Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Amendments Nos. 38 to 50, inclusive, are comprehended by this group. Senators will no doubt recall the long discussions we had in this House on the joint policing provisions of the Bill. As I said afterwards, these provisions are all the better for the changes made in the House.

I brought forward further changes on Report Stage in the Dáil . The first concerns a recommendation, contained in the report by the Oireachtas Joint Committee Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights following its hearings on community policing in Ireland, that the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs should also be consulted on guidelines establishing the joint policing committees. The committee's recommendation was brought to my attention by Deputy Costello on Committee Stage in the Dáil. The inclusion of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in the consultation process recognises the role of that Department in building capacity at local community level.

The issue addressed by amendment No. 43 was the subject of debate on Committee Stage in the Dáil, when it was indicated that consideration should be given to the question of laying the guidelines concerning the establishment and maintenance of joint policing committees by local authorities and the Garda Commissioner before the Oireachtas. I looked at the matter and took the view that they should be so laid and that is now provided for.

The background to amendments Nos. 45 and 46 is that the Bill in its original form provided that the setting up by joint policing committees of local policing fora could only be done with the consent of the Garda Commissioner. This was to guard against unreasonable expectations and the proliferation of this tier of community policing.

Having advanced and withdrawn one formulation for addressing this issue on Committee Stage in the Dáil, I indicated that I would look again at some other mechanism to prevent undue proliferation of policing fora. With this in mind, I brought forward an amendment on Report Stage which provided that the establishment of such fora would be a matter for consultation with the local Garda superintendent. This is in line with recommendation 13 in the report of the Oireachtas joint committee on community policing, as pointed out to me by Deputy Costello.

With regard to amendment No. 47, I agreed in response to a point made by Deputy Costello in the Dáil that section 32(2)(d), as amended in committee, was possibly a little too restrictive in that it only provided for the local policing fora to make recommendations to the joint policing committee concerning the matters referred to in what was then section 32(2)(a) rather than those in subsection 32(2)(b). I remedied that on Report Stage by allowing the local policing fora to make recommendations on the matters contained in what is now section 36(2)(b), on which the joint policing committee is to advise the local authority concerned and the Garda Síochána.

I mentioned on Committee Stage that I wanted to have an emergency brake procedure in terms of the establishment of local policing fora if the Garda Síochána has reservations about its capacity to service every local committee. After all, we agree generally that gardaí on the beat and on the streets are highly desirable. I do not want them overburdened with servicing local committees to the detriment of a visible policing presence. I indicated that I would confer on the Minister of the day the right to resolve disputes on whether a forum should be created as it would be advisable in my opinion to provide for some form of mediation where there is disagreement.

Having considered the matter, I decided to make such provision on Report Stage. The Bill now provides that, in circumstances where any dispute arises over the establishment of a local policing forum, the joint policing committee must submit the dispute to the Minister who will consult with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs. The Minister's decision on the matter will be final. This is part of my approach to ensure that the local policing fora do not become victims of their own success and expand to such a point that they might become unworkable by placing an unreasonable burden on Garda resources.

On amendment No. 41, the chairman of the National Crime Council impressed upon me the need to consider providing for the appointment on the joint policing committees of representatives of local community interests. I discussed this issue at great length in this House. Accordingly, I tabled an amendment to section 31, which provides for the establishment of joint policing committees, to insert the appropriate reference in subsection (2)(b)(v) which is now: "such other persons (including persons representing local community interests) as may be provided for in the guidelines,". That is a fair compromise on the matter. One may hold a purist view, as was discussed in this House, or the opposite view. This is a reasonable balance of the two views.

Section 33(1) places a duty on a local authority "to have regard to the need to take such steps as may be practicable to assist in the reduction of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour within its area of responsibility." During the debate in the Dail this wording came in for some criticism and I requested that Parliamentary Counsel re-examine the provision, after which it was amended accordingly.

Amendment No. 49 concerns statements made without malice. Section 32(5), as passed by the Seanad, provides that any statement made without malice during a meeting of the joint policing committee or any sub-committee is privileged, as is any subsequent publication of that statement. Following the Report Stage debate in this House, a question arose with regard to the matter of privilege in the context of its application to subsequent statements. The point was made that if a public accusation was made against another person and at a subsequent meeting the allegation was withdrawn, the idea that someone else would be able to publish what had happened originally without reference to the withdrawal of privilege would be unacceptable. I said that I would address the matter in the Dáil and this was the purpose of this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 44 are technical drafting amendments.