Gárda Síochána (Complaints) Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mrs. Barnes

Before Question Time I was stressing the importance of the complaints tribunal from the point of view of the public generally and the Garda. The tribunal must be so formulated that it will have the confidence of the people. I referred to the Minister's Second Stage speech earlier. He said that complaints reported to the tribunal should not be frivolous or vexatious.

We must realise the type of atmosphere in which complaints would arise. The Minister said there need not be intimidation or violent behaviour towards somebody. There must be common courtesy in dealing with people being interviewed by the Garda. That is very important. Deputies pointed out that many people have to come before the Garda and the courts and a large proportion of them come from disadvantaged environments and are deprived from the point of view of availability of information and education.

We do not wish to over burden this body with complaints that might not be serious, but we must consider the attitudes adopted by some gardaí towards people whom they may suspect of crime. It has been put to me again and again by people living in the less privileged areas that the manner used when gardaí go into estates is much more careless than the courtesy extended in the more independent middle class areas. It should be the reverse. Educated people know their rights, do not lack confidence and are not as easily intimidated. This should be included in the safeguards and should be taken into account in training gardaí.

This House will be reminded painfully of the psychological pressure to which people can be subjected when held in detention on looking back to what is now known as the Kerry babies case where people confessed under psychological pressure to crimes they did not commit. The lesson learned from the Kerry babies case must be translated into safeguards by the independent complaints tribunal. We also emphasise that what must be kept in mind is that we must achieve the highest possible support for the Garda. It is not the strength of the Garda but their deployment and their treatment of the community which give the results we all want in lowering crime rates and in treating our people equally.

I am aware that we are running out of time and that a great number of other speakers want to speak on this. I noted that towards the end of his speech the Minister said he would introduce safeguards. We hope to debate those regulations here as soon as possible. In setting up this tribunal we are giving power that could be so open to abuse that it will cause serious worry for us. In line with that we must have clearly defined safeguards which can be recognised by the public at large so that when people are in custody they will know their rights and will not be unduly intimidated. That can only reflect positively on the Garda because people who do a good job should not be subjected to frustration and should not be smeared with the bad behaviour of others. The tribunal along with the safeguards will sort that problem out.

We can never underestimate the positive effects of safeguards. Some years ago an experiment was carried out in a police station in Britain. The police were flexible enough to allow a 24 hour visual and sound recording of the events in the station. The public had an opportunity to see the recording afterwards and one of the dramatic highlights in it was how a woman who claimed to have been raped was treated by the police in the station. This recording brought the police and the public up with such a jolt which could not have been equalled by any thesis or written submission, that police behaviour has been changed towards rape victims and a whole set of safeguards has been laid down. At long last the Judiciary realise that there must be a change of attitude towards rape victims.

Everything we are saying about independence and impartiality in relation to this tribunal translates into a much fairer and more informed implementation of justice so that the community will support the gardaí and the gardaí will be seen as being part of the community. On Committee Stage I shall again urge the independence and total impartiality of such tribunal.

Mr. Browne

I had the opportunity to speak on the Criminal Justice Bill as it passed through this House and I will now speak on this Bill. It has taken a long time for the Government to introduce this Bill. The Criminal Justice Act gives the Garda new powers of arrest and detention. It enables the Garda Síochána to arrest and detain persons in Garda stations without being charged for periods of six, 12 or 20 hours. When introducing the Criminal Justice Bill the Government said that the provisions giving increased powers to the Garda would not be implemented until such time as the new procedures dealing with the handling of complaints against the Garda were in operation. This was a wise decision but it has taken far too long to bring the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Bill before this House. Section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act provides that an order shall not be made in respect of sections 4, 6, 8 and 10, 15, 16, 18 and 19 until legislation is enacted relating to investigation of complaints from the public against the Garda.

It is regrettable that new powers are necessary but the high levels of crime made them inevitable. The real problem is to balance the legislation to give extra support to the gardaí to enable them to curb the escalation of crime while at the same time protecting the right of the citizen. As legislators we have a duty to ensure that this country is not turned into a police State. We must have balanced legislation to protect the citizen and to give the general public faith in the ability of the Garda to carry out their duty in a fair and impartial manner.

We must give our full support to the Garda in carrying out their duties. We live in difficult times and the hardened criminal is part and parcel of our society. The Garda must have every co-operation through legislation and the support of the people to safeguard the community. On the other hand the Garda in their role as protectors of the State must adhere to standards and obligations which are not unacceptable to the people. We need a totally independent complaints board in order to deal with complaints against the force. The words "totally independent" are very important if the complaints board is to work. I am very disappointed that the Minister does not agree with the suggestions from all sides of the House.

