Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 123:

In page 38, line 43, after "Minister" to insert the following:

"following ratification of the nomination by both Houses of the Oireachtas".

This amendment seeks to give democratic legitimacy to the nominees. The Minister said he does not want to have a US Senate style inquiry. That is a fair point, but it would strengthen the position of the nominees if they were subject to ratification in the Dáil. I do not envisage it being a scrutiny because if there were anything that would debar the nominees from membership, it would come to light in due course. It would be proper if the nominees were given the democratic authority of the House with regard to their role.

I listened with interest to the structural changes suggested by the Minister. Perhaps he would send me a paper or a couple of paragraphs on how he envisages this working. He mentioned it in a reply to a parliamentary question about our model, which is the Garda authority. I would like to examine his proposal and he might afford me the courtesy of sending me a paper on the structure he envisages, the role of these individuals and how they would make an impact. There is a crying need for the structures that exist, which date from the 1920s, to be reformed.

There are two power points in the current structure, the Minister and the Garda Commissioner. The Minister is not responsible for operational duties. He has been accused of directly running the show from St. Stephen's Green but, in truth, he does not. The operational decisions are made by the Garda Commissioner, who is not subject to democratic scrutiny for operational matters. If one tables a parliamentary question about an operational matter, one will be told that it is a matter for the Garda Commissioner and the Minister has no responsibility for it.

Somebody needs to move that forward for the 21st century, where there is an agreed democratic plan and an accounting role. The Garda Commissioner is the Accounting Officer. Will his degree of accountability, even before the justice committee or the new security committee envisaged by the Minister, which I wish to see explained in plain writing, include being open to scrutiny with regard to operational decisions or will it simply be for moneys spent and value for money? A careful line must be drawn in this regard. It would be disastrous if either the Minister or the Oireachtas tried to micromanage the operational duties of the Garda. I would not support such a course.

For that reason, and having given great consideration to the matter, I am wedded to the concept of a democratic Garda authority giving general guidelines in terms of policing plans and objectives and objectively setting the resource and manpower needs within the democratically determined work programme. This would be mirrored at local level by the local policing committees which would devise local policing plans. The plans for Kilmuckridge in my constituency, for example, would be different from the plans for Darndale, while those for parts of Limerick city would be different from those for rural Connemara. After years of my knocking on its door, there is the beginning of an agreement in the House that the Garda Síochána needs to change structurally and that the current structure is not working.

We will not have time to deal with those matters today and I do not propose that the Minister read his views into the record of the House today, but he might send them to me over the break. I am happy that this is a step in the right direction, but I am anxious in the 40 or so minutes left to us to get on to the next sections of this Bill.

I do not say this to underplay my concern and belief that the structures and management of the Garda Síochána are principal issues in determining its effectiveness.

See this speech in context