Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

Interesting points have been raised by both Deputies. I agree with Deputy Flanagan; in a sense this is a halfway house. During the term of office of my predecessor, a doubt was raised about the validity of the appointment of peace commissioners in the Dublin area because of the tripartite division of the county and hence we have this amendment to put that issue beyond doubt. I agree with Deputy Flanagan that it is a halfway house and, in fact, I have initiated a review within the Department of the status and functions of peace commissioners.

If one looks at the 1924 Act, one will see that the original intention of it was to provide an officer who would assist the District Court in the exercise of judicial functions. At the time of the 1924 Act, the State had decided to introduce a permanent, fixed, full-time magistracy in the form of the District Court but it was recognised that there were certain judicial functions which could not easily be performed by a full-time body. The issuing of warrants, the holding of remand courts and, in those days, the signature of summonses were identified as three functions which could usefully be performed by a layperson appointed as a peace commissioner.

The Supreme Court handed down decisions some decades ago which indicated that a peace commissioner could not perform judicial functions of a criminal character. As a result of that, the former power which a peace commissioner had to conduct a court and remand a person to the next sitting of the District Court can no longer be exercised. The question of the issuing of a summons is no longer relevant with computerised technology. The issue of signing warrants has changed in the sense that, as a result of these court decisions, the peace commissioner is no longer a judicial officer whose search warrant cannot be questioned but an executive whose warrant can be subject to examination and cross examination in the court of trial in respect of which the warrant is an issue.

All of this has effected a complete change in the original conception of what a peace commissioner was supposed to do under the 1924 Act. Apart altogether from those limited judicial functions, peace commissioners exercise wide powers in regard to the authentication of documents, and that has never been in issue. Again, I have decided to review all of these matters within the Department and I will bring proposals forward in due course.

Deputies Charlie Flanagan and Brian O'Shea raised the boundary question and they make a fair point. The commissioners for Dublin are appointed for the city and the three suburban counties, an area with in excess of 1 million people, while the area of the person appointed for Waterford city and county under this system has 100,000 people. The question is why that person should not cover County Kilkenny too. If somebody sought appointment from, say, Sliabh Rua, it would seem appropriate to give him or her authority in Kilkenny and Waterford. I can examine that in practical terms and it would present no practical difficulty because one can appoint a peace commissioner to two counties.

Deputy Flanagan asked why it should not be a national appointment. In every district headquarters a list is held of the peace commissioners available to do business in that district and there is a sense in which the peace commissioner is rooted in a particular community and is a person of credit and trust in that community. The peace commissioner is not a person in full-time service of the State, therefore it is important that local link is preserved. However, I will examine that issue in the context of a general review.

See this speech in context