The Garda complaints board could not be described as independent when the Minister intends the seven member board to contain the Commissioner, or his deputy or an assistant commissioner. Many politicians believe that no member of the force should be entitled to be a member of the proposed board. The general public will lack confidence in the board's ability to be fair in its dealings with complaints against the gardaí if it contains a member of the force. They will say its conclusions are biased. Whether this is right or wrong, the public feel the board cannot be fair, impartial or independent if a member of the force is sitting on the board. The Garda would have a better image if they were not represented on the board.

Over the past few years the image of the Garda has become tarnished by the irresponsible actions and low standards of a minority in the force. I accept that the number of such incidents is small when compared with the overall strength of the force but, with the exception of the very small percentage of the image tarnishers, the competence and standard of the Garda force have always been very high. The fact that there have been undesirable incidents which have caused widespread public concern and alarm, justifies setting up a complaints board but it should be independent.

I am afraid the public will see the fact that the Commissioner has a place on the board as ensuring that the garda, against whom the complaint is made, will be reasonably well protected because, it is with the Commissioner that the buck stops in relation to the competence of his force, and they will say he is not in a position to make a fair judgment. They will see it more as an internal inquiry.

The perception of Garda internal inquiries in recent years has not been accepted by the general public. There has been widespread alarm at some of the internal inquiries which have been carried out. The public see some of them as a bit of a joke and as a cover up. We all know about the Kerry babies case. There was an internal investigation which failed to satisfy the public or the politicians and we ended up with a judicial inquiry which cost the State a very large amount of taxpayers' money. At the end of the day the image of the Garda was completely tarnished and the public considered that they did not have any great trust in internal Garda inquiries.

We also heard of a person who died in Garda custody — the Shercock case. There was an internal Garda investigation, but the results were inconclusive. We also had the Bunratty case where allegations were made about the involvement of the Garda and of a subsequent cover up. This internal investigation left many questions unanswered and has created deep divisions among Garda families in that area.

All this doubt and public disquiet could have been avoided if we had had an independent board free of Garda involvement which could have investigated these allegations and complaints against the Garda. I hope the Minister will look again at the possibility of setting up such a board which we feel will serve the best interests of the Garda and the public.

Another area of concern is the membership of the board. The Minister mentioned a chairman and six members. He suggested two members from the legal profession with at least ten years experience, which is a very good idea. I suggest a medical representative should also be a member. In the past there were claims against the Garda of injuries, mental stress, psychological and other effects on people held in custody. For that reason it is essential that a medical person be a member of the new complaints board.

If the Garda are to survive as protectors of the State we must have community support. In these difficult times of crime and vandalism we hear a lot of talk about community policing and neighbourhood watch, all good initiatives in their own right. In recent years we have had many cowardly vicious attacks on old people and the Minister, politicians and community leaders are calling on the general public to become more involved in the fight against crime and against such atrocities. There are calls for greater liaison between the Garda and the public. If we are to solve the problem of crime we must involve the community because they will know who is responsible and will be in a position to work with the Garda to enforce the law. If we encourage community interests to become involved in this area, they too must have a place on the board. The Minister should look at this seriously because on Committee Stage we will be putting forward amendments to tackle this problem.

If the Minister does not intend to make these people members of the board, who does he intend to appoint? I hope it will not be composed of political hacks or jobs for the boys. I hope that practice has gone forever. Different Governments down the years ruined many good ideas by appointing such people. People were put in charge of institutions who were not capable of running a corner shop. That is completely wrong. I hope the Minister will approach this problem in a reasonable manner and will take on board some of the suggestions I and others have made to ensure that we will have a board in which the people can have trust and which will serve the best interests of the public and the Garda.

The Ó Briain report called for the setting up of an independent system for dealing with complaints against the Garda by the public. He said any such independent board would have to have the blessing and goodwill of the Garda if it was to succeed. The Garda are not too happy with certain sections of this Bill particularly those sections dealing with the right to remain silent. Sections 7(9) and 14(6) compel them to answer questions in the course of investigations. This is an exceptional measure and the Garda objections should be seriously noted by this House. These sections go far beyond what is applicable to ordinary citizens. Questions can be asked about a garda's private life, his family life, his business or financial affairs. This type of pressure is totally unacceptable and at the end of the day will probably discourage the garda from carrying out his duties.

I accept that the Garda should answer the complaints brought against them, and they will be expected to co-operate fully, but the danger is that the proposals in this Bill intend to achieve more than that. They leave the force very vulnerable and open to attacks and silly accusations that would allow the public to compel gardaí to make disclosures about aspects of their personal and private lives which are universally regarded as private.

