Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I am still confused. Senator Terry will have an opportunity later to say whether she was objecting to me complimenting the Garda on its tremendous service to the State over many years.

While there have been examples in politics and many strata of society of people infringing proper codes and ethics, the same will arise in any force the size of the Garda. However, it must be recognised that the overwhelming majority of gardaí have served with great distinction.

In regard to Senator Terry's criticism of the structure of this legislation, I refer the Senator to the arrangements which apply to the ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Under those arrangements, complaints are categorised under three headings, namely, serious complaints, possibly involving criminal actions such as death in custody, serious injury etc, which the complaints body has a statutory duty to investigate; less serious but still substantial complaints which might, at the discretion of the complaints body, be remitted to the police for investigation and report, either supervised or unsupervised; and quality of service type complaints which would be remitted to the police for informal resolution. The structure which underpins the arrangements for the ombudsman in Northern Ireland, about which Senator Terry has been extremely complimentary, are the same as that which underpins this legislation.

The Bill also brings management structures and complaints systems into a 21st century setting. One objective of the Bill is to reform the law relating to the administration and management of the Garda Síochána and provide for the establishment of an independent body to be known as the Garda Síochána commission, both of which will bring a new dimension to policing which will have far-reaching beneficial effects for the future. Within the subtext of the Bill, there are many other welcome initiatives which are good and far-sighted. I welcome that the Garda Síochána ombudsman commission will oversee any investigation. As has been pointed out by the Minister, the membership of the commission to undertake and oversee any such investigations will be people of calibre and independence. Various other commissions established by the State have fully reflected and illustrated their independence and have operated effectively. To allow the commission to take the initiative on what it would investigate, in addition to any complaints made, is a good thing.

I agree with the absolute need for any police force, including the Garda Síochána, to aspire and adhere to the highest possible standards in observing human rights in the performance of their functions. We need also to be mindful of the human rights of those who are offended against and to ensure that anything we do is done in a balanced way, so that these particular rights do not become subsidiary to the rights of offenders. Many human rights organisations, obviously for very good reasons, will strongly advocate the need to protect offenders. It, therefore, behoves us, when initiating legislation and in its operation, to have regard to this requirement. The right of an effective investigation is important, about which we have heard a lot in committee.

Senator Terry criticised the fact that under the legislation the Minister may be allowed to give certain directions. This is absolutely essential. The Minister may understand why I mentioned effective investigations. Given that we live in a world where atrocities occur on a magnitude that might not have been contemplated previously, there is an onus on Ministers and Governments, including law enforcers and the Garda, to ensure all such events are fully investigated with a thoroughness which is beyond scrutiny. I welcome anything that will enable the Minister and Government to do this. However, as Senator Terry has rightly pointed out, there is a significant differentiation to be drawn between the Executive and the law enforcement agencies. Their independence in that regard must be fully respected and must not be infringed, but it is not absolute. Where issues of public importance arise, the Minister must be in a position to ensure the agency, which is ultimately responsible to the State, operates effectively.

The Government will appoint the Garda Commissioner, deputy commissioner and assistant commissioners, and it will have the power to remove the Garda Commissioner and the deputy commissioner. I wonder why the assistant commissioners are not included. I think it would be appropriate if they were. If the Government appoints such senior law officers, it should reserve the right of removal in certain circumstances.

While I have the utmost regard for the operations of so many gardaí throughout the country, it is my experience that the quality of management within the Garda is not always of the standard one would like. While an assessment system is in place before Ministers appoint superintendents and chief superintendents, the screening of candidates for these positions is absolutely fundamental to the quality of policing. It is an area which needs to be examined in light of current international practices, and best practice in particular.

I have a little reservation about the fact that gardaí up to a certain rank are not in a position to join either political parties, support political parties or join secret societies. I understand why they cannot join secret societies but our political system should be robust enough to allow these people to join. We allow public officials up to a certain level to participate so I think this is extending independence a bit too far. This is my personal view, with which others may disagree. If people are civic minded, as obviously gardaí are, they take an interest in what happens within the political structures of the State. Therefore, I am not sure they should be prevented from some sort of involvement. I appreciate that once one goes beyond a certain rank this should not be the case.

I join with Senator Terry in welcoming the involvement of local authorities, which is a very good initiative. We had discussions in this House previously on the issue. Apart from a certain element of accountability, it provides a forum whereby greater public support can be secured through initiatives taken by the Garda and local authority members. Having said that, it appears to have gone slightly off the rails.

There is a suggestion in section 31(2)(a) about the establishment of the committee within the framework of a city development board or a county development board, as the case may be, or otherwise. To do this within the structure of the city or county development boards would be lunacy. They have a specific remit and a very important job to do economically. In my county they are made up of 30 members, including members from outside the county and from different parts of the south-east. These include representatives of CERT, the VEC, Teagasc, the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the health board, the county enterprise board, the Wexford organisation for rural development, partnerships, the Garda, the IDA, county managers, child care groups, farming organisations, community fora, trade unions and employers. If we are talking about democracy and some form of accountability at local level, the most valuable people are councillors. What I had in mind during earlier discussions on the matter was the involvement of a certain number of county councillors, town councillors and gardaí, serviced by an official of the county council. If we can reach that stage, it will play a significant part in the improvement of the Garda Síochána. It should not go off the rails as an adjunct to the county development board, which should be doing other things.

It appears that the consent of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is required in regard to the guidelines. Perhaps this is necessary, but simplicity should be the order of the day. If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform brings the issue to Government, approval at that level should be sufficient. If both Departments get entangled in the issue, the end result will probably be unsatisfactory from both points of view.

This is a tremendous initiative on which I compliment the Minister. It is a courageous step which will work well at local level. It will be valuable for the Garda and local democracy and it will instil public confidence in the Garda. The board should be made up of elected members only and I hope at some stage an amendment to this effect will be accepted. I am conscious that a garda operating effectively in a locality may, because he is calling people to order by perhaps moving along people who are loitering, be the subject of more complaints as a result of his diligence. There could perhaps be a role for this committee in consultation with the commission regarding such a complaint. A committee working like this will obviously be familiar with the Garda and with what is happening on the ground. I have seen instances where gardaí who are diligent tend, if the superintendent is a little bit nervous, to be sidelined rather than allowed to carry out their duties.

I know the Minister has made the distinction in his speech between the commission accessing Garda information and accessing security information. We understand that. Other police forces can become involved in this area, as has happened as a result of the agreement concluded recently with the PSNI. As the latter does not play a role in security, its duties relating primarily to policing in Northern Ireland, there might be a need to be an-chúramach in that regard, considering some of what I have been listening to over the past few months.

Regarding the disclosure of information, as mentioned in the offences under section 55, I applaud the Minister. He has come in for a good deal of unjustifiable media criticism in this area over a period of time. Where any public figure, but in particular a garda or someone like that, gets information in the course of his or her duties, it should not be disclosed. Our entire justice process is open and transparent through the courts, and they should be the source from which information would flow. People should not be put in a position where they might be tempted to give information for favours or any other reason. That is wrong.

When the debate on this matter was going on, a friend of mine from a neighbouring county told me about a person who at the time of his death had been the subject of an investigation. The man had not been charged, so he obviously had not been brought before the courts. Apart from bereavement, this man's family had to contend with the most ferocious front page tabloid publicity. This should not be allowed. There was some discussion this morning on the need for a responsible press. It is one thing to publicise a case of someone who has gone through the courts, but the case I mentioned involved taking advantage of a person's death to publish information which could only have come from people investigating the alleged offences. That is not good enough. The Minister is right to introduce the proposed arrangements and penalties.

Regarding the search of Garda stations and so on, I did not notice a reference to this in the Bill although it may be there. I am happy with this proposal if perhaps a superintendent would certify that in the case of an area not accessible to the commission, there would be no evidence within that area. There should also be a requirement on the superintendent that the garda against whom the complaint is made should not be notified of any contact with the Minister or with the gardaí prior to the commission arriving.

I welcome the Bill. In general, the Garda has performed well and to a high standard. I know that the force was highly aggrieved by some recent television documentaries. Such transparency provides checks and balances in its own way and thus contributes to the attainment of high standards. Equally, if hands are completely tied and we put an over-emphasis on the disciplinary code, that may inhibit effective investigation of crime. I return to the balance I noted at the start. Regard must also be had of the nature and character of individuals with whom the Garda deals on a daily basis. I know there are provisions in the Bill regarding spurious claims. I would like to think that someone who is charged with an offence and who tries to stall, delay or obstruct a case by making an unjustified complaint, should face an additional sentence which would be consecutive rather than concurrent. It is important the Garda has confidence, and that we do not stifle the initiative or commitment of the numerous good gardaí.

When we go through the Bill section by section, we will have an opportunity to deal with other parts of it. The Minister deserves to be complimented on a very comprehensive Bill which will be a valuable contribution to the nature and quality of policing in this country for many decades to come.