Dáil debates

Thursday, 21 April 2005

Garda Síochána Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

 

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

11:00 am

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few remarks on the Bill. As the House will know, serious questions have been posed of the Garda Síochána recently. These have ranged from harsh criticism by Mr. Justice Morris of misbehaviour and mismanagement by certain gardaí in Donegal to the failure to tackle the spread of drugs nationwide, declining crime prevention and detection rates and a rising clamour of public discontent about Garda professionalism and commitment.

I speak as someone who is representative of a generation which has great respect for the Garda Síochána and the many dedicated men and women in the force, especially the Garda Commissioner whom I hold in high regard. The time has long since come, however, for a root and branch review of the culture, role, structures and operations of the Garda. In the context of this need, the publication of the Bill, which broadly I support, represents a missed opportunity. I am also doubtful if Garda management has the training and skills to deploy professionally and efficiently Garda resources to best effect. The snail-like pace of the civilianisation programme is not a cause for confidence. I quote Mr. Denis Bradley, vice-chairman of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, who said while giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights just a few days ago that he would not start from the point at which the Bill did if the aim were to go where he thought it should.

Mr. Bradley made a number of important points in his analysis of the Bill which are worth repeating due to his experience and expertise. He lamented the absence of a police authority between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the appointment of the Commissioner and senior Garda officers. He pointed out that the Conroy report, which dates back to 1968, made such a recommendation. He stressed the importance of establishing a political but independent group of people to act together to make senior appointments to maintain a distance between Government and the police. He referred in particular to our tendency to adopt "a terrible centralism" in which power is centralised, hierarchical and mostly male. No organisations in the world are more centralist, hierarchical and male than police services in which most decisions are taken at the top or in the centre and in which those in charge seldom devolve power if they can avoid doing so. According to Mr. Bradley, if power is not devolved within police structures and through civilian involvement and engagement as well as through oversight of policing, the police will remain centralist and very distant from the community.

The need for a Garda authority and effective liaison at local level are connected issues. If provided, both would serve the imperative to move from a centrally directed service to one which is not only aware of and responsive to the needs of the community it serves but accountable to it. Community policing is not achievable unless there is community oversight.

Two years ago the police in Northern Ireland drew up a document entitled Policing the Community in Northern Ireland. It emphasised that what is needed is a cultural change within policing itself. Such change should take into account, in the words of Ronnie Flanagan, that "policing is too big to be left to the police themselves". If the community is not formally engaged with and does not have an ownership stake in policing, there is a danger of complete alienation between the police and the majority of citizens.

Mr. Bradley's final point was to remark on the tendency to debate the respective merits of effective policing, judged by a police force's own performance indicators and other criteria, and the sort of policing the community wants. He stated:

Senior police officers will tell one that what the community wants is not effective policing. They will say, for example, that patrols on the street do not deliver effective policing. They will say that there are better and more professional ways of policing. The community, on the other hand, will say they want police officers walking the street and there is this supposed clash.

The reality is that these are not polar opposites. Both sides are right, but the police and the community are looking for two different things. The police officer wants effective policing and he is right in saying the man or woman on the beat does not provide this. The person who lives on the street, however, who wants gardaí on the beat is also right because what he or she is talking about is the fear of crime. In other words, police can be very effective and professional in what they do but they must also meet the needs of people, much of it through new and effective community policing.

Five years ago my colleague, Deputy Howlin, published the Labour Party's proposals for a Garda authority and Garda ombudsman. At that time we said that dissatisfaction with the structures under which the Garda Síochána operates exists and must be acknowledged. Dissatisfaction relates to the extent to which the force responds, is seen to respond and is capable of responding to legitimate community concerns. It includes widespread unhappiness with the working of the Garda complaints board and the adequacy of its governing legislation. It extends to the manner in which the force dealt with controversies such as the McBrearty, Carthy and Dean Lyons cases. This situation poses challenges to effective policing in Ireland. The challenge must be met head on.

Confidence in effective, efficient and accountable policing is a critical component of any normal democratic society where the rule of law prevails. That is why, for example, the reforms of the police force in Northern Ireland proposed in the Patten report were so central to the peace process there. Of the Patten proposals only seven or eight were in any way controversial. The rest, and there were 175 in total, were regarded as sensible and practicable. While we in the Republic of Ireland were keen to press upon politicians in Northern Ireland the importance of the Patten proposals, we have been slow to realise that if implemented, they will put policing in Northern Ireland on a much more modern footing than that of the Garda Síochána.

It is time we established an independent commission on policing in Ireland. It should be similar to the independent commission on policing which was set up under the Good Friday Agreement in 1999 to create, in the words of the Agreement, "a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole" The terms of reference of the commission would require the identification and the setting up of new structures to ensure accountability, independent scrutiny and, above all, partnership with the community. Its methodology would involve a comprehensive consultative process. A wide-ranging public debate on policing in the 21st century should be initiated. The commission would take that debate to the highways and byways of the country. It would engage communities in local parish halls the length and breadth of Ireland. Equally, those professionally involved in policing practice and theory, including the Garda itself, would be consulted and best international practice would be ascertained.

The findings of the Patten commission constitute a valuable resource and reservoir of methodology and material that can be drawn from and adapted. The Patten commission was given 12 months to conduct its work. The new commission could complete its work in six to nine months. It is crucial that the process is comprehensive and inclusive. A lasting new police culture of service can only be delivered if a strong sense of participation, responsibility and ownership is engendered through the consultative process.

It is the Labour Party view that there is need for a Garda authority to oversee the operation of the Garda Síochána at national level, to set objectives and priorities, adopt policing strategies and annual plans with the Garda Commissioner, conduct interviews and make promotional appraisals, negotiate the annual policing budget with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, monitor and evaluate Garda performance and produce an annual report for the Minister. The Garda authority would be answerable to and would appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and the Committee of Public Accounts as required.

The Government has rejected the proposal for a new Garda authority made up of individuals representative of the community as a whole. Such an authority would have introduced public accountability into the operations of the force. The lack of such an authority to act as a bulwark between the Commissioner and the Government means that there will continue to be an inappropriate degree of political interference in senior Garda appointments at every level above those of Garda, sergeant and inspector. The failure to legislate for a Garda authority represents another missed opportunity. I thought this Minister might have taken that courageous step.

The relationship between the Minister and the Garda Síochána is being placed on a formal if not an entirely open and transparent basis. The Commissioner will have direction and control of the force, will be Accounting Officer for the Garda Vote and will have power to enter into contracts. He will be accountable to the Minister for his functions. The Minister may issue written directives "concerning any matter relating to the Garda Síochána", but the directives must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Section 22 envisages that the contents of a directive might be kept secret and the fact that it had been made would be disclosed instead. That information of itself would be inadequate.

It goes without saying that a police force which is constituted to serve the people should be accountable to the people. Therefore, the discredited in-house Garda complaints machinery should be dismantled immediately. In saying that, I do not reflect in any way on the excellent people who work for the board. An independent Garda ombudsman should be established to ensure that Garda behaviour in the course of duty is above reproach at all times.

As the name suggests, the Bill provides for a compromise, a half-way house proposal. On the one hand, the three member commission is to be appointed on the nomination of both Houses and can only be removed by joint resolution of the Houses. Its independence is guaranteed. It will have power to conduct investigations on its own initiative and examine and report on Garda policies, practices and procedures, even if the conduct of individual members is not culpable. When investigating complaints that may involve offences, its officers' powers will include, "powers of entry, search, seizure and arrest" of gardaí.

On the other hand, while the ombudsman commission will have power to appoint its own staff and will inherit the staff of the former Garda complaints board, it will also have power to engage the temporary services of serving members of the Garda Síochána. Those members' service as officers of the ombudsman commission will count as continuing service in the Garda Síochána for purposes such as pension, seniority and promotion. These seconded officers will have power to act as investigating officers in regard to complaints against their past, and future, colleagues. That is a mistake. This enabling provision, set out in section 66, has the potential to undermine the real and perceived independence of the commission. It should be abandoned and removed from the Bill. I hope the Minister will agree to do that on Committee Stage.

On receipt of a valid complaint, the initial step of obtaining and preserving all relevant evidence is entrusted under section 81 to members of the Garda. This function should instead be vested in the officers of the ombudsman commission. In the absence of a complaint, by or on behalf of a specific and identified individual who claims to have been directly affected by the conduct to be investigated, the commission has no power to investigate a matter if it suspects a garda may have committed a criminal offence or breached discipline.