These are areas about which the Garda have serious reservations. The Minister has had sufficient time to have discussions with the Garda to ensure that those problems were overcome. On Committee Stage I hope we will be able to discuss this matter further with a view to seeking solutions to the problems at present being highlighted by the force. Enforcement of law and order is in need of radical change if we are to survive the ever-escalating crime rate. Indeed, when one examines the overall position in relation to crime and the problems confronting the Garda one could not but be concerned at the length of time Garda recruits spend training. I do not believe it is sufficient to meet the ever-increasing demands being made on the force. As legislators we have a duty to ensure that the Garda receive total support and also that the public feel confident of their right to make complaints about the Garda. We must maintain a balance in legislation which will ensure that the Garda can go about their daily duties while, at the same time, the rights of the citizen are protected. Indeed it could be contended that a garda at present fulfils the roles of a social worker, communicator, educationalist and youth worker in his dealings with the different types of criminals and crimes committed and the problems confronting him. We should ascertain how we can improve the overall educational process of the Garda, enabling them to combat the problems facing us.

Mr. Bell

I should like to thank Deputy Prendergast for allowing me to speak; I understand his name is on the list also. As somebody who served with the armed forces on the Border I have seen at first hand the work undertaken by the Garda Síochána, particularly from the year 1969 onwards. I fully appreciate the efforts they make on behalf of people, particularly in Border areas, the frontline of defence of the country, against terrorism and all sorts of serious crime.

During Question Time I was horrified, to say the least, to hear a Member suggest that we might eliminate the Army. I wonder does the Member concerned understand that the Army and the Garda Síochána have given 100 per cent support to democratically elected Governments of the day since this State was founded. Never at any stage was that in doubt. It should be remembered that we here who enjoy the privilege of free speech would not have that privilege were it not for the Army and Garda. That sort of talk on the part of a public representative is the sort of thing that creates unease within the force. This House must indicate clearly its uncompromising support for the Garda and Army.

The introduction of this Bill has given rise to a certain amount of unease. I have been looking up the records and speaking to people at every level in the force. Listening to public statements one would be forgiven for thinking that there was no form of disciplinary code within the force. It could not be contended that in other sections of the community, in industry or the services, there is a more strict code of discipline than that obtaining within the Garda Síochána. If one goes back to 1972 one finds that there were three members of the force dismissed and 49 fined, that in 1985 there were four dismissed and 107 fined, whereas in 1984 there were 17 dismissed and 103 fined. That is a very high proportion measured by any standard. That clearly demonstrates to me that the system of discipline obtaining within the force — whatever difficulties it may have presented — had a good track record. Certainly the figures I have obtained from 1972 onwards demonstrates that it operated satisfactorily.

I believe, and have believed, that this Bill is not necessary, that an up-dating of the existing complaints system within the force would have been sufficient. On the last occasion to which we debated this matter I said I felt this should have been done by negotiation between the Garda Síochána, the Minister and departmental officials, that all that was needed was an up-dating of the existing regulations. I am quite satisfied that such negotiations would have succeeded. However, once again, pressure groups have forced politicians into producing an unnecessary Bill. Indeed, this has created within the minds of the Garda and the general public a fear that people are being abused wholesale by members of the force, which is just not the case.

One must remember that the Garda deal with criminals daily and that anybody who upholds the law need not be afraid of them. It is only those who break the law who need harbour such fears. While a person always must be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, we see more and more in our homes and streets, particularly in urban areas, incidents of attacks on old people and young girls by thugs and groups of people who move from one place of entertainment to another simply to cause trouble within the community. It is within that atmosphere that the Garda must operate. As public representatives we must demonstrate clearly our full and absolute support for them in their difficult task. Of course there are members of the force who break the rules and the law — they are only human beings like the rest of us — and when they do so, they should be dealt with in accordance with the law. They should not be disadvantaged any more than an ordinary member of the community; the rules of behaviour and procedure should be equal in all cases.

There is a danger that the provision of this Bill will mean that the Garda will have to spend more time dealing with complaints, more time defending themselves, introducing additional legal procedures within the system than dealing with criminals. The danger is that they could spend more time defending themselves against frivolous complaints than with criminals. Hardly does a day pass now but we hear reports in the media of armed confrontation and robberies. On most occasions the Garda are involved in such happenings, unarmed, dealing with people who have no hesitation in shooting and killing them. I believe that the existing system of complaints against the Garda is more than adequate. Now that the Bill has been introduced I would suggest that the Minister give very serious consideration to its provisions. On Committee Stage I will be putting down a number of amendments, as I am sure will other Members.

