David Norris (Independent)

I give the traditional welcome to the Minister and the Bill. The Minister mentioned that he took time over certain elements and did not disclose all of these because he wanted to reflect on them. The Bill shows that reflection, although I have some reservations, about which I will speak. Although the Garda has had some bad publicity in recent years I, and I think most Irish people, have a high regard for the police force. I have had little other than good treatment from gardaí whom I have found courteous and efficient and who, by and large, respond relatively quickly to calls for assistance.

I like the idea of community policing, although that is outside the scope of the Bill. Gardaí flying around in squad cars does not solve the problems in the inner city. However, that is a topic for another day.

As an aside, I also welcome the fact that the Garda has become much more sophisticated at dealing with groups within society. I very much welcome the appointment of various officers to liaise with members of the gay community. That imaginative move has relieved a lot of stress and strain.

In particular, I welcome the machinery in the Bill for dealing with complaints. This is extremely important because if members of the public feel they have a machinery that will deal adequately and independently with complaints, they will be greatly reassured. I understand that, in the early stages, there was some resistance to the idea of independent regulation, but it is essential for all such bodies. I laugh like a drain every time I read an editorial in the newspapers demanding independent regulation for everything except themselves and I hope that, one day, there will be independent regulation through a statutory press council with teeth in Ireland.

The Bill will obviously have an impact. I know this because I receive the Garda Review, which is an excellent magazine. The February issue contained no less than four articles that bear on the Bill. The editorial, "A Cheap Shot", begins, "Nothing continues to surprise us", but the next sentence states it is amazing that the Director of Public Prosecutions advised an edition of "Prime Time" that sometimes complaints were not followed through because files took so long to travel in the right direction that they were out of date. Perhaps there is a little intellectual confusion at the start of the article. The editorial berates the DPP, but I think this is a reasonable and perfectly justified cause for complaint. I am sure that, whether any such delays are deliberate, which they could be, or not deliberate, which is also possible, the police ombudsman will investigate such matters.

The next article is over the page from the editorial and is entitled "The Full Story?" I am sure the Garda Review has some legitimate cause for complaint about balance in the RTE programme, but to have four articles in one edition is a little bit unbalanced. "The Full Story?" states:

The programme appeared to demonstrate that the Garda Complaints procedure was flawed [Well, was it not?] — and fuelled calls for a new system — canvassing support for the Minister of Justice's forthcoming Garda Bill and the provisions that it makes for the new "Ombudsman" — or whatever it will finally be called.

The inverted commas around ombudsman and the final phrase — "or whatever it will finally be called" — tells us the Bill does not immediately recommend itself to the author of the article.

There is another article on page 13 of the magazine, which states:

The RTE Prime Time special of the 8th January purported to show that discipline in the Garda Síochána had broken down. This appears to be part of a concerted campaign to bring about an Ombudsman type investigative system in relation to Garda activity — similar to that which presently exists in Northern Ireland.

It looks to me as though the Minister has given us that. That is important and, in my opinion, welcome.

The final article in the series on page 15 of the Garda Review, reprints the entire letter of complaint to RTE. The Minister has obviously ruffled a few feathers, and that may well be an indicator of the necessity for the Bill and its clear provisions for independent regulation.

I am somewhat concerned about one element of the Bill, namely the section that enables the Minister to issue a directive to the police. One must always be careful about the politicising of the police, and I look forward to examining during the Committee Stage debate whether politicisation is a possibility. I do not suggest for a second that the Minister would politicise the Garda, but the Bill could be in force for a long time. It is a long time since such matters have been addressed in legislation in Ireland, and it would be a pity if there was any sense in which it was even perceived that the police force was politicised, particularly as the Minister, in the paragraph of his speech in which he announced the provision, weakened his own case considerably. He raised the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which was marvellously dealt with in Ireland and in regard to which our larger neighbours across the sea could learn a thing or two from us, and said "It is no answer to say the Garda Síochána would, in any event, do what is necessary. Of course, it would."

That is fine; it would. Ministers should therefore leave the gardaí alone and not start pushing them around or giving political directions. As the Minister said, "It [the Garda] has shown time and again, for example during the last foot and mouth crisis, a readiness and an ability to meet any challenge." It does not need to be told what to do.

The Minister disagrees. He is a wise old bird. I am glad he is not in a position to cross-examine me as I have been cross-examined by him before and know what a devastating experience it can be. Nonetheless, the Minister will have his moment to respond on this. I only ask in order to provoke the Minister into an answer which, I hope, will be satisfactory.

The Minister then used the phrase "unless this would prejudice security". Security is always used as a reason to cover things up. It is said that matters cannot be confirmed or denied because of security concerns, unless there is a desire to drop somebody in it, such as Mr. Kelly, the British weapons expert who Mr. Blair dropped directly in it. There is no question of confirming or denying; a string of names is simply handed out and we are asked to choose one of 25 names. Even if it is the 25th name, we will say "yes" when we get to it. I worry about this.

The Minister stated "The Ombudsman Commission will consist of three persons, one of whom must be a woman and one of whom must be a man". Does that mean I am to be the third one of the triumvirate? He also stated "The Bill allows for the appointment of a superior court judge". That is satisfactory and I am glad none of the commission members can be a present or former member of the Garda Síochána. I do not distrust the Garda and my opening remarks indicated my high regard for its members. However, from the point of view of the Garda and others, it is preferable its members are not part of the commission.

With regard to informal resolutions, I am sure insignificant matters will be rapidly and effectively cleared up. Six months is a short time limit. However, for that reason, I welcome that the Minister has provided scope for the ombudsman commission to extend that period if circumstances demand.

I welcome the Bill. It will improve the position of police and public, which can only be healthy. I have indicated my principal worry, which is the possibility of political direction of the Garda Síochána. I look forward to the Minister's response.