Chapter 4 of the Bill, dealing with co-operation between the force and local authorities and with arrangements for obtaining the views of the public, is welcome as a considerable strengthening of the Minister's original two short sentences in the general scheme. It goes a long way towards the Labour Party's proposals for policing liaison committees, which were in turn drawn from the Patten report. Those important sectors of the Garda Síochána which specifically relate to working with the people in a community context, namely, community policing and neighbourhood watch, remain the "cinderellas" of the Garda, decades after their establishment. They are under-resourced, understaffed and underpromoted. There is no career structure in community policing and, as Denis Bradley pointed out:

Culturally, they are seen to be less effective as police officers. They lose part of their status because they are seen as the soft side of policing rather than the effective side.

It is a tragedy that this mindset persists within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

I do not believe that the Department officials, dedicated and diligent as they are, appreciate the extent of the anti-social behaviour phenomenon that is ravaging so many of our communities. I appreciate that it is not as major an issue in the middle class areas in which those of us who inhabit this House and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, mainly, live. However, in large tracts of Ireland, not only urban Ireland, this is the single greatest issue affecting very many neighbourhoods and communities, where there is a virtual breakdown of the fabric of society. The amount of resources being put into community policing is entirely inadequate.

The strategic approach to community policing is inconsistent and, as Denis Bradley said, culturally the gardaí are less effective as police officers. They lose part of their status because they are seen as the soft side of policing rather than the effective side, but nothing could be further from the truth. Where the community policing experiment works and is deployed to effect by the Garda authorities, it is a tremendous success. Local communities are deeply indebted to the small number of community gardaí, men and women, in their areas and they have the highest respect and value for the work they do.

However, there does not seem to be an appreciation of the extent to which these communities are under siege. I have raised on a number of occasions in the House the plight of old people, men and women living alone, people who are different and immigrants targeted for persecution and harassment by young thugs out of control. This reflects the breakdown of parental responsibility. In some cases the parents are more dysfunctional than those who are marauding, joyriding and terrorising local communities, and it is not being dealt with. The areas are not being policed. The community allocation is inadequate.

In the early stages of this Bill's preparation I raised with the Minister the desirability of police liaison committees at local authority level. He has acknowledged that and I thank him for enshrining it in the legislation. It needs, perhaps, to be adapted to the metropolitan area to have regard for complexity of policing, population densities and so on, but it is a good initiative. I have no doubt, however, that unless the police liaison committees are established and required to answer in front of the media in county council chambers, where the work is monitored and assessed over a period, this issue of anti-social behaviour will come back again and again. The Minister and his Departmental should tackle it now and the deployment of resources for community policing ought to be addressed.

It is the Labour Party view that community policing requires new structures to be anchored at local level to be effective. These structures must reflect a partnership between the police and the community. Local government administered by local authority officials and local public representatives is the obvious choice of location for new partnership structures. Local government requires co-operation at a far more immediate level than one single policing committee to deal with, Fingal County Council, for example, which covers an area of approximately 173 square miles and has a population of almost 170,000.

Section 32 allows for a joint policing committee in respect of each of the 29 counties, five cities and 80 towns. However, major metropolitan suburbs are ignored and this should be looked at again. A strategic policy committee based on the county council or county borough would bring together the local public representatives, local authority officials, senior gardaí, representatives of State agencies and community and business interests. Together and in consultation with the new Garda authority they would prepare a county or city policing plan. Second, a smaller area committee would prepare an area policing plan. This policing plan would be agreed by local public representatives, the senior officer from each Garda station, community and business interests and local authority officials for the area. It would be approved by the Garda authority.

The community policing forum would be the basic unit of interface between the public and the Garda. It could operate within a geographical remit of one Garda station or more, or a local electoral area or part thereof. Local needs would determine time and place. It would be a forum for public representatives, local Garda officers, resident associations, community groups, members of the public and local authority officials to assemble in committee or in open forum as circumstances warrant. Residents could articulate their concerns, observations and experiences of crime in their communities. Crimes against the person, alcohol and drug abuse, crimes against property, vandalism and anti-social behaviour would be discussed and noted. Factors giving rise to these criminal activities and strategies to tackle them would be identified. Allocation of policing work would be agreed within the forum. In some instances the local authority would be asked to take action through such means as improved lighting, extinguishment of rights of way over laneways and warnings or eviction of tenants.

An independent co-ordinator would liaise with the Garda, the local authority and the community and business groups to ensure that agreed policing and other delegated work was carried out and that the various groups and individuals were kept informed of progress on a regular basis.

The intention behind the Bill is to repeal all the Garda Síochána Acts, other than those dealing with Garda compensation and the acquisition of premises. The Bill provides that the existing force will continue in being and, for the first time, sets out its statutory functions. It provides, however, that nothing in the Bill affects the common law powers, immunities, privileges and duties of members of the Garda Síochána. This naturally raises the question as to what exactly is the status of an individual member of the force at common law.

Is a member of the Garda Síochána a constable, enjoying common law powers and immunities? The word "constable" has never been used in any of the Garda Síochána Acts. If the member has common law powers, is he or she subject to control in their exercise? Is the Commissioner, the Minister or the State liable for their wrongful exercise? Indeed, when statutory powers are conferred on a member of the force, are they exercisable by him or her at personal discretion, as an individual garda, or is the member subject to the direction and control of superior officers, as a member of the Garda Síochána? If a superior directs a member to arrest someone and he or she does not personally have any grounds for suspecting that the individual is guilty of an offence, is the arrest lawful? This is a fundamentally important question. The answer is uncertain and is at present the subject of a Supreme Court appeal. It is regrettable the Minister did not take the opportunity to provide clarification.

Section 41 provides that the State is civilly liable for the actionable wrongs committed by individual gardaí "in the course of performing the member's functions under this Act". This is odd, not least because the Bill does not set out any functions of members of the Garda Síochána, as opposed to functions of the force, for which the State could become liable. The section firmly places the State's liability for the wrongs of a garda within the context of an employer-employee relationship, in so far as statutory functions are concerned. However, it remains unanswered as to who, if anyone, is liable for wrongful acts committed by a garda in the performance of non-statutory or common law functions.

The thinking behind the proposal in section 14 to admit unpaid but trained volunteers to the rank of garda in the force, to assist it in exercising its functions is not explained. It requires further elaboration and justification. The section does not even state that volunteer gardaí are to be unpaid, part-time, or both. It is worth noting in this context that few gardaí live in working class areas of Dublin. Gardaí do not live in those areas or go to mass, the pub or the bookmakers in those areas. They do not do the normal everyday things others in those areas do. The question then arises for community policing, as to the extent one can draw people from within a community to assist in policing their own community. The Government has no proposals in this area.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In County Mayo, people are becoming more aware of the reduction in Garda numbers based in small rural stations. From speaking to people locally, I note gardaí are being drafted from the smaller rural stations into the larger urban centres in County Mayo. This does not go down well with the people of Mayo. As taxpayers, we deserve and have the right to the resources necessary to ensure the proper provision of a police service. I pay tribute to the gardaí in County Mayo who do a splendid job under trying circumstances. Demands are increasing on the Garda due to the growing problems in the larger urban centres. However, there is a case for supporting policing in rural areas. It goes back to the debate on balanced regional envelopment and stemming the drift of people away from rural areas into large urban centres. The onus is on the Minister to support rural policing.

Some 26 years ago, when I first moved to Mulranny, the local garda lived in the village, ensuring a Garda presence day and night there. This has been replaced with the "man-in-the-door", an intercom system, linked to a Garda station in Westport which one must use to make a complaint. Very often gardaí are not available and, from making inquiries on the matter, it is obvious the force is not there on the ground. We can never underestimate the value of having a garda on the street, where he or she has the opportunity to meet the community, be seen as part of its everyday life and as being available for whatever situation arises. The garda on the street can predict situations before they arise and play a preventative role that may avoid individuals receiving criminal records. The garda on the street will know the young people in the community, allowing him or her to have a quiet word with parents, publicans or other parties to prevent misdemeanours. This is a valuable asset to any community, particularly in a rural area. It is a slippery slope when gardaí are taken away from rural areas because there is less crime there than in urban areas. In time rural areas will be left without a proper Garda presence, resulting in an increase in crime levels for which society will be the loser. There is a great onus on the Minister to ensure resources are provided for rural areas.

Considering the shortage of gardaí on the beat, I tabled a parliamentary question on the number of gardaí deployed on desk and other administrative duties. I asked if, due to the nature of this work, a major part of it could be done by non-Garda personnel to allow more gardaí to be at the coal face. The Minister replied that the Garda authorities, responsible for the detailed allocation of resources including personnel, stated 373 gardaí were employed in administrative posts. These 373 gardaí should be on the beat. The Minister could not give me a breakdown of the age profile of these gardaí as it would take up many resources. I argue this would be a good use of resources. If more gardaí could be on the beat rather than pen-pushing, communities would be all the richer. Deputy Gregory, speaking on his experience in inner city Dublin, also pointed to the lack of gardaí on the beat. The Minister must address this issue.