The length of time within which a complaint can be lodged — six months — is ridiculous, to say the least. No employer or trade union would accept that an employer could dismiss an employee six months after a complaint had been made against them. Whilst the Garda have representative bodies at various rank levels, they have not the right to strike, therefore they are not protected by law in that regard. They must depend entirely and absolutely on fair play within their organisation.

There are dedicated representatives of the public who will complain consistently about members of the Garda. I meet them regularly in my constituency and I am sure Deputies from other constituencies will agree with that. Very often when checked out the complaints are found to be not only frivolous but false. Frequently we find public representatives making statements against the Garda Síochána without checking out the facts properly. The fear I have is that gardaí may have to spend so much time defending themselves against frivolous complaints with no means of paying for what could be a very costly defence system. There should be some arrangement whereby effectively a complaint would be first investigated on the same basis as within the trade union end by a rights commissioner or somebody skilled in that way who could advise the tribunal as to whether the case should be heard. As submitted by the Association of Garda Sargeant and Inspectors there is no means within the Bill of terminating a hearing of a complaint against a garda. In other words, a guy could simply emigrate or disappear and there is nothing in the Bill which provides that as a result of that the case could be terminated. One question that must be answered, is how do you conclude in the middle of the investigation of a complaint if the tribunal discover that false information has been given or that key witnesses in the investigation are not available, do not turn up or make themselves scarce?

I thank my colleague again for allowing me the opportunity of a few minutes and I reserve my main comments for Committee Stage.

Mr. M. Ahern

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill which, of course, should have been brought before the House long before now. At least it has reached us. This Bill is introduced as a consequence of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 which provides that an order shall not be made in respect of sections 4 to 6, 8 to 10, 15, 16, 18 and 19 until legislation is enacted relating to the investigation of complaints from the public against members of the Garda. Therefore we have this Garda Complaints Bill before us. Over the years since the State came into being gardaí in this community have had a very high standing, and rightly so. The Garda have played their role in looking after the interests of the people very well indeed. However, over the last decade or so they have come under severe pressure due to change in society. We have had cases such as the Kerry Babies, Shercock, Bunratty and so on which have brought about a certain amount of doubt and questioning about the members of the force. It is important that the confidence that was always there in the Garda should be retained and improved and one way to do that is to set up an independent complaints board. The complaints body which the Minister referred to would not be seen as independent due to the fact that the Commissioner, or one of his assistant commissioners would be a member of that board. I do not wish to cast any slur on either the Commissioner of today or the Commissioner or assistant commissioner whoever he may be at any time, but I feel that certain sections of the community would make hay of the fact that if the Garda are represented on this complaints body then this board would not be independent. For the confidence and trust in which the Garda should be held a completely independent board would be most beneficial for the Garda Síochána themselves. The board should be free of Garda involvement and should investigate independent allegations and complaints against gardaí. I hope the Minister will look again at the possibility of such a board as we on this side of the House and many other Members have referred to.

Another area of concern in this Bill is that the Minister in his wisdom does not see the inclusion of a representative of the medical profession or community representatives on the board as mandatory. He talks about having the legal profession, up to two in number, of at least ten years qualification, as ordinary members of the board. It is essential, I agree with him, that we have experienced legal persons on the board, but I ask him if it is not vital that a medical person be on the board as in many cases claims are brought against the Garda for injuries. People claim mental stress and other psychological effects, and if a complaint is brought before a court it is important that a person with experience in both psychological and physical medicine be there to advise and adjudicate and help the other members of the board in making a decision.

In this day and age a good thing is happening in our community. People are taking a more active part in helping the Garda in the policing of their own areas. Community bodies throughout the country are taking a very active part in neighbourhood watch and so on. It would be good if the Minister would take note of this and place a member of one of these voluntary organisations who are organising all these watches and so on on the board.

A matter which worries many gardaí is the question of the right to silence which it seems the Bill intends to do away with. The gardaí who, like the rest of us, are citizens of the country, have a right to silence in relation to private and family matters and when accused of criminal activities, and they should not be allowed the right to silence in relation to the carrying out of their duties. In relation to the other matters they should have the same rights as the rest of the community. Gardaí fear that the relevant section in the Bill will open up questions and that they will have no right to hold the normal silence that everybody else in the community is allowed to hold. It is important to allay the fears of the gardaí, which perhaps need not be as great as they seem to be. However, there is always the possibility of an individual abusing the spirit of the law and, by using the letter of the law, causing great wrong to individuals.

