Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I, many other colleagues and the Minister worked hard on Committee and Report Stages when this matter first came to our attention early this year. The Bill as first published had been in existence for a considerable period before it was brought to this House and on five separate occasions I had asked why it had not come before us. If it had, it would have ensured we had time to discuss the matter in its entirety. The Bill was dealt with in a serious and expeditious manner by this House and the Minister, who engaged with us. It is worth noting that some of the amendments in this first group are as a result of suggestions we made.

I wish to again clarify something I said earlier regarding briefing on the 130-odd amendments before us. When I asked one of the Minister's officials a straightforward question earlier today, I got a straightforward answer, which I appreciate. However, last week when I made a suggestion to the Leader, what I sought was that spokespersons would be provided with a written brief on the amendments so that they would know exactly the nature and scope of the amendments coming back from the other House. I regret that did not happen. However, when I sought information from an official of the Minister, I got excellent advice which gave me some idea of the points I should make.

If the second report of the Morris tribunal had not issued, what would have happened to this Bill in the Dáil and the Seanad? Had the report not been made, how many of the amendments before us would have been put? Is it not the case that whenever the second, third and fourth reports of the tribunal issued, they would, inevitably, lead to some form of amendment of this primary legislation? The rush referred to by Senator Ryan is not good for parliamentary democracy. The other House could easily have sat another week or beyond to ensure that the kind of scrutiny mentioned here was given the full weight we all like to see. As Senator Ryan rightly said, debate in this House — which is not the kind of party political pantomime that sometimes takes place in the other House — regularly highlights inefficiencies and glitches in a Bill that can be rectified. I regret that each amendment cannot be debated on its merit in this House over the next number of days, rather than the groupings we have here.

The Minister put forward the view on Committee Stage that one of the reasons the legislation should deal with the Garda Síochána as a whole was because our police force operates throughout the country and not like the police forces in the United Kingdom which have regional command structures. The first 15 recommendations of the second Morris report all relate to the inability on the part of the Donegal gardaí to follow orders, have a management structure in place or follow the letter of the management system and orders that came from Dublin. When I made the suggestion that we might need to consider a regional model of policing to ensure greater accountability, my suggestion was rubbished on the basis that it would not suit our policing conditions, the history of the force and so on.

In light of the first 15 recommendations of the second Morris report and given that the management structure of the force and the geography of Dublin to Donegal and many other places were a hindrance at the time, is it not time to reconsider this matter? This suggestion arises from comments I made on Committee Stage.

Many of the amendments in group 1 are welcome. The Minister has responded to a teasing out of the Bill on Committee Stage. Senator Ryan referred to the reference to "human rights", something we debated at length in this House. I also welcome amendment No. 37 which allows a greater model of discussion between members of the public and the force. This is to be construed following a paper the Garda Commissioner will ultimately publish.

The Minister must concede, however, that this is not the way to do business. We should not have to deal with the range of amendments that come from the other House in one fell swoop. We can only speak on 14 occasions to the groupings. This is not the way this House, traditionally, does its business, despite the fact that in group 1 the Minister has taken on board many important new amendments.