I accept the Government approved the civilianisation of administrative posts in the Garda on a phased basis. It includes administrative posts at headquarters, branches in the various offices, locations, divisions and districts and the transfer of finance functions from Garda district clerks to civilians and the subsequent upgrading of the new civilian role to staff officer. However, there is a need for the Minister to follow up his proposal to increase the strength of the Garda force to 14,000 members. While he claims this will happen on a phased basis, the problems on the ground continue, becoming greater every day.

It is important that people see the Garda as a force to which they can relate and part of community life. Its members should be seen to be individuals with whom people can have a quiet word rather than someone who is just there in emergencies. This gives the wrong impression. Young people will get up to all sorts of devilment, as we all did in our time. However, if there is someone to guide us on the right road, we have much better chance of coming out better. People speak of the social aspects of crime and the effects of living in an area with high crime levels. If the supports are not available for communities, whether it be community centres, youth workers or the friendly garda on the beat, young people have less of a chance. Getting the Garda to be part of the community is essential.

The Army and gardaí provide security for the transport of cash by security companies on behalf of the banks. The banks appear to be unable to police this themselves. Previously, I asked the Minister if this should be 100% funded by the banks. That appears to be happening now and I welcome it.

Given the availability of modern technology, particularly GPS to track vehicles, the recent robbery of the security vehicle should not have occurred. A simple GPS tracking device would have ensured the people driving the vehicle would not have stopped for coffee because it would have been known at the base and they would not get away with it. There has been sloppiness in the system for a long time but for as long as the Government is paying a large part of the bill it will continue. There are also money marking devices available, such as explosive pellets which will explode if a security box is opened.

The practice of the Garda and the Army supporting the security of the banking institutions should be self-financing and the Minister must ensure this. There are problems in the community and it is unacceptable that resources are used in this manner. When resources are finite or scarce, those that are available should be used effectively. Gardaí pushing pens at a desk or supporting the security of rich banks, which should provide their own security, is a waste of resources and must be changed.

I welcome the Bill. A measure that consolidates and modernises legislation is welcome. Legislation in this area dates back to 1924. The objective of the Bill is to support the efficient and effective operation and administration of a modern police force. It is important the Garda is supported. The Bill will ensure a good relationship between the Garda Síochána, the Government and the Oireachtas, which is welcome. It also provides for appropriate independent inspection and complaints investigation mechanisms which will command and maintain the confidence and respect of the public and members of the Garda Síochána, which is most important.

The Garda Síochána provides a good service. Gardaí are regularly on the front line without the resources to do their job adequately. What is the rate of "blue 'flu" or sick leave among gardaí? It must be quite high in areas where resources are scarce and where gardaí are under great pressure, are assaulted and are going on duty in fear for their lives. This is a major problem. If resources are being denied to the force and it leads to a greater incidence of sick leave absence and people leaving the force prematurely, it is a waste of resources equal to that of having gardaí on pen pushing duties or engaged in guarding the banks, which can well afford to do it themselves.

We must support the gardaí in doing their job. Gardaí were demoralised by the situation in Donegal. The report of the Morris inquiry made for forceful reading and exposed a new dimension of the situation. The need for an independent complaints procedure, whereby gardaí are not judging gardaí is a fundamental requirement. I welcome its introduction in the Bill.

There would be greater respect for the law and law enforcement if the system was seen to be fair. The Minister should consider instituting a twilight zone, as it were, whereby somebody who is one or two kilometres above the speed limit would not get the same penalty points as somebody who is greatly above the limit. In such situations a driver might be trying to stay within the limit but errs by being slightly over it. A twilight zone would bring fairness to the system.

There is also a problem with parking meters. When the concept of maintaining clearways is seen as a money making venture rather than as a means of promoting traffic flow, it gives people a different perspective. There should be a sense of fairness. When laws are not working or are not being enforced, people will take advantage of that.

With regard to the problem of people driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, if parents can test their children for drugs there is no reason that such a facility should not be available to gardaí. Young people now feel they can drive with abandon under the influence of cannabis or some other drug aside from alcohol because they believe they will escape detection. The Minister should address this issue.

The concept of community policing and involving gardaí in the community is extremely important and I welcome any move to implement it. Involving elected representatives in policing is also important. I welcome the fact that there will be meetings between local gardaí and public or community representatives at local level.

There is a problem with alcohol and off-licences. People are adopting continental habits whereby they are more inclined to drink at home. Off-licences are thriving but pubs, as a result of hidden charges such as insurance costs and the like, are finding it hard to make ends meet. On previous occasions I have suggested the use of a barcode whereby the supplier of a product could be traced. If somebody purchases alcohol for a young person, it could be traced back to him and he would have to account for supplying it. Youngsters getting alcohol, even directly, from off-licences is a serious problem but the alcohol could be traced by using a barcode. I understand there is provision for such a system in the legislation but it is not being enforced. It should be enforced.

The Government wrings its hands and speaks about what can be done to stop the abuse of alcohol. One action that could be taken is a ban on advertising alcohol but the Government has taken a soft approach on this, which is probably for revenue reasons.

The problem of road deaths must be confronted. Many of them are caused by speeding. If there was an element of fairness in the law, people would be more compliant with it. The problem of people driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs must be examined. The incidence of people driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol is underestimated. The Minister should consider conducting an audit to determine the actual number of such incidents, particularly among young people.

The Bill provides for many useful changes. We must ensure there is a proper standard of policing. This will only be done through the use of adequate resources, which has always been the problem. The Government acts in a reactive fashion. When there was a spate of robberies of older people, steps were taken such as placing a Garda checkpoint on the Shannon, which did not make a big difference. Once the crisis is over, the resources just seem to disappear. It is important that we support the Garda by providing the adequate resources they need. There is great pressure on gardaí to have a certain number of prosecutions, which cannot be right. This should not be about prosecutions, but about people abiding by the law in their own interest. The laws are made in the Oireachtas and gardaí enforce them. The idea should not be to catch people out, but to uphold the law.

Whether people live in urban or rural areas, they deserve a certain minimum standard of policing. For that to happen, adequate resources need to be put in place.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to place on record my appreciation of the work of the Garda Síochána in my constituency of Dún Laoghaire. In 20 years of public life as a Deputy and a councillor, I have worked with a succession of chief superintendents, superintendents, Garda officers and gardaí. I have always valued their work. I understand the difficulties within which they must work and I have always appreciated their co-operation and efforts to provide a police service in the area. I cannot say that I have always been happy with the outcome of every issue raised, that every problem was resolved, or that every complaint was addressed adequately. However, the gardaí have an increasingly difficult role to perform in our changing society. They deserve the support of the public and of public representatives in carrying out that work and in turn, the public is entitled to high quality public service policing from the Garda Síochána.

This Bill gives us an opportunity to debate policing and the related issues of crime, anti-social behaviour and what is happening in society. I welcome the fact the Bill acknowledges some of the proposals for reform of the Garda Síochána that were made by the Labour Party a few years ago. These proposals were published in a document by my colleague, Deputy Howlin, when he was the Labour Party spokesperson on justice. To be fair to the Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform, he did acknowledge those proposals when he introduced the Bill in the House. However, I am disappointed the Bill does not go as far in reform as the Labour Party had proposed. I ask the Minister to take seriously the recommendations and suggestions which were being made to improve this Bill and which were articulated this morning by the leader of the Labour Party.

This Bill is before the House at a time when there is a growing problem, to which we must face up, concerning crime, public order, personal safety and anti-social behaviour, which is occurring right across our society. It has been most acutely manifested in urban areas where there are high levels of disadvantage. However, it is by no means a problem exclusive to areas of disadvantage or to urban areas.

The economic crisis was the big problem that had to be addressed 20 years ago. If someone was asked 20 years ago what had to be addressed by way of public policy, he or she would have said we needed to get people to work, halt emigration and get the economy going so we could resolve many of the social problems. Thankfully, we have largely resolved that economic question and we now have a thriving economy and long may that continue.

Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you very much.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is no thanks to the Minister of State. It is thanks to the people who get up every morning, go out to work and generate the resources that keep this country going. Frankly, I am sick and tired of Ministers clapping themselves on the back for the work which the ordinary people of this country are doing.

Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was only trying to be civil. It is just a pure coincidence that we have been there for 20 years.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State needs to examine his conscience over why it is that when the resources are being generated, his Government cannot get the health and education services right and cannot guarantee that ordinary people will be safe in their own neighbourhoods. The biggest problem is no longer centred on the economy but on society. We can analyse why that is so. It seems that, with our increasing wealth, we have generated a society where everything is about the self. There is a new culture of the individual and of individuals being mediated between each other by the market. There is less of an emphasis on issues like neighbourhood, community, society and even good behaviour. The result is that we have seen a disintegration of society in many parts of this country.

As Deputies, sometimes we have an obligation to reflect the reality of what is happening in our constituencies. This week, I spoke to the chairman of a residents' association who told me of an incident that happened on his estate recently. A man walking to the pub on a Friday evening was attacked and had his arm broken. I met a mother who told me of an assault on her son two years ago, when a rock was thrown at his head. He was in hospital for several weeks suffering from possible brain damage, yet his case has not yet appeared in court. I spoke to another mother whose 15 year old daughter had her hair set on fire with a cigarette lighter as she was travelling home from school on the bus. I spoke to a parent who told me she could not let her seven and eight year old children out to play on their own street because of the bullying, intimidation and physical abuse they were receiving. I spoke to another constituent whose car was damaged maliciously in his own driveway.

There seems to be an attitude in the Government that there is an acceptable level of criminal activity and that this will always be with us. It does not always have to be with us. We all agree that we adhere to the concept of freedom. Freedom is about more than the absence of a political oppressor. It is about more than economic exploitation. Freedom is the right of an individual to go about his or her business without being molested or attacked. It is about the right of a young male to be able to go out on a Friday night without fear of being attacked on his way home. It is about the right of a child to travel on public transport, be it from school or from some recreational activity, without being attacked. It is about the right of a woman to walk at any time of the day or night in her city, her streets or her neighbourhood without fear of molestation. That sort of freedom is being denied to too many citizens and it is not being vindicated by the actions of the Government.

Another aspect of the problem arises when people seek Garda assistance in such cases. I do not want my contribution to be regarded as having a go at the Garda Síochána because it is not. I have already put on record my appreciation of the work of the Garda Síochána. When an incident arises, however, and I ask constituents if they reported it to the gardaí, they often say they did not do so. This is because they were afraid to report an incident due to recriminations that might occur as a result. Typically, I am told the person does not want to report it because he or she does not want a stone through the window. Alternatively, I may be told it was not reported because nothing was done when previous incidents were reported, and that there is no point reporting it. When somebody does report an incident to the Garda Síochána I am often told that it took the gardaí too long to get to the scene of the incident to deal with it.

That raises the issue of Garda numbers and the way in which they are deployed. Three years ago, the Government promised the country it would provide 2,000 additional gardaí, but they have not yet been provided. In many parts of the country the Garda presence is inadequate. I agree with Deputy Cowley that the closure of rural Garda stations should not be happening.

Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not happening. If the Deputy is citing facts, he should acknowledge that the new gardaí are already in the training college.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no point in the Government saying it wants to develop rural areas and build up the population, which I agree with, while at the same time closing post offices, Garda stations and other services that are required in rural areas.

Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are no Garda stations being closed and the Deputy knows that.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are very few gardaí in villages around the country where there used to be a Garda presence. The Minister should ask anyone how long it takes a Garda to get from the Garda station to the scene of an incident. There is a problem.

Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To correct the Deputy, Garda stations are not being closed.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be better if the Minister listened to what the problems are, rather than trying to defend the indefensible.

Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am just correcting a few issues that the Deputy has raised.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a problem of gardaí getting to the scene of an incident on time. When I ask people what happens when they report something to the Garda Síochána, they often say the gardaí came and took detailed notes but left the impression that nothing could be done. They say there is no point in going after the people because the evidence is too hard to get and even if they get the evidence and go to court, they will be let off with a caution under the Probation Act. That kind of message is very demoralising for somebody who has been assaulted, whose car has been damaged or whose home has been broken into.

I do not accept that nothing can be done or that there is no point in doing anything in such cases. Many of the problems that are arising in communities could be dealt with under the Public Order Act that was passed by the House a few years ago but, frankly, I do not think the legislation is being enforced. Last summer, I was impressed when President Bush was here. One could not turn a corner in this city without coming across a Garda presence.

Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He was not in Dublin.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had an entire phalanx of gardaí with water cannon on the Navan Road to police a few hundred youngsters on a protest. It leaves one wondering where the Garda presence is, when young people on a night out are subjected to physical assault and verbal abuse on the streets of our cities. This brings the whole idea of public service policing into disrepute. People become so frustrated that such issues are not being dealt with by the Garda Síochána that they asking armed criminals, who masquerade as political activists, to do it. That is happening and it cannot be ignored.

While it remains broadly unacknowledged, there is a safety issue concerning members of the Garda Síochána. Unfortunately, many of the types of circumstances which gardaí have to investigate — sometimes in small numbers — are threatening. A greater emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring the safety of gardaí when they are dealing with such circumstances. Why, for example, did the Government even entertain the notion that the perpetrators who shot and killed gardaí in the course of their work should benefit from provisions for early release from prison? Apart altogether from the political implications, it was wrong in terms of the message it sent out about the responsibility of the State and the Government to protect gardaí by ensuring their safety when policing the streets.

These issues are interlinked and are not capable of being dealt with solely by a policing response. That is why I strongly support the idea of local policing committees that would bring together the various agencies that work with troublesome elements in society. It is necessary to adopt such a new approach to the way in which our society is protected and policed. In doing so, we must acknowledge that there are difficulties in areas other than policing. For example, there is a difficulty concerning school discipline, which has been compounded since the Education Welfare Act was enacted. Currently, it is difficult for the authorities to apply sanctions for indiscipline at school. That is why the school authorities, along with other agencies, need to be involved in the proposed policing committees.

Local authority estate management legislation needs to be examined also. Local authorities can apply sanctions where an offence is committed within a housing estate by a local authority tenant but they can do nothing where the offensive behaviour is perpetrated by somebody who is not a local authority tenant or where the activity occurs outside the housing estate. The offender may, for example, be a tenant purchaser or be living in private housing. Consequently, the legislation needs to be re-examined in that context.

The health services also need to be examined in this regard and, in particular, the way in which we are dealing with the problems of psychiatric illness. This area needs to be faced up to because there have been cases where serious crimes have been perpetrated by people who, it has subsequently been discovered, were under some form of psychiatric care. We need to look afresh at the way in which such care is being provided, with a view to ensuring the priority is to protect public safety at all times.

There is also a problem concerning substance abuse and I agree with Deputy Cowley that the advertising of alcohol should be banned. Over the years, we have had to take dramatic steps concerning different types of activity and behaviour and this is one that needs to be examined as well. When the Minister stops clapping himself on the back for all the good the Government is doing, I urge him to look at the Labour party proposals regarding police liaison committees. The form in which their establishment is proposed in the legislation mirrors local government structures that are no longer appropriate to 21st century Ireland and which remain unreformed. That is another day's work, the need for which is highlighted in the area under discussion. By all means let us have a policing committee in a town of 10,000 or 15,000 people. However, the idea that one would not have a policing committee in a large conurbation of perhaps 50,000 people, in some Dublin suburbs for example, simply because they are parts of larger local authorities, needs to be reconsidered.

My final point involves a constituency-related issue, namely the way in which Garda divisions and districts are organised. They need to be reconsidered with a view to how areas are developing. In my constituency we have three Garda superintendents, one each in Blackrock, Dún Laoghaire and Bray. The latter Garda district covers about half of east Wicklow while another part of the county is covered from the southern end, from Arklow, and the remaining part from Naas, I understand. A great deal of development is currently taking place in south Dublin and north Wicklow, and the manner in which those Garda district boundaries have been defined needs to be looked at. In my constituency, one part of Ballybrack has its policing service provided from Cabinteely Garda station, which is answerable to Dún Laoghaire, while the policing service for the remainder of Ballybrack is provided from Shankill Garda station, which answers to Bray.

I know boundaries of divisions and districts must always be set somewhere, but they currently cause operational difficulties. They need to be looked at in consultation with the Garda authorities so they reflect the coherence of areas.

12:00 pm

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important Bill, which along with my colleagues in the Green party, I welcome. As my colleague Deputy Cuffe, our party spokesman on justice, said, confidence in the Garda Síochána needs to be restored. Public perception of the Garda is not as positive as it could be. At local level, while there are gripes about the Garda, people do not have a great many complaints about individual members of the force. I count among my personal friends many Garda members and I acknowledge the great work the force has done in upholding law and order since its inception, as well as the positive contribution it has made. That cannot be underestimated, but we must consider why confidence has dwindled and how it can be restored. I note that the clergy, journalists and politicians are held in lower esteem than gardaí, so we must keep matters in context.