I should like to refer to the recording of questioning. The use of recorders by themselves could cause great problems to individuals. There is no doubt that certain sections of the criminal class are highly educated and know all the tricks of the trade. One can be sure that during an investigation they would not be above pretending that they were being assaulted. If a garda does not have any independent way of showing that an assault did not take place he could be dismissed from the force or his promotion prospects destroyed. It is vitally important that a video tape of the proceedings be made in conjunction with a tape recording. One without the other should not be accepted.

I am also concerned about the fact that a person has six months to make a complaint. As Deputy Bell stated, that is an inordinately long time to have to wait. After six months a person may make a complaint out of the blue and there may not be any record of that individuals visit to the station. A garda may not know what the complainant was referring to. The Minister should reduce that period significantly.

I do not believe frivolous complaints will be made to the board although the impression is being created abroad that, as a result of the provisions in the Bill, there will be an increase in the number of frivolous complaints. I have no doubt that most complaints will be dealt with at local level but there may be a concerted effort by certain individuals to cause trouble. The Minister should consider granting legal aid to gardaí against whom consistent complaints are made.

In this day and age of specialisation in every walk of life there should be a more in-depth form of training for all members of the force. Fianna Fáil had plans to provide facilities for further training at Templemore but I understand they are at a standstill. However, when inflation goes down to zero the Minister will be able to provide the necessary funds.

Mr. Dukes

I gave it a good push along the way.

Mr. M. Ahern

The Minister should provide the funds for the in-depth training that is necessary in this world of specialisation.

Mr. Prendergast

Normally I preface my remarks, like most Deputies on this side of the House, by saying that I welcome a Bill before us but like a number of other Deputies, such as the distinguished Member and former Lord Mayor of Dublin, Deputy Michael Keating, I have reservations about the need for certain provisions in the Bill. A police force is one of the arms of a democracy and rests on the will of the people, like the Army in our position, as outlined by Deputy Bell. The structure of police in Ireland, which came into being in 1836 through the development of the Irish Constabulary was, in terms of the time, unique because it was a very clever amalgam of models which operated in Britain and in Europe at the time.

I should like to refer to one of the most excellent and definitive analyses of the position in Ireland over the last 20 years, as published in the spring edition of Studies, an Irish quarterly review. That analyses was compiled by Thomas J. O'Reilly, a chief superintendent in the Garda Síochána. I suggest that those referring to crime, lawlessness or vandalism in Ireland at present should read that article. Most Members will remember that it is the first principle of science that everything has a cause and an effect. It might be well for us to bear in mind that a great deal of the criticism of the Garda Síochána is ill-founded and, in some cases, naive because those concerned do not understand what led to the present position in Irish society.

Superintendent O'Reilly pointed out that when the structure of police in Ireland came into being in Europe it was thought that the police not only enforced laws but frequently made them too, and, as with a good and wise father, police were trusted on behalf of government to make the right decisions for what was good for society in matters of order, cleanliness and right living. In England the model eschewed government control and policing was seen to derive its function from a community's desire to regulate itself. The position in Ireland was different and up to the time when the Constabulary was replaced by the Irish Free State Government there were no great changes from what obtained since 1836. In fact, the only difference that has obtained since then is the decision by our native Government that policemen should not be issued with firearms, except in the case of some individual members. They lived under what might be described in present day terms as draconian conditions. The rules required members of the force to live in barracks. They were forbidden to discuss crime and enforcement policies and practices with other members of the community.

It was left to the police, as a result of that, to run the country. That was fine up to about 20 years ago when a combination of circumstances led to the present increasingly unsatisfactory position. We need not go overboard about the position but at last week's meeting of the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism I asked the members of the Garda advisory panel who met our committee, about the position here between the general public and the police authorities. I expressed the opinion that I thought that because of the strong spiritual ethos which prevailed up to 20 years ago, and to a large extent to the present day, Irish people were, per se, amenable to law and order. I am told that while the position here is relatively satisfactory vis-á-vis the rest of Europe and the Western world we are nonetheless moving into a position where some aspects of crime will, if we do not do something effective about them, finish up as bad as anything known in Western society.

There are reasons for this decline because in Irish society as well as in other societies there are people who are anticleric, who have a kind of vocabulary of abuse which they apply to people who comment on a religious-sociological dimension to society. There are people who sneer at the mention of any such dimension and as someone said once, it is difficult to rebut a sneer. In America the sociologists are now lamenting the passing of the Tammany Hall arrangement in American politics though that arrangement was much criticised when it was in existence.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It could be lamented that the Deputy has moved away from the Bill.

