Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I see the point to which Senator Cummins refers in amendment No. 48, which is that if representatives of senior Garda management are not part of the joint policing committees, they will not be as effective as they might be, with which sentiment I concur. However, I do not agree that someone below the rank of superintendent should not be eligible to attend. My experience is that a superintendent who brought a sergeant with him or her to a meeting, was less au fait with some of the questions than was the sergeant, which was a useful exercise. I am not sure we should be too prescriptive in this regard. However, if a sergeant or a member of the Garda was turning up at all the joint policing committees without an inspector, superintendent or otherwise, it would dilute their effect. The issue should be examined further.

In order to earn public support, there is a need for some of the meetings to be held in public. Equally, however, there will also be a value in holding such meetings in private. Yesterday, I instanced an occasion on which we had a meeting between a superintendent and sergeant regarding a local disadvantaged area with a drug problem. That meeting could not have been held in public because it would have put the attendants at certain risk. There will be issues which will have to be discussed in private in order to give the meetings full effect.

Many councillors will want to raise issues or, without naming people, might identify them. It is important that such a process is allowed and I am sure this provision will be part of the guidelines. We will have to cater for all arrangements. I would not like anything to be done which would restrict the effective operation of the joint policing committees.