Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Correct. He was supposed to chase around his patch making sure these noxious weeds were not present. That is a statutory function the police had under that legislation. The mere fact that one may find chasing ragwort around fields difficult to reconcile with section 7(1) does not mean gardaí no longer have that function. That is what this section does. We do not want a situation where a garda exercises some power under the Musk Rats Act or the Noxious Weeds Act, and a clever lawyer asks in court how this is compatible with section 7 of the Garda Síochána Act. Since the Garda Síochána Bill comes after previous legislation the clever lawyer might argue its effect was to wipe out areas of competence for the Garda Síochána existing under common law or statute. That is what we are trying to prevent. Deputy Costello's amendment is implying that no power under any statute, such as the Noxious Weeds Act, will survive this unless it is compatible with section 7(1). We do not want to go down that road.

One of the things we try to avoid in this House is unintended consequence. I do not want a situation where some clever young lawyer will announce that a whole collection of law has become unenforceable because it cannot easily be tied into the objectives set out in section 7(1).

I will give the Deputy an example of the common law power of the police. There is plenty of case law, in the UK at any rate, that the police have as part of their common law powers. They have the power to take pre-emptive action to stop a breach of the peace or to stop hunters. In order to stop things getting out of control the police can intervene in a pre-emptive way. These are a constable's common-law powers, similar to what the Garda Síochána have under our system. I do not want that to be obliterated on the afternoon of 23 June 2005 in the Dáil by our setting out functions for gardaí that do not seem to uphold that power.

See this speech in context