Mr. Prendergast

I am making the point that sociologists are saying now that because of the decline in spiritual influence in Irish society and because there has been an absence of any consequent respect for the civil authority to fill that vacuum we are now experiencing so much crime and so many other problems. There is increasing urbanisation and higher expectations in terms of material rewards. The police force are faced increasingly with the kinds of decisions that they never had to take before and they are being criticised by the public. Consequently, the Garda are rightly indignant about the measures proposed in this Bill.

This is a measure which was in some way a reaction by the previous Minister. After putting through the Criminal Justice Act, despite the amount of criticism from the people to some of the measures in the Act, I presume the then Minister considered it necessary to introduce something on the lines of this Bill in order to meet the criticism of actions of some gardaí, instances of which have been given here, notably one instance that occurred not too far from my area. I refer to the Bunraty case where a deep suspicion hangs over members of the force. There were other instances, too. We must strike a balance in these circumstances. In a free society we must be fair to people and ensure that a suspected offender is given every opportunity that is based on the old maxim common in western society that one is innocent until proved guilty. At the same time, we must remember that because we are a free society, and elect a Government to represent us who in turn provide an army and a police force as the arms of democracy, the vast majority of people who are lawabiding citizens should be free to walk the streets or do whatever they wish without the fear of being mugged, robbed, raped or beaten up. Law abiding citizens should be free to sleep in their beds in the enjoyment and comfort of their homes without the fear of being attacked by intruders.

Unfortunately, because of the reprehensible actions of some gardaí, people who would not be too concerned about the tenets of democracy either in this or in any other country will accuse the Garda in general of actions that are wrong. As the elected representatives of this democracy we should say loudly and clearly and in the interest of fairness and objectivity that we have an unarmed police force which can be said to be one of the finest in any free society in the world. There is not much point in talking about police forces in societies that are not free. Our police are very concerned about the proposals in this Bill.

In the editorial in the Garda News of June 1985 some of the reservations in regard to the Bill are expressed. I quote from the editorial:

One can only speculate on the reasons why Mr. Noonan, at the very last minute, decided to introduce the controversial `right to silence' measure in the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Bill. Without even being told he must surely have been aware of the likely reaction among gardaí which such a proposal would generate. So there must have been some powerful and compelling reasons for taking such a step. If that be the case the Minister has been less than anxious (at least at time of going to press) to spell them out and certainly the evidence available to the gardaí and the general public is insufficiently convincing to sustain an argument in support of this extraordinary measure.

Apart from the fundamental rights aspect of this issue there is a deeper and far stronger reason why the gardaí so determinedly oppose this particular provision, Many gardaí feel genuinely hurt that they, and their profession, should be held in such low esteem by the Government that they can no longer be trusted, can no longer be accorded the same rights and respect as all other public servants — not to mention the criminals. At a time when gardaí are under siege from all sides the least they could have hoped for was that their own Minister for Justice would not add to the cacophony of abuse, but would instead do something to boost flagging morale.

The logic behind this piece of legislation is to make the gardaí more accountable for their actions. Fine. But how more accountable are they going to have to become before the Government is satisfied. Right now they are held accountable under a draconian disciplinary code where they can be summarily fined, suspended or dismissed; they are accountable to the courts where every minute particular is daily analysed under the miscroscopic attention of the legal profession; they are accountable to the Minister for Justice who can order an inquiry into any aspect of garda behaviour and through him they are accountable to the Oireachtas who can, and most recently did authorise an inquiry into garda behaviour.

In a later paragraph it states:

Nobody is arguing that the gardaí should not be accountable but, in the much used words of the Minister himself, a "balance" need to be struck.

That is what we should be striving for in this legislation. The article continues:

And that balance is not just between the rights of the citizens and the powers of the gardaí, important though that is, there is also a balance needed between how much attention is paid to the negative aspect of gardaí discipline and control and that paid to the positive element of defining a clear role for the gardaí in Irish society and giving them the resources, structure and management to fulfil that role. Unfortunately too little attention has been paid to the latter.

The article concludes with the remark that something must be done about the present situation but that if something is not done about it soon a resolution would be even more difficult to achieve. I might outline also some other major concerns.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would remind the Deputy that both Deputies Harney and Glenn are offering and that the Minister is due to intervene at 5 p.m.

Mr. Prendergast

In deference to my colleagues I shall reserve my further comments for the Committee Stage.

Miss Harney

The Garda Síochána (Complaints) Bill is to be welcomed and is long overdue. It deals with an area of great sensitivity and the immediate context of its introduction underlines both the necessity for it and the complexity of the problems with which it deals. The Bill is by no means original and, like so much Irish legislation, draws very heavily on a British Act. It will require to be carefully reviewed in the early years of its operation.

