Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am happy to continue to the substance of this issue. When the heads of this Bill were first published, I indicated that I was in a consultative process. I abandoned the notion contained in the heads of the Bill as originally published of an inspectorate and said I would do what the Human Rights Commission asked for, which was an ombudsman function equivalent in every respect to the powers conferred on the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman. I did that.

I also provided, in a State with 26 traditional counties or 28 factual counties, that the function would be carried out by a multi-person body, which is reasonable. The strength of our police force is, in principle, twice and our population more than twice that of Northern Ireland. The functions of our police force are broader than those of a regional constabulary within the United Kingdom. As a result, I believe a one-person ombudsman is not the way forward for this State. The advantages of a multi-person ombudsman include, for example, that while the holder of the office takes holidays each year, other commissioners remain to address issues. If one falls ill or becomes preoccupied with an issue, it is possible, under the terms of this legislation, to delegate some or all functions in respect of certain matters to other members of the commission.

This proposal was put forward on Committee Stage after extensive debate by both Houses. I heard Senator Maurice Hayes, whom I deeply respect, discuss the necessity of a visible figurehead in this matter. An identifiable personality is needed in order to maximise the effectiveness of the office. Having heard that argument, I again modified the proposal and provided for the chairperson of the ombudsman to be appointed as such, to be capable of exercising day-to-day management functions and to be the visible face of the ombudsman commission. In case Deputy Costello is worried about the multi-member ombudsman commission, it is possible, even under this legislation and without accepting the amendments he will later move, for a three-person commission to vest any or all of its powers in the chairperson as it so wishes.

There are advantages in a multi-person ombudsman commission. It is the international norm. Multi-person commissions exist in Britain and in Canada. I am happy to have a multi-person commission but I accept the point made by Senator Maurice Hayes and others that a publicly identifiable individual is advantageous relative to a three-person anonymous corporate body. I provided in the amendments for that eventuality. I am not aware of and do not understand any disadvantage in the possibility that the chairperson and the two other commissioners may sort out their business amongst themselves and operate by a majority vote.

I have continued to listen and be responsive to the debate and adapted to the centre of gravity of public opinion on this issue. Other Members clung to abstract principles which have little weight in practice. The advantages which I see and have argued for in a multi-person commission chaired by a visible head are very clear. The disadvantage has been completely obviated by the creation of a chairman position with a public profile. I have gone further than half way to meet all the legitimate criticisms I heard. I will not go 100% of the way by agreeing that what suits Northern Ireland, which is a small part of these islands, must of necessity suit the South. I find it ironic that Sinn Féin spokespersons argue this aspect of Northern Ireland's policing is the only model we must have, when they regard many other aspects of the policing system there as repugnant and with which they continue to argue about and cavil.

The ombudsman commission which we have put forward, albeit a three-person commission, has more powers than the ombudsman in Northern Ireland. The only qualification in this legislation to the power of the ombudsman which does not apply in Northern Ireland is the power of the Minister to designate intelligence files that are not available for inspection by members of the ombudsman commission as of right but are available on conditional agreement with the Minister. The only reason for this is to mirror the fact, not the fantasy, that intelligence files of the United Kingdom are not available at all to the ombudsman in Northern Ireland. They are simply out of bounds. Instead of saying they are out of bounds in this State, I have provided for their availability, subject to conditionalities based on the security interests of the State.

I am not aware of any sovereign state — it is important to remember this is a sovereign State — that would allow an independent person employing non-citizens to walk into any place containing the state's innermost secrets and to inspect them at random. I know of no country which would agree to that proposition. I will not regard this State as second class or a province of elsewhere. This State is entitled to have a security system equivalent, in so far as we can make it, to that of any other sovereign state.

I want to make one further point. During the course of the day the Labour Party suggested that the amendments I put before the House are designed to allow the Government or me as Minister to see any file I like anywhere and on any occasion for good purpose or for bad, and that is unacceptable. I make it clear that I have not and will not propose this. The press statement the Labour Party issued suggests that these amendments will allow unfettered power to inspect every file, including files concerning Oireachtas Members, our relatives and our political colleagues to my successor or me. Nothing could be further from the truth.

See this speech in context