Alex White (Labour)

The most striking argument the Minister put forward for not accepting a change requiring a chief superintendent rather than a garda to give evidence concerned the advantage an individual garda's direct knowledge would bestow. The Minister gave the example of Drogheda versus Dundalk, which is not a particularly compelling argument. I am familiar with and understand the point that chief superintendents may be based in one area but are obliged to cover two discrete areas. However, I would have thought the role and duties of a chief superintendent would be such as to ensure he or she had an appreciation of the problems, issues and operational challenges to the force throughout his or her area of management.

This provision pertains to evidence being given as to the existence of a gang and I accept the Minister's contention that a chief superintendent cannot be expected to know everything that is going on in every nook and cranny across the board. However, I refer to operational problems or issues, such as the existence of a gang. While I may be wrong, I would have thought that for something as important or as significant as the existence of gangs, a chief superintendent would be aware of, or would have a means of being informed by his or her subordinates on, the existence or otherwise of gangs.

Senator Regan is correct to note this provision is not about local knowledge. Were that the case, the Bill would say so. However, it does not mention local knowledge. Consequently, the Drogheda versus Dundalk example is not reflected in the legislation. It refers to "experience, specialised knowledge or qualifications". I thought the Minister might make the point that levels of expertise exist within the Garda Síochána, such as, for example, special detective units and the special branch or whatever it is called these days and that people involved in this important aspect of the Garda's work are those who more properly should be called upon to give such evidence. That is a specialised specialism and an expertise one can understand. However, the argument the Minister put forward in favour of this section is more akin to a question of local or direct knowledge.

As Members discuss the difference between opinion and expertise, my concern is the measure is open to the criticism that it constitutes opinion masquerading as expertise. I believe the Minister stated this is an ingenious way to deal with this question. The problem in this regard is that opinion evidence must of course be corroborated. Consequently, the way to get around that is simply by calling it expert evidence. In reality however, it is the expression of an opinion. As for expertise, I would have thought that all gardaí have expertise, qualifications and knowledge. Will a differentiation be made to the effect that some have more expertise on the existence of gangs than others? I could understand such an argument from the Minister. Were he to make such an argument, he might state it is more appropriate for specialised units within the force, such as the special branch, to give such evidence. However, his justification did not include such a point. Given general acceptance regarding the trust and credibility the community places in senior members of the force with long years of experience, I cannot understand what is the problem with specifying they should be called on and be relied on to give such evidence or how that is considered not appropriate.

Senator Leyden has a point, albeit perhaps a slightly different one from what he intended. Why should a junior garda on the beat, perhaps the officer who came across the initial information, evidence or whatever, be exposed? Surely it should be the chief superintendent or those superior officers who collate such information and direct activities within the force who should be exposed. Moreover, it seems a chief superintendent will have the established public credibility in the eyes of the public. This is not to demean or undermine anything in respect of individual gardaí, junior or otherwise, past or present. However, calling on a chief superintendent to do this would be a protection the community would value. I cannot believe a chief superintendent would be so divorced or removed from such crucial information as the question of the existence of gangs.

Lest I give the contrary impression, I emphasise my party's support in this regard. The Minister has stated a number of times that although he had been called on by Deputy Rabbitte and others to do things, the Labour Party now appeared not to support him in so doing. I wish to make clear that I support what the Minister is attempting to do in this section. Obviously, the Minister and the Attorney General have been obliged to struggle with the question of how exactly one deals the issue of gangs, their existence and direction, the direction of activities and so forth. I understand this is a difficult issue and one to which it would be difficult to come up with an answer. I genuinely understand the difficulties in this regard. However, it would be a protection for all concerned, that would command confidence across the wider community, were Members to continue to repose such a level of trust on such issues in senior members of the force, rather than in junior members on the beat. Finally, this is more of a debating point than otherwise, but it probably will arise again depending on how late into the evening Members will be obliged to debate these matters. It is no answer to any criticisms Members might make for the Minister to assert that he could have gone a lot further. The Minister states repeatedly that it could have been a lot worse and that he could have gone much further. He talks about people discussing internment and all the rest of it. Presumably he could have gone much further and Members would have a different level of debate. However, the assertion that the Minister could have been more draconian is no answer to the genuine, reasonable criticisms Members are putting forward in this regard.