Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I find myself persuaded by amendment No. 51. It would be useful for these committees to have a function as organising committees. As the Senators who proposed this amendment have said, if a local political party convenes a meeting on a particular issue, one tends to wonder whether one should attend or not. Should I participate in this meeting or because I am not in that party hope that the meeting is a failure? There is an element of competitive jealousy on these occasions. The proposal is a good idea and I am disposed to accept that amendment.

I am opposed to amendment No. 50 and I will explain my reasons. It was always my intention that these committees should be partnerships between the Garda and the local authority members. No more than that the Garda is supposed to monitor the local authority as one of the functions, I do not want these committees to be an occasion for demagoguery where people just stand up and point accusing fingers at the Garda about various matters. It is not a function of the local authority, as such, to have a statutory monitoring of the Garda Síochána in the administrative area of the local authority. The local authority is free to have a debate if it wishes and I have no problem with that but it is not one of its statutory functions. It would produce an imbalance in the relationship. I have constantly stressed that this is a two-way street. The Garda should be able to say to the local authority that it built such and such an estate but there are no pitches for the kids to play, no indoor hall, nothing. It should be able to point out that open spaces and communal stairways have become fouled and damaged and that the local authority has responsibility in these matters. That is just as much a legitimate part of the discussion at one of these committees as the more brash councillors pointing fingers at the Garda and saying it is nowhere to be seen or whatever.

I want the relationship to be one of parity of esteem between the two constituent elements of these committees, the gardaí who attend them and the local authority public representatives who are present. My reasoning is that if they are an inquest format or if they are an accusatory tribunal where the local authority members claim that under statute one of their functions is to monitor Garda performance, then it changes the character of the committee completely. The gardaí will be put on the defensive and that is not the relationship I wish to achieve.

In rejecting that amendment I would draw to the Members' attention to the proposed section 32(2) which states:

(a) keep under review——

(i) the levels and patterns of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour in that area (including the patterns and levels of misuse of alcohol and drugs), and

(ii) the factors underlying and contributing to the levels of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour in the area,

(b) advise the local authority concerned and the Garda Síochána on how they might best exercise their functions having regard to the need to do everything feasible to improve the safety and quality of life and to prevent crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour within the area,

That gives the committees a broad remit to do all of these things but it does not do it in the form of, "We will tell you where you are going wrong," mode which would be suggested by Senator Cummins's phraseology. It would introduce an imbalance into the equation which I am anxious to avoid. Section 32(2)(b) shows that it is balanced between the local authority and the Garda Síochána in that both of them share equally in this duty to uphold the law in their area, to improve the quality of life and to prevent anti-social behaviour. I have always striven to make it very clear that this is a partnership and not something in which the Garda Síochána is the accused party; gardaí should not be cast as defendants or people who must justify themselves while local authority members wave the statute at them and say, "We are here to monitor you." If that relationship creeps into the transaction, the policing committees will be less effective. While I propose to accept amendment No. 51, I will not accept amendment No. 50. I ask Senators to accept my position.