the amendment.

See this speech in context