Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I identify with Senator Mansergh's comments. The notion that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and civil servants are conspiring to bear down on the Oireachtas and sweep away rights is utterly untrue. One only needs to examine the procedures followed with this Bill.

When I was appointed Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2002, my Department commenced planning for a Garda Bill in the autumn of that year. I inherited a proposal for an inspectorate body that would function in the fashion of an ombudsman. We in the Department discussed this at great length and it was my view that the entire relationship between the Executive and the Garda Síochána should be re-stated in clear and modern terms. Many of the provisions in the earlier part of this Bill about statements of policy, directives and strategic planning for an Garda Síochána touch on this and did not exist before.

I wished to emphasise at the time that the Oireachtas is the body to which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform must be accountable with regard to police functioning, which is an extension of the Executive power of the State. I also looked to clearly state in the Bill that the Oireachtas and the Minister is in charge. One of the reasons for this was the difficulties encountered by me in my time as Attorney General in getting information necessary to discharge the functions of the office, such as advising the Minister of the appropriateness of his actions and conducting civil proceedings on behalf of the Irish people.

It appeared to me that from the days of Peter Berry, there was micro-management of the police in every single respect, through officials of the Department being made Commissioner of an Garda Síochána and a very clear pyramid of authority which went directly to the Secretary of the Department of Justice. It was micro-management of a highly structured kind of policing in Ireland by a Department. By contrast, in later years the barometer had swung almost completely the other way to the point where Mr. Justice Morris found that the Department had become almost isolated from the policing function. This may be an over-simplification and it is not easy to deduce how it happened over the years but it was exacerbated when the Attorney General of the day ceased to be the prosecutor and the Director of Public Prosecutions became an independent prosecutor. The view took hold in the Department, among the Garda and in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that the relationship between the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions was at a level equal or superior to the relationship between the Department and the Garda. Part of this process led to the events being dealt with by Mr. Justice Morris, which I do not want to deal with in detail.

When I commenced my term as Minister in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, re-stating the relationship between the Department and the Garda became a matter of huge importance. Instead of proceeding with complaints procedures against the Garda Síochána as a response to the situation existing then, the Department embarked on an ambitious programme to re-state the constitution of an Garda Síochána in its entirety.

Having worked on this from September 2002 to summer 2003, the heads of the Bill were published in summer 2003 for a public consultation process. The Bill was also sent for drafting. The Bill was introduced in this House because of pressure of business in the Dáil. This facilitated reflective debate on the passage of the Bill through the Seanad. I pay tribute to the Members of the House for this, as the debate was constructive and without time wasting or negativity. The entire passage was constructive. The Bill was extensively amended in the course of the debate, with the inspectorate idea being introduced as it became necessary to respond to the initial findings of the first report of the Morris tribunal. This ensured that something would be in place to deal with the collapse of authority and morale in an Garda Síochána.

The Bill was extensively debated on its introduction in the Dáil. It received 21 hours on Committee Stage and the Government provided for a further 13 hours on Report Stage. Regrettably, two of the 13 hours on Report Stage were spent wrangling over whether enough time was provided. I will not criticise another House in the Seanad, but I was disappointed with this. A proposal to extend the sitting for two hours to compensate for lost hours was rejected. Walk-through divisions were called on Private Members' business, which used up more time.

Ultimately, a situation existed where huge amounts of time were wasted. A technical amendment being dealt with now, which moved a definition on a page because it was not in alphabetical order, was debated for half an hour. Much filibuster-type speaking occurred detailing what had happened, for example, at residents' association meetings in Chapelizod the previous week. I am glad to return to the Seanad in circumstances where the Bill will get a fair hearing.

With regard to the procedures in this House for a Bill that returns from the Dáil, the rules are a matter for the Seanad. They are not made by me. Enough time is provided and I repeat what the Leader has said about sitting indefinitely, if necessary, to get the Bill right. On Committee Stage in the Dáil I indicated that I would sit all night until dawn if necessary to deal with all the proceedings.