We have heard the revelations from the Morris tribunal. Earlier today, Deputy Rabbitte also outlined the case involving Dean Lyons. Throughout the State, there are many examples of Garda impropriety, real or alleged, and of Garda incompetence or lack of training. I will give some examples, though on the whole the force does a very good job. At an anti-war protest outside Leinster House a few years ago I saw a sergeant kicking some protestors on the ground. I also saw one of the protestors kicking the sergeant, so it is important to keep matters in context. Two days later, a close relative of mine who was protesting peacefully with a pot and a pan, was kicked in the face by a garda. I do not know if that was intentional, but these incidents must be mentioned.

Another relative told me of a case involving a friend who is a taxi driver. I say this with some degree of caution as one can never be quite sure if a secondhand story is an urban legend. Allegedly, a taxi driver dropped a customer at his home in a north Kildare suburb. The customer ran off without paying his fare and the taxi driver gave chase. A local garda told the taxi driver he was a garda and told him to let the customer go. The taxi driver continued to give chase. The garda then intervened and got the fare from the customer. It turned out the customer was a brother of the garda. The incident was reported to the local Garda station and an investigation was promised. A couple of nights later, the garda involved arrived at the taxi driver's home to say he was investigating the case, even though his Garda station had nothing to do with the area where the incident occurred.

These are everyday examples of members of the Garda not doing their jobs to the highest standard and not living up to the oath they have taken. However, they are isolated cases. Not so isolated, and increasing, are incidences of institutional racism.

The debate on this Bill is a broad one and I want to contribute as broadly as possible. In publishing the Bill, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, has played it pretty safe. We need real reform of the Garda Síochána. While there are moves to establish the Garda ombudsman commission, other issues need to be considered in more detail than given in the Bill. They include Garda training, recruitment, accountability, paper work, IT and most importantly, Garda numbers and resources.

There is also the issue of whether the Bill proposes any real change in the existing system of political appointments of senior Garda officers. No additional independence or new system of transparency is mentioned. Several sections of the Bill are of concern to my party. Some sections give very broad powers to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which I would prefer this Minister would not have. Section 23(2)(c), for example, directs the Garda Commissioner to have regard to any relevant policies of the Minister or the Government. I hope the Garda Síochána remains an independent police service in order to retain the relatively high levels of public confidence it has, and to fight against the fall-off in that confidence. There is a need for an independent, credible police service. The Bill must allow for full accountability and genuine independence.

Section 7(4) states that in performing its functions, the Garda Síochána shall have regard to the importance of upholding human rights. My colleague Deputy Cuffe suggested we should add to that: "and ensure fair and equal treatment and respect for all".

I will comment later on the Garda training issue, particularly with regard to recruits in Templemore, but will first consider some of the discretionary powers alluded to earlier. I mentioned the reference to human rights, as noted in the Bill on page 11, section 7(4), line 36. The objective of the Garda is to prevent crime and preserve peace and public order. While the section covers the area of upholding human rights it needs to be further expanded to exclude discrimination. Discrimination in this sense means, for example, discrimination against ethnic minorities or religious groupings.

The audit report of the Garda human rights working group raised important issues. While credit is due to the Garda Commissioner and the force on their initial response, we must ensure they deal with all the outstanding issues. For example, the independent audit found that procedures in practice can lead to institutional racism, particularly with regard to Nigerians, Travellers and Muslims.

It is not good enough, as the Garda Commissioner said, to give a broad promise that by the end of 2007 all the proposed measures will be implemented. It will take longer unless the whole ethos of what makes the Garda Síochána is radically changed. Some of their proposals, for example, are the plans to deal with institutional racism and racist crime. Recently, we had a situation on a local 25A bus where a Portuguese national EU citizen married to a lifelong Lucan resident was subjected to consistent racist abuse on the bus. Gardaí say, initially at least, they cannot do anything about it. It might require more person hours to track the people living in the area to check for witnesses. There is, obviously, a higher level of priorities, which I understand. However, unless these issues are nipped in the bud and a zero tolerance approach is adopted and unless trial case studies can show gardaí standing up for people suffering from racist abuse, public confidence will continue to fall. The same applies to human rights impact assessments as outlined in the audit report. There should also be more support for Garda staff who report human rights abuses because we all know peer pressure is strong.

As a Deputy from a multicultural constituency I would like to see members of the Garda Síochána of African or Asian descent or gardaí who are Muslim or from the Indian sub-continent. Quite a number of my constituents were not born in Ireland, yet few gardaí, if any, have parents from outside the State. We need to see more of them in the force in order to give confidence to rapidly growing communities that they can depend on the Garda.

The need to work with the Traveller community is a separate issue. I know of instances where criminal Traveller families have terrorised other Traveller families. The culture of the Traveller is not to report to the Garda, but to move away from feuds. More needs to be done in that respect, possibly in terms of how sensitively we deal with Travellers in terms of their cultural background in order to build more liaison between the Traveller community and members of the force.

Section 55 sets out 11 specific situations where the disclosure of information can reasonably be considered to be harmful. Grounds (j), for example, refer to information that "affects adversely the international relations or interests abroad of the State, including those with Northern Ireland". We believe the wording is way too broad, that it can be interpreted in any which way and may have unknown economic or diplomatic effects we will not be able to quantify.

One of the important parts of the Bill is section 14 that states that the Garda Commissioner "may appoint persons as volunteer members of the Garda Síochána to assist it in exercising its functions". Volunteers should get exactly the same training as other gardaí before exercising these Garda functions. I would also like to see more civilian members of the force involved in office duties so that gardaí can do the job they were trained to do. This issue has caused difficulty in the past and is not covered under the terms of this Bill per se. It and the issue of volunteer members should be covered. If we have volunteer members and civilians working in clerical positions, they should all receive the necessary training so they can step into the breach if required.

Section 122, which relates to security officers, states that an authorised body may designate a person as a security officer if satisfied that "the person is a suitable person to exercise the powers of a security officer under this section in relation to specified premises" and if " the person has received adequate training for that purpose". We would like to see human rights training inserted in section 122 (2)(b)(ii) for all volunteers as part of that training. We do not want a separate structure. Perhaps a volunteer should not have to spend as long in Templemore, but they should have a training module with the same type of training as gardaí, including human rights training.

Currently, the majority of human rights training carried out at Templemore is interpreted human rights training in so far as people are trained to train. Human rights training is too important to be second-hand. It should be direct and should be enshrined into the thinking of a garda. My friends in the force have often told me that on becoming gardaí they cannot think about people's social background or circumstances or what caused them to commit a crime. They are not supposed to have sympathy that would impact on their job. Human rights training is not sympathy. Human rights recognise rights enshrined under Irish and EU law and under UN charters. For that reason training in human rights is important for public confidence. We do not need one eejit on May Day or one at an anti-war protest to be heavy-handed for lack of proper training. That is all I will say on this. Gardaí need to have a good reputation if they are to continue their job in the economic circumstances over which this Government has largely presided, circumstances that have caused a number of social problems.

The Green Party has a number of concerns, mentioned by Deputy Cuffe, related to section 58 with regard to the three members to form the Garda ombudsman commission. We want these positions advertised publicly. We would prefer one member because that would be someone identifiable, similar, for example, to Emily O'Reilly.

I would like to have had time to mention sections 86 and 91 but will move on to the broader picture for the time remaining. Deputy Gilmore referred to the economic boom and its fruits earlier and had an altercation with the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, on the matter. I believe the economic boom as presided over by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats is a system of hire purchase in that we purchase from the future what we spend today. We will pay it back in terms of social problems that have been caused by prosperity.

I speak in broad terms about anti-social behaviour, but I am also talking about the breakdown in family values that leads to situations that encourage criminal activity. I am talking about the lack of investment in our education system. I know record amounts of money have been invested in it, but given the Progressive Democrats in particular consider strongly the economic value of everything, I am sure nobody would argue that although it may seem exorbitant to invest an extra €500 million, for example, into the education system, this actually saves the country in 20 years time from the cost of imprisoning people or from the cost of paying social welfare to people who were not educated to as high a standard as they could have been.

This is the reason we need to nip the social decline in the bud now. We need to ensure that one in seven children do not leave primary school with reading and writing difficulties. They are the people who will not go on to do their junior or leaving certificates or go to college. They are the ones who get lower paid jobs. They are the ones who are more likely to get involved in crime. The Progressive Democrats look at these matters in economic terms.

Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the Deputy's opinion.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not going to play the bleeding heart violin, this kind of pinko lefty claptrap that gets thrown at the Green Party. I will not go on about the circumstances. However, the State will have to fork out a great deal of money on prison spaces unless it forks out slightly less now on an education system second to none. The Government should invest in primary education and proper child care facilities. Social problems are one of the main seeding factors in crime. The potential crimes of ten or 20 years time can be nipped in the bud today by making the appropriate investment.

The major issue about which people are concerned is a visible Garda presence on the streets. Lucan is the fastest growing town, while the population of north and south-west Clondalkin has mushroomed over the past 30 years, yet the number of gardaí deployed in these towns has not kept pace with the population increase. There is no way the additional 20 gardaí deployed in them over the past six years can cover the tenfold increase in the number of streets and roads. Above all, people want to see gardaí on the street.

I tabled a series of parliamentary questions to the Minister last month regarding my constituency. His replies demonstrate that, while Garda numbers in Lucan and Ronanstown stations increased by 37%, the population of Lucan south increased by 180%. There is no way, therefore, the Garda can cover the streets as well as they used to and that provides openings for opportunist politicians to engage in Garda bashing. One politician in my constituency has circulated leaflets about a guy who was attacked last February and he has stirred up fears about an anti-social behaviour epidemic. Anti-social behaviour is a universal phenomenon and it reflects the social problems in which the Government needs to invest. However, most areas are not subject to a crime epidemic in that while there is too much crime, it does not amount to an epidemic. People need to work with the Garda through the neighbourhood watch scheme and the proposed community fora to counteract this problem. However, it is wrong for meetings to be held where people are given an opportunity to spout their genuine fears and concerns but where, instead, the Garda on the ground are attacked. This results in political gain for the wrong reason.

The Minister needs to tackle the issue of Garda numbers. The lord mayor's commission, for example, estimates that for every ten gardaí recruited, only one is deployed on the street. Of the proposed 2,000 additional recruits, only 200 will be deployed nationwide when retirement, illness and so on are taken into account, which is a pittance. Four shifts — A, B, C and D — must be covered and there is no difference in the numbers rostered between day and night shifts when sickness and overtime are considered. More gardaí are needed on the street and there should be increased investment in Garda resources. Significant investment is also needed in mountain bike Garda units because they combine the best aspects of gardaí on the beat, which people want, and mobility.

The Government needs to invest in the causes of the social problems that lead to crime and it also needs to invest in the Garda so that it has the tools to do the job. The Garda does a good job with limited resources. The issues of Garda accountability and institutional racism also need to be tackled.

1:00 pm

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all Members who contributed to this extensive debate. Their detailed interest in its provisions reflects its importance as the most significant reform of the Garda since the foundation of the State. The Minister looks forward to a continuing and constructive input from Members on Committee Stage. Following the line the Minister took in the Seanad, he is open to suggestions that may be tabled with the intention of improving the Bill and he will examine carefully amendments that are put to him in that vein. I have been asked by the Minister to comment on the more substantive issues that came up in the debate. However, if I do not have enough time to comment on other points raised by Members, they can be revisited on Committee Stage.

The question of setting up a policing board or authority for the Garda was raised principally by Deputies Costello, Quinn, Broughan and Howlin. The Deputies are impressed with the work carried out by the Patten commission and its seminal report on policing in Northern Ireland. Who could not be impressed with that major undertaking and its recommendations? However, the Minister believes we should be careful about extrapolating recommendations drawn up in the specific context of the proper development of the policing function in a deeply divided and polarised society and applying them in a context where these considerations do not arise. This issue was touched on at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on 10 March last, in the context of its work on community policing as part of its ongoing examination of the development of the criminal justice system.

The creation of a police authority in the context of Northern Ireland, as recommended by Patten, makes sense given the need to accommodate and give a voice to the various strands of political opinion there. None of these factors is present in our case. Furthermore, unlike the greater part of the UK, where there are 43 different regional constabularies and where the concept of regional police authorities may also have merit, Ireland has only one police force. It was pointed out in an article in The Times on 15 March that:

The level of democratic accountability to which the police are subject in Britain today is woeful. The police authorities who exercise nominal responsibility for holding the police accountable are staffed by well-meaning and in many cases capable individuals. But they have limited powers and operate without a direct mandate.

It is a basic principle of a democracy that the police should be accountable to the democratically elected representatives of the community they serve. The best way to ensure that in Ireland is the direct way, that is, through immediate and effective procedures ensuring ministerial accountability to Parliament. Where police are organised on a regional level, they are normally accountable to the appropriate local government representative. For example, the New York Police Department reports to the mayor of New York. Where police are organised at a national level, they are normally accountable to a minister of central government. This applies in the USA with the FBI, in Canada with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and in most EU countries.

The State has one police force, which is part of the Executive arm of the State and which is answerable through the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the Houses of the Oireachtas for all aspects of the policing function, including the State security aspects. The structure recommended by Patten, therefore, is appropriate to a regional police service within the UK structure, particularly in Northern Ireland where there are difficulties as regards local government and elected representatives. However, one cannot take a model designed for a multiplicity of regional police services and apply it to a national police service. It does not make sense and it does not follow the model found in the vast majority of western democracies. Moreover, the introduction of a Garda authority would introduce an extra layer of bureaucracy and serve to transfer the supervisory role of the Dáil to an unelected Garda authority. The Minister does not see how this would improve efficiency or accountability. Does anyone believe that democratic accountability would be served if the Minister was not called to account to reply to parliamentary questions and debates on policing and crime issues because such matters were the responsibility of an independent policing board?

Deputy Costello also raised the issue of a commission on policing to tour the highways and byways seeking opinion on proposals for reform of policing. While the Minister acknowledges the general merit of such an idea, his view when he assumed office was that there had been enough talking and that it was time for action. The Bill's proposals reflect the outcome of a thorough review and consultation process. A review of the Garda as part of the Government's strategic management initiative set down key principles for the future management of the force, which have been taken on board. In essence these were a need for clarity as to the roles and functions of the Minister and the Garda; operational responsibility, including financial responsibility, should be assigned to the management of the Garda; the level of democratic accountability should be enhanced; and all this should be achieved in an open and transparent fashion.

The Minister was also conscious of the need for wide consultation. For that reason, he decided to publish the general scheme of the Bill in July 2003 and invite submissions from interested groups and the public in general. He consulted Garda management and held meetings with several of the Garda associations which are still ongoing. He also met the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to discuss draft proposals and hear members' views. He is grateful to all those who expressed views on the general scheme, whether supportive or critical. In hindsight, the Minister has said he is glad he chose to act.

We could talk forever without making progress. We have before us a concrete Bill to debate, and as the Minister showed in the Seanad, he is open to suggestions and amendments, provided they are backed by convincing argument. The important matters of anti-social behaviour and community policing were raised by several Deputies across the House. The Government is acutely aware of those problems, and there are several provisions in the Bill designed to tackle such issues. That is one of the main reasons the Bill is so important. For the first time, it clarifies in statutory form the sensitive relationships between the Government, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Commissioner in areas where there are crossovers between purely operational matters for the Garda Síochána and matters of great public concern.

First, there are provisions in chapter 4 of the Bill relating to co-operation with local authorities and arrangements for obtaining the views of the public. They deal in the main with the establishment of joint policing committees and local communities. I shall deal with that in greater detail in a moment. Second, the Bill provides, in section 19, for the setting of policing priorities by the Minister in consultation with the Commissioner, and any details in that regard are to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Then there is the obligation on the Commissioner set out in section 20 of the Bill to prepare a strategy statement to take account of Government policy or any priority set by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

A requirement is set out in section 21 for the Commissioner to prepare an annual policing plan that will have regard to those priority strategies and Government policies. That plan will also have regard to written policy directives issued by the Minister with Government approval. This scheme will provide for the most effective response to the most pressing issues that may arise from the overall context of policing in the future.

Several Deputies referred to the difficulties that arise from the adherence to the old boundaries that were laid down for Garda district divisions and the fact that they are out of line geographically with the modern county boundaries. Section 21 of the Bill, to which I have already referred in the context of the preparation of an annual policing plan by the Commissioner, provides that the plan may include proposals to alter those boundaries.

Apart from those provisions, the Minister accepts that, at a more immediate and practical level, further action is required to deal with the growth in the phenomenon of anti-social behaviour. New legislative provisions are planned for inclusion by way of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill currently before the House. There has been much ill-informed comment and speculation in the media about those proposals. The Minister is nevertheless satisfied that Members will agree that they provide a measured response to the problem and will alleviate the plight of ordinary citizens and families who are being threatened, intimidated and terrorised in their communities by local thugs. I should also mention that another amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill will deal with an issue raised by a Deputy about problems with obtaining search warrants at certain periods arising from a recent court decision.