I propose to discuss some matters of general principle related to the Bill and to make a number of specific criticisms of it. This House has not often addressed itself seriously to problems of policing. Criticisms of the Garda have often to be answered by almost overly lavish praise from both Government and Opposition, while a small minority of Deputies have indulged both in the House, in committees and elsewhere in hostile fantasies so paranoid as to make serious debate impossible.

The history of this Bill is instructive. It was introduced by the former Minister for Justice as a quid pro quo for the increased powers of detention conferred on the Garda by the Criminal Justice Act, 1985. Such a balancing factor was thought necessary because of the significant degree of unease about the treatment of persons in custody, highlighted by a number of dramatic cases such as the Sallins train robbery case, the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Lynch, the Kerry Babies case and, most disturbingly, the death of Mr. Matthews in Shercock Garda station. This last case, in which a person in Garda custody received injuries from which he died, highlighted the central problem in the policing of the police. It is virtually impossible to establish the truth of a disputed incident inside a Garda station if evidence is not forthcoming from the Garda. The other cases were less dramatic but involved statements by way of confession from people in custody, the truth of which later became open to grave doubts, at the very least.

Cases such as these have serious implications with regard to public confidence in the force and encourage the manufacture in other instances of wildly false allegations against members of the Garda Síochána. In response to all this, the Ó Briain committee were appointed and reported some eight years ago. For reasons never properly explained, their recommendations have been ignored. A steady trickle of disturbing cases continues to undermine public confidence. For a variety of reasons, including the overactive interpretation of the sub judice rule, this House has never adequately considered the problem.

The problem has two aspects — that of restoring and maintaining public confidence and that of providing a quick and effective means of investigating complaints. The two are obviously related. The latter was left, heretofore to the Civil and Criminal Courts on the one hand and to the Garda discipline regulations on the other.

Many complaints against gardaí, and almost all the more serious ones, also constitute criminal offences. This fact raises problems of reconciling the Garda's rights as a citizen with the need for proper administration of the force. It is responsible for one of the most unattractive features of the present Bill — its great complexity. But whether or not a complaint amounts to an allegation of a crime it has always, heretofore, been investigated by the Garda themselves.

Probably the most dramatic change envisaged by the Bill is that future investigations will be under the control of an independent board and can, if the board so decide, be conducted by their chief executive. This is a desirable change. To some extent it is a halfway house, since the board's ability to supervise the investigation will be dependent on reports from Garda investigators. But experience of recent investigations have shown them to be generally efficient and impartial and the presence of the board with their power to investigate directly should encourage this. I do not think that at present a case can be made for a new Garda investigative body other than the chief executive of the board.

Much of the complexity of this Bill relates to the overlap between complaints and allegations of criminal offences. Where it appears that a crime may have been committed, the board yield immediately to the DPP though the case may subsequently return to their ambit. I question whether so rigid a demarcation is necessary. The DPP will arrive at his decision from considering reports of a Garda investigation. If such investigations are to be supervised by the board where there is no question of a criminal offence, it is hard to see why there should be no such supervision where such an offence is in question. These cases would generally be more serious. Supervision of the investigation by the board would in no way hamper the DPP's discretion.

The decision of the Commissioner or his nominee to sit on the board is probably not as desirable as this might previously have been. It would be better if the board were wholly independent. The Bill as drafted contains very wide powers for investigations which would exempt them from the ordinary law about, for example, telephone tapping and searches. Was this intended? Perhaps the Minister could clarify this.

The scope of the Act is very wide, extending to "any conduct" of a member of the Garda. There is no requirement that the conduct must be in relation to, or capable of affecting, his official duties. There are recent examples of gardaí being proceeded against under the discipline code for matters in relation to the their personal life and matters which have absolutely nothing to do with the carrying out of their duties as members of the force. The provisions of this Bill extend those powers further and that is undesirable.

Because of the time factor and the fact that Deputy Glenn also wishes to speak, I will end by saying that I welcome this Bill. Its passage will allow the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act of 1985 in full, which is a good thing. Time will tell whether the Bill is satisfactory. We will have to review its operation continually, particularly in the early years.

Mrs. Glenn

I shall be very brief. I wish to draw attention to some of the sections of this Bill to which I would like consideration to be given on Committee Stage. The Bill was intended to redress the imbalances created by the Criminal Justice Act of 1985. It should do just that and no more. First, I want to draw attention to the much too broad definition of conduct. It should be confined to conduct on duty or in the course of duty. With regard to section 4, six months is an excessive period in which one has the opportunity to make a complaint. I suggest that there should be a limitation of 28 days maximum and that the accused person should be given notice four days after the lodging of the complaint.

