Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I have not changed my mind since the earlier debate in this House on the subject. The position in respect of the involvement of gardaí and members of the Defence Forces in providing security services is as follows. In regard to the Garda, any such off-duty activity is already prohibited. Garda Síochána discipline regulations define prohibited spare time activity as including, among other things, any activity which is prohibited by the Commissioner as inappropriate for members to engage in. Acting as directors or secretaries of security firms or being in any way engaged in security work as a spare time activity is so prohibited. Section 16 of the Garda Síochána Bill, which is before the House, makes provision for statutory codes of conduct and on balance it would be more appropriate to deal with the off duty conduct of gardaí in the context of such codes rather than the Bill we are discussing.

Defence Forces regulations provide that involvement in off duty employment may be terminated or limited where such employment is likely to be prejudicial to the best interests of the service. I do not believe off duty soldiers should be told they cannot act as marshals at the Curragh races. I see no reason or basis for my saying that, in their own spare time, they cannot engage in such activity. I do not believe their involvement in dealing with violent situations with firearms and in self-defence makes them ineligible to act in places in which they could or might be required to use their skills in the course of their duty. The fact they are trained, disciplined and lead a disciplined life makes it less, rather than more, likely that they would abuse someone in a violent way compared to someone who has no such training or disciplined lifestyle.

I differentiate fundamentally between members of the Irish Prison Service and the Defence Forces who, so long as they do not do something which is egregiously inconsistent with their main terms of service to the State, should be free to provide security services of this kind. That notwithstanding, it is inappropriate for gardaí to do this because gardaí will be involved in the enforcement of this legislation. In this case, such people would be dealt with by colleagues. For example, if gardaí are working as doormen or are providing security services and are being recommended and certified by superintendents, everyone will start shouting and roaring that there is a conflict of interest.

The nature of security functions are analogous to Garda functions but are not analogous to prison officer functions, except in a very loose manner. They are likely to be in situations in which members of the Garda will have to deal with them one way or another. In those circumstances, it is reasonable to say to members of An Garda Síochána that this type of work is off limits. The appropriate place to state that is in the Garda code, which is the position now. Gardaí are not allowed to engage in this kind of behaviour as a matter of Garda discipline, provided for by Garda regulations, through which the Commissioner may be in a position to state that members may do some things but not others.

The code of conduct for members of An Garda Síochána, which is to be incorporated into the Garda Bill which is already before this House, envisages a code of ethics which will be well worked out in advance and be subject to prior consultation with the representative associations, the Equality Authority, the Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman Commission. In those circumstances, that code of conduct and the disciplinary regulations open to the Garda Commissioner under Garda legislation are the appropriate instruments to deal with this matter.

As currently advised, gardaí may not provide any security services envisaged by this Bill, which is an appropriate and proportionate response. Whereas I accept that Senator Terry is acting in good faith in this matter, I do not see it is fair to put members of the Defence Forces into the same category and disqualify them from providing security services in their own time. The Defence Acts, as I remember from my days in the FCA, provide in section 168 or 169 that conduct prejudicial to the good order and military discipline of the Defence Forces is punishable under military law. Therefore, if someone does something which is prejudicial to good order and military discipline, which includes behaviour while off duty, it is capable of being dealt with under military law. My view is that it is not necessary to include the specific amendments being sought by the Senator.