The Minister was very encouraged by the general welcome given by the House to the provisions dealing with co-operation between the gardaí and local authorities. He adds that the precise composition and working arrangements for the joint policing committees will be the subject of further debate on the relevant sections of the Bill. He believes that the legislation should not be over-prescriptive as to the nature of the representation of any of the parties involved, so as to allow maximum flexibility, within overall parameters, to cater for the infinite variety of local situations. However, he is willing to consider highlighting the role of local policing committees or fora in the legislation. That matter has been impressed upon him by the chairman of the National Crime Council. It was also referred to by several Deputies during the course of their contributions. The issue was also considered by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights during its review of community policing generally, and whom the Minister met, and he looks forward to receiving its views on the matter in due course. I understand from a recent article in The Irish Times that the committee's report will be published before the end of this month.

A point was made about the possibility of the appointment by Government of non-gardaí as senior officers of the force. The existing position is that Garda superintendents, chief superintendents and assistant commissioners are all selected by means of an internal Garda competition based on merit before being appointed by the Government. The Bill maintains the existing position and goes further. Following an Opposition amendment in the Seanad, to which the Minister agreed, all such appointments must, henceforth, be in accordance with regulations. That makes it clear that the selection process will continue to be merit-based without political involvement. The real significance of senior ranks being appointed by the Government is that they can only be dismissed by the Government.

With regard to the establishment of the Garda ombudsman commission, a question was raised about why it has to be a three-person body. All options were considered, and the Government came down in favour of a three-person commission. While I appreciate the point about the advantages of having a single recognisable person identified with the job, there may be advantages in depersonalising the commission. As the Minister said in the Seanad, we do not question which members of the Supreme Court hand down particular judgments, nor do we ask who the three members of the Revenue Commissioners are. I am sure the three-person composition of the commission will not be a disadvantage or serve to reduce its status or effectiveness.

An ombudsman-type institution does not have to have a single person in charge, and it is not unprecedented internationally. There are examples of ombudsman-type bodies with more than one person sitting on them. Indeed, the new organisation that will deal with complaints against the police in England and Wales, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which replaces the Police Complaints Authority, has a chairman and two deputy chairmen. Providing for three members increases the chance that an internal debate will take place before any decision is made. In those circumstances, the commission is likely to act deliberatively and to have thought through carefully the consequences of its actions. There is also the advantage of the workload being shared.

In response to Deputy Stanton's technical points on this subject, the Minister has asked me to say that the Bill proceeds on the assumption that the three members of the commission will, as far as possible, act collectively as a collegiate body. One of the key provisions relating to the commission is that it is an independent body. It would be inconsistent with that policy if a member were precluded from producing a minority report should he or she wish to do so. Again, arising from its independence, it will be a matter for the commission to arrange how it conducts its business.

As for the question of the removal of members of the commission from office for stated misbehaviour, among other things, as provided for in section 61(2), that is one of the formulae used in such cases. Effectively, it is a matter for both Houses of the Oireachtas. As to inserting a specific provision in the Bill providing that a criminal record will bar a person from being appointed as a member of the commission, we can take it that no Government would consider proposing a person for nomination and the passing of the necessary resolutions by both Houses in those circumstances.

The Minister mentioned in his speech that he thought he might hear it said that the Bill provides for gardaí to investigate gardaí, although he did not expect to hear it so soon after he had explained this is simply not the case. Some further elaboration might assist in clarifying the position. The provisions of the Bill follow very closely the relevant provisions — sections 56 and 57 — of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which established the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Those provisions in turn were developed from the recommendations in the 1997 report by Senator Maurice Hayes. Senator Hayes concentrated on three main models for investigation of complaints against the police following his comprehensive study of the various systems in operation in other jurisdictions around the world. Those were investigation by the police with external oversight, complete handling and investigation of police misconduct by a body external to the police service and a combination of police investigation with external oversight for more minor matters, with more serious ones being investigated by the external body. The first of these more or less corresponded with the system then in place in Northern Ireland, England and Wales. Some variations of it were found in the Garda Síochána Complaints Board in this jurisdiction, which was provided for in the 1986 Act, and in similar bodies in New Zealand and Ontario.

As regards the second option, complete handling and investigation of police misconduct by a body external to the police service, it is significant that Senator Maurice Hayes said he knew of no example of an external body investigating completely all cases and recommending civil or disciplinary action. A quote from the relevant paragraph of the Senator's report is illuminating. He noted that such a system:

would remove the responsibility completely from the police [even for the most minor cases]. It would do this at a time when there is a need and a drive, not least from within the police, for greater management responsibility in the police service. It would also present difficulties in terms of finding sufficient investigating officers to manage the workload. There would also be problems in breaking into the police culture. Such a body is unlikely to gain police confidence easily and this in turn is bound to affect its credibility.

The final option involves a combination of police investigation with external oversight for minor matters and investigation by the external body for more serious matters. Under this option, informal resolution may also be employed by the police for minor matters. Senator Hayes concluded that the police complaints service in Northern Ireland should ideally adopt a variant of this system. He also said that in view of the lack of confidence in the system in that jurisdiction, the ombudsman should probably investigate all complaints other than those considered suitable for informal resolution.

Senator Maurice Hayes recommended that complaints should be categorised under three headings. The first category is serious complaints which may involve criminal action, such as the death or serious injury of a person while in custody. The complaints body should have a statutory duty to investigate such complaints. The second category relates to substantial but less serious complaints which might be remitted to the police for supervised or unsupervised investigation and report, at the discretion of the complaints body. The third category is complaints about quality of service, which would be remitted to the police for informal resolution.

Given that the Minister has been exhorted to follow as far as possible the set of circumstances that obtains in Northern Ireland, it is strange that Deputies have suggested that the approach in this jurisdiction should depart radically from the approach adopted on the other side of the Border. Sections 83 to 91 of the Bill outline the ways in which complaints against the Garda will be investigated by the independent ombudsman commission. In cases of death or serious harm to a person, the ombudsman commission will investigate the matter. That applies even if no complaint has been made. The commission will be able to require the Garda Commissioner to investigate the matter subject to certain conditions and safeguards in other cases, or it can directly supervise the Garda investigation, with certain conditions attached. In that context, the Minister does not see how one can allege that the Bill provides for gardaí to investigate themselves. It clearly provides for the ombudsman commission to retain control and direction over all proceedings.

The Minister has heard people suggesting on a number of occasions since the Bill was published, including in the House during this debate, that the Bill requires the ombudsman commission to give notice to the Garda Commissioner of its intention to search a Garda station. That suggestion is completely inaccurate. As the Minister said at the start of the Second Stage debate, the provision relating to the giving of notice will apply only in the cases of certain Garda stations which will be designated in regulations to be made in accordance with section 117.

The Bill strikes a careful balance between the need for adequate information-gathering powers and the importance of preserving secrecy in the case of sensitive security-related matters. Section 91(5) allows the Minister to give specific details about the matters to be excluded. Any exclusionary direction by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is subject to a review of the operation of the provisions by a designated judge of the High Court, who reports to the Taoiseach, who in turn lays such a report before each House of the Oireachtas.

It has been suggested that the establishment of a police authority would obviate the need for a Garda inspectorate. The Minister has made clear his position on the establishment of such an authority and I do not propose to add to that. It has also been proposed that the ombudsman commission should perform the functions proposed for the Garda inspectorate, to avoid the duplication of functions. In that context, I remind Deputies of the Minister's comments about the background to the inspectorate, which is being established in response to a recommendation in the first report of the Morris tribunal, which was that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform should be empowered by knowledge.

The proposed Garda inspectorate is designed to ensure that independent and objective information on matters relating to the functioning of the force will be available to the Minister and the Department and that potential gaps in information or knowledge will be addressed. The inspectorate will be primarily concerned with operational matters and issues of administrative systems. The ombudsman commission, on the other hand, will be primarily concerned with investigations into the conduct of individual members of the force while performing their official duties. The Bill provides that the ombudsman commission will be able to examine some of the force's practices, policies and procedures. While that function may lead to confusion about the differing roles of the commission and the inspectorate, I remind Deputies that the commission's role in this area is directed at practices, policies and procedures which lead to complaints from the public. The commission will not be concerned with such matters in any other context.

The Minister accepts that there is potential for the investigations or examinations of the ombudsman commission and the inspectorate to coincide. Just as the commission and the Garda Commissioner will be required to draw up protocols when dual investigations into criminal matters arise, the commission will have to agree protocols with the inspectorate when their respective investigations or inquiries coincide.