In section 4 the Commissioner can delay notification of complaint to a member for the purpose of obtaining or preserving evidence. This is oppressive when coupled with the previous section. There should be some kind of guarantee given here that no attempt will be made to phone tap or investigate through stealth the person under investigation. Section 5 undermines the authority of the Commissioner in that the complaints board can overturn his informal resolution of a complaint and order an investigation. Some safeguard is needed here for those who would be involved in what they would consider to be an informal situation. Any information given under such circumstances should not be used in different circumstances. That is important.

I am a little concerned that the complaints board have rather sweeping powers. They could, in fact, be judge and jury. I suggest that where they decide that action is necessary those members of the board who have come to that conclusion should not then be the members who would judge the person concerned. There should be a difference of personnel in that instance.

The right to silence is the contentious issue. The section, in essence, requires members to convict themselves under the complaints procedure. Since this cannot be accomplished under ordinary rules of evidence, it is an area to which serious attention must be paid. The right to silence is afforded to all who are under investigation. To deny gardaí that right is a denial of natural justice. A lot more consultation and discussion should take place between all concerned in that regard.

In section 14 no provision with regard to free legal aid is made in cases where a member of the force would be found guilty and have to proceed through the courts. Very few people in that circumstance would be in a financial position to provide themselves with the necessary legal assistance. Will gardaí be entitled to free legal aid if they must answer to the courts? There is also no provision to deter people from frivolous and vexatious accusations. Some ground rules need to be laid down in this regard, otherwise everybody brought to account would claim that he or she had not been treated fairly.

It is regrettable that on such an important issue we should have been so restricted in time. There are many Deputies, my own colleagues included, who are going to be deprived of the opportunity to speak. I ask that this would not arise again. We are entitled to air our views on such an important matter and about which so many of us feel very strongly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude Second Stage debate by 5.30 p.m.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Dukes)

I want to take up Deputy Glenn's last remark which is a matter mentioned by a number of Deputies during the course of the discussions. It is regrettable that there is not, perhaps, as much time as people would like to discuss Second Stage of a Bill of this kind. However, I shall try to show that Second Stage debate of this Bill has properly fulfilled the purpose of a Second Stage debate. It has emerged from the debate that there is general agreement on the principle of the Bill. There is agreement on the need for the Bill and during the course of the debate a number of matters have been pointed out which could properly be dealt with on Committee Stage.

My predecessor, when introducing Second Stage in the House some time ago, concluded by saying: "I am confident that the Bill will be approached on ... a constructive basis and I look forward to a constructive debate". That has turned out to be the case with this Bill. The Second Stage debate which we have had will be a very useful foundation for what I am quite sure will be a searching examination of the detailed provisions of this Bill on Committee Stage.

During the course of the debate it emerged that there is disagreement in relation to a number of provisions, for example, the composition of the board, the extent of their powers of investigation and other aspects. However, they seem to be matters which can be dealt with properly on Committee Stage.

I am particularly anxious that this Bill will be enacted before the summer recess. It is inevitable that this Bill will take longer on Committee Stage than on Second Stage. I am anxious to proceed as quickly as possible while respecting the need for a full debate in the House and to set up the board because the complaints machinery must be in operation before the Criminal Justice Act can be brought fully into operation. Another step must be taken, to which a number of Deputies adverted during the course of the debate, and that is that we must have new regulations for the treatment of persons in custody. I hope that I will be in a position to publish my intentions in relation to those regulations very shortly and I will be looking at means whereby we can have a constructive discussion on them before we make the regulations. The first publication will take the form of a document for general public discussion and I will make a point of having complete and full discussion of those proposals with the interested bodies, including those representing members of the Garda force, before we proceed to make the regulations.

I was unable to be present in the Chamber for a good deal of the debate today which is a matter of regret but, no more than any other Member of the House, including Deputy Skelly, I do not have the gift of bilocation. He may be listening on the monitor as I was this morning and if it is any consolation to him, as his sensitivities seem to have been a little bruised by my absence this morning, I listened to his contribution while reading speeches made by other Deputies with a view to preparing my remarks for this afternoon.

A number of points were raised during the course of the debate on which I should like to comment. I assure the House that if I do not deal with some points which were raised it is not because they are unworthy of consideration but because of time constraints. We will, of course, have an opportunity to deal with them on Committee Stage. There are a number of areas where I will be considering possible amendments on Committee Stage and in doing so I hope I will be responding to the genuine concerns expressed in the course of the debