Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State's undertaking to have a look at the matter prior to Report Stage. Convincing a man against his will may leave him staying still. Everybody in the House supports the provision in the Bill for joint policing committees as do the Minister of State and the Department.

The Minister referred to section 32 which states: "A local authority and the Garda Commissioner shall arrange for the establishment of a joint policing committee in accordance with guidelines issued under section 31." It seems consequent on this that if we do not have guidelines the committees will not be set up. Therefore, guidelines are essential and will, I am sure, be issued. There may not be great difficulty in changing the "may" to "shall" and the Minister will examine the matter.

I have some concerns about amendment No. 44. To some extent we are a little premature in that discussion. It might be better if this amendment were grouped with amendment No. 45, depending on the Minister of State's response on amendment No. 45. I am a strong advocate of amendment No. 45. If we get agreement on it, it should not subsequently become a ministerial discretion as to whether the section is applied. Its provisions should be included in the Bill, in the same manner as is done in section 32 which prescribes comprehensively what the functions of the joint policing committees will be and what they will address.

Therefore, it would be good to underpin the structure of the committee in the legislation. This should be done in a mandatory rather than discretionary format. While Ministers have a view on it today, it could happen that in time there might be resistance from vested interests to the existing structure that would leave it open to change without the House being involved in making that decision. I support the change from "may" to "shall" in both cases and I urge the Minister of State to consider the arguments so that the issue can be addressed on Report Stage.