Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

Sections 30 to 34 lend a statutory basis to the involvement of local authorities in police matters for the first time and vice versa. Interaction between local authorities and the Garda is long overdue and very welcome. Fine Gael has called for this measure for some time. If communities are to experience long-term reduction in crime levels then local authorities must take on a dedicated oversight role in policing matters. Providing a forum for the Garda and local authorities to exchange views and co-ordinate activities will bring real benefits to local communities. It will provide an opportunity for real interaction and give a sense of ownership back to a public which is fast becoming disenfranchised from our criminal justice system.

A rift is developing in the relationship between the public and the Garda. Even though the force still enjoys the support of a majority of citizens, increasingly people are disappointed with their dealings with the Garda. As Fine Gael highlighted last Friday, many people simply do not bother to report crime.

The causes of crime are deeply rooted. Housing density is an area in which the Garda and local authorities could learn from each other. However, I am concerned that section 31 as drafted provides that joint policing committees will be modelled on county development boards. Those board meetings are largely held in private and members of the public can only attend when formally invited. The committees must meet in public if they are to be relevant.

Section 55 deals with disclosure to journalists and regrettably this offence remains in the Bill. I acknowledge the Minister has changed the section substantially since it first appeared as head 26 of the scheme of the Bill. It seems that the offence of disclosure now only arises where the information disclosed has "harmful effect". The Minister's definition of "harmful effect" is quite broad and seems to preclude communication of the most useful kind of information. I welcome the Minister's concessions on this issue but I am not sure that the formula of words in section 55 lends any degree of certainty to this matter. I am uncomfortable with the provision as drafted and I would like a clearer explanation of what type of information would have "harmful effect".

I am also concerned by the impact this section may have on the undeniable assistance which journalists can and have provided to the Garda, particularly on gangland activity. A strict interpretation of the section would make journalists fearful of discussing matters with the Garda. Has the Minister given full consideration to the potential consequences of the section?

Going back to the definition of "harmful effect", I note paragraph (k), in particular, which states that information has harmful effect if it adversely affects the relations of the Government with any party in Northern Ireland. This is totally unprecedented and I am advised there is no similar provision on our Statute Book. It is ironic that a provision of this kind emanates from the Minister, as only a few weeks ago he was giving interviews at every available moment informing us that Sinn Féin was receiving funds from IRA criminal activities. It seems that the communication or exchange of that very information would be excluded by section 55. The motivation behind this paragraph is less than clear, although perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.

Sections 57 and 94 deal with the ombudsman commission. The Garda Complaints Board has been the focus of consistent criticism for some time and it does not have the confidence of the public. That in no way reflects negatively on the members and staff of the board but rather on the regime under which it has operated. Its hands were tied to a great extent and the body failed to function as an effective independent arbiter. The case for an ombudsman has been well made and I do not propose to revisit those arguments. However, I have examined the Garda Complaints Board annual report for 2002. During 2002 the board received 1,405 complaints and at the end of that year it had 841 cases on hand. In 2002, only 13 cases were finalised by the tribunal. These figures do not reflect well on the operation of the board.

I welcome the Minister's decision to dissolve the Garda Complaints Board and to opt for the ombudsman model, which we in Fine Gael have advocated for some time. The ombudsman commission will consist of three persons to be appointed by the Dáil. I particularly welcome the power of the ombudsman in section 94(4) to initiate an investigation on its own initiative. That is a welcome provision but the scope of such investigations should be widened considerably so that the ombudsman could examine more general policing practices.

It is clear from section 64 that the staff of the Garda Complaints Board will have an opportunity to transfer to the ombudsman commission. I understand that this is the usual practice in Bills of this kind, which implement reform or amalgamations, but I am not entirely convinced that it is appropriate to transfer the staff of the Garda Complaints Board wholesale in these circumstances. There has been and remains a great deal of dissatisfaction with the board, which is not to suggest that the staff or members of the board were in any way at fault, as I said. The system and structures under which they operated were and are grossly ineffective, to such an extent that they attract very little public confidence, if any. For that reason I have grave reservations about the proposal to transfer staff from the Garda Complaints Board to the commission. The commission needs and deserves a fresh start. It is not in the interests of the Minister or the public to establish a body which will have a cloud hanging over it from day one.

I was surprised by section 66, which seems to envisage a need for the Garda to provide special assistance. The lack of independence and failure of the Garda Complaints Board to adhere to the fundamental principle of nemo judex has ultimately led to its downfall. As with previous sections, the Minister seems intent on making the same mistakes again and again. It is not acceptable that gardaí be brought into the ombudsman commission to investigate other gardaí. This is intolerable and to provide for such a situation in the Bill makes me question the Minister's intent. It seems at every twist and turn that the hand of the force is never far away and I am concerned that the requirement for absolute independence is being diluted the further one reads into the Bill. Whatever fanciful justification the Minister has for the involvement of the Garda, I find this proposal unacceptable. If persons of particular expertise are required, let them be from the UK, Canada, France or elsewhere.

In regard to sections 84 and 86 — gardaí investigating gardaí — I am concerned that there may be situations where the commission can decide not to investigate a matter itself and may refer the complaint back to the Garda for investigation. This would effectively retain the status quo, whereby the Garda investigates the Garda. I am not at all happy with this aspect of the Bill. The Minister will no doubt retort that only minor matters will be investigated by the Garda itself. However, these are the very matters with which people have the greatest difficulty and have so damaged the credibility and trust which the force previously enjoyed.

It is in no one's interest to again provide a statutory basis for the Garda investigating the Garda. It is a most unsatisfactory proposal. Has the Minister not learned anything since he came into office? We need to get away from this kind of situation. The only guarantee we have with regard to independent investigations is that incidents of death or serious harm to a person will be investigated by the commission. Everything else seems to have the potential to be investigated by the Garda.

I am somewhat bemused at how the Minister has approached the whole issue of searching Garda stations in section 9, particularly in regard to the requirement to give notice and security files. In the heads of the Bill, section 48(6) provided that the inspectorate could search a Garda station on giving 48 hours notice to the Commissioner. In section 91 of the Bill, as initiated, this has been changed to state that the ombudsman commission must notify the Commissioner and the Minister of its intent to search. The Minister obviously has seen the folly of providing 48 hours notice, but seems intent on retaining a requirement to provide notice of some kind.

Since the publication of the Bill, the Minister explained that even a telephone call to the commissioner five minutes before going in would be sufficient notice. This will not happen and the Commissioner will not tolerate such a situation. How, with five minutes to go before the search, is the commissioner to know whether the station in Dingle or Dalkey contains security files? A reasonable and prudential Commissioner will say, "Hold on, there might be security files in there and I object to the search". Any provision for notice, however short, will defeat the intention of this section and I urge the Minister to recognise that the current requirement for notice is nothing more than tokenism.

On one hand the ombudsman commission is entirely fit and capable of investigating criminal matters — it is trusted to initiate its own investigation into any aspect of Garda activity — but, on the other, it is not, in the Minister's view, to be trusted with all Garda files. This is absurd. Is the Minister not satisfied with the strength of his confidentiality provisions in section 73? The Minister has made the point ad nauseum that the Garda serves two roles — it polices the State and also acts as our intelligence service. In that context, the Minister makes the comparison to MI5 and M16. This is just not credible. If the Garda's role in intelligence matters is of such a high level and gravity, why has the Minister not established an intelligence service, divorced from the Garda?