Reservations were expressed about the independence of the ombudsman commission if existing administrative staff of the complaints board are allowed to work for the new body. This matter is addressed in section 64. Practical considerations relating to the provision of expertise to the commission need to be considered in this regard. The Minister has asked me to emphasise that this is a matter of administrative functions rather than the commission's investigatory functions. The commission's designated officers will be its permanent investigative staff. They will be charged with conducting the investigations that the commission determines should be taken, particularly in the most serious cases. Such cases will typically involve death or serious harm, or other serious matters such as fraud or corruption. It is intended that the commission will seek to maintain a balanced and diverse staff of trained investigators from a wide range of backgrounds. Such staff could be former officials of the Customs and Excise service, tax investigators, company law inspectors, accountants or lawyers. The balance will change over time.

The Minister agrees with the recommendations of Senator Maurice Hayes's report on the question of whether members of the Garda should be allowed to take up positions with the ombudsman commission. As their presence might be considered by the commission to be so important for its success that it would outweigh and negate possible credibility issues, it would be wrong to rule them out. It should be borne in mind that the commission's staff will be officers of the commission and, therefore, under its direction and control. Policemen are allowed to become investigators in other systems throughout the world, for various reasons. As Senator Maurice Hayes noted in his report, the overriding consideration is the real possibility that the body will not be as effective as it could be if it does not employ people who are familiar with and able to break into the culture of the police. That would affect the credibility of the system.

The police ombudsman in Northern Ireland has not yet opted to recruit members of the PSNI. As I said, that relates to the particular circumstances in that jurisdiction. The senior investigation officers in the Northern Ireland police ombudsman's office are drawn from other police services, most notably and for obvious reasons from various police forces throughout the UK. Not only do they take charge of investigations but, crucially, they also help to train the non-police investigative staff to the levels required to conduct criminal investigations. If the ombudsman commission wishes to engage the services of policemen drawn from the senior ranks of foreign police services, what objection is there to it recruiting such staff from the ranks of senior Garda officers here? It has been said that the positions on the ombudsman commission should be publicly advertised. It is too early to say what the position will be in this regard. It will be carefully considered when the Bill has been enacted.

It was asked why we do not establish an intelligence service if State security is so important. There is no need to do so. The Garda Síochána has been responsible for this service since the foundation of the State.

Some Deputies argued that the time limit for submitting complaints is too short or should be capped. There were differing opinions on this matter. Views were expressed that the time limit of six months as prescribed in section 76 is too short while others considered that there should be an upper limit of 12 months. The approach adopted in the Bill is fair and strikes the right balance between the need to have a reasonable period to lodge a complaint while allowing the ombudsman commission discretion to extend the period if it considers that there are good reasons for doing so.

Any discussion on the matter of resources would be premature at this point. In keeping with the policy as reflected in the Bill, underscoring the independence of the ombudsman commission, the issues going to the heart of the resources question will only become clearer when the members of the commission are appointed.

It was said that it is not clear that a complaint made by a member of the public at a Garda station under section 75(2) will be sent to the ombudsman commission unless the complainant requests it. The Bill as a matter of policy provides for all complaints to be sent to the ombudsman commission in the first instance so there is no need for complainants to request that explicitly. Section 75 sets out the ways in which complaints can be made to the ombudsman commission, either directly to the commission or by way of the Garda Síochána for forwarding to the commission. It is clear from section 77 that the Garda Commissioner or any other member of the force, having received a complaint, must send it to the ombudsman commission. The involvement of the ombudsman commission in a supervisory function should be mandatory in all cases rather than discretionary.

Deputies should not lose sight of the fact that the Garda Commissioner is responsible for all matters relating to discipline within the Garda Síochána. The provisions of the Bill dealing with the Garda Síochána ombudsman commission have been drafted with that very much to the fore. They are also designed to provide for a flexible approach on the part of the commission and to allow it to exercise its own discretion as to how investigations are to be carried out. This is a reasonable and balanced approach which takes account of the Garda Commissioner's responsibilities as chief executive of the force for the quality of service provided by the members of the organisation.

Furthermore, this approach is strictly in accordance with the procedure recommended in the Hayes report. This envisaged that in the third category of complaints identified — the less serious complaints dealing with quality of service type matters — the police themselves could do the investigation.

It was asked if there should be one ombudsman, North and South, to hear complaints about the PSNI and the Garda Síochána. That could not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. No case can be made for such an approach.

A doubt was expressed by some Deputies about the adequacy of training for members of the volunteer force and questions were raised as to whether volunteers would have the same two-year training regime as full-time members of the Garda Síochána. The Bill provides in section 14 that volunteer members will have the prescribed training as set out in proposals by the Garda Commissioner to the Minister which will then be set out in detailed regulations. These regulations will also cover terms and conditions of service. Accordingly, the detail of the training arrangements will be settled in that context. Most emphatically, this is not a form of policing on the cheap. It is a valuable adjunct to policing and it is well recognised and developed as such in other countries. Why should we be any different?

Reference was made to section 16 which concerns the code of ethics, and it was mentioned that the Bill does not contain a definition of human rights. Human rights is a term which means different things to different people and is trammelled with popular misconceptions, false expectations and prejudices. Generally speaking, it is a term which embraces what may be termed the classic civil and political rights as covered by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Constitution in Article 40 refers to "fundamental rights". The Bill places emphasis on the importance of upholding human rights in the performance by the Garda Síochána of its functions. Section 15 provides for a revised form of declaration for persons joining the force which specifically refers to the need to have regard for human rights in carrying out policing duties. In the light of the passage of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, which came into operation on 31 December of that year, it was not necessary to define what is meant by human rights.

With regard to the establishment of a code of ethics for the Garda Síochána, the purpose of the code will be to lay down standards of conduct and practice for members. Deputies might have noticed that in establishing such a code, provision is made for the Garda Commissioner to consult the Human Rights Commission. The Minister is not sure about the need to include the National Disability Authority in the list of bodies to be consulted as it would be caught by the provision in section 15(3)(g), but he will consider the point between now and Committee Stage.

The recent human rights audit of the force as published by the Commissioner has focussed attention on the need for the Garda Síochána to develop its response to the training and development of its members in this fundamental area. The provisions of the Bill provide the necessary statutory mechanisms for this purpose.

The question of gardaí having access to the ombudsman commission for the purpose of making complaints against other members was raised with me by the Garda associations in the context of discussions about the existing grievance procedure. The ombudsman commission provisions of the Bill are directed at restoring public confidence in the complaints system and on policy grounds they cannot be stretched to deal with complaints by members against other members. The provisions in the Bill which allow the ombudsman commission to undertake investigations of its own volition or at the request of the Minister, which are to be found in sections 94(4) and (5), respectively, are sufficient to deal with the issue of complaints by members against other members.

It may be that special provisions outside of this Bill may be needed to deal with this issue. It is possible that the matter could be addressed by Garda management in this form or that specific legislation along the lines of that recently enacted for the Defence Forces could be considered.

Will the ombudsman commission be able to investigate circumstances where members of the force are willed properties by elderly persons? This will be a matter for the ombudsman commission to decide. The key issue is whether the conduct of the member concerned would constitute misbehaviour.

Deputies called for more information on ministerial directives, saying that they give too much power to the Minister. This Bill, far from being a vehicle for political interference, is the reverse. Clearly, it is entirely improper for the Government to try to influence the course of a Garda criminal investigation or prosecution. For the first time, this Bill in section 22(4) gives statutory force to the independence of the Garda in this area.

It is entirely proper, however, for the Government to give directions to the Garda Síochána to implement policies in the public interest. The police are part of the Executive arm of the State, not an independent agency. If examples from other countries are required, section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act provides that the RCMP Commissioner is under the direction of the Minister. Section 40 of the British Police Act 1996 provides that the Home Secretary may, in specific circumstances, give directions to the relevant police authority to take such measures as may be specified in the direction.

The Garda Síochána Bill will provide for the first time a clear statutory definition of the respective roles of the Minister and the Commissioner. The Bill represents a balanced mechanism for accountability to the Government and Oireachtas while providing the Commissioner with the necessary authority to exercise his policing functions efficiently and with efficacy.

Section 32(5) deals with privilege and redress in circumstances where a person makes a statement which later proves to be wrong. This provision was introduced in Seanad Éireann in the context of changes to the joint policing committee provisions of the Bill. It is modelled on the provision in section 104 which deals with qualified privilege for certain statements and publications of the Garda Síochána ombudsman commission. In the light of Deputy Stanton's comments, I will look at these provisions again in consultation with Parliamentary Counsel.

Question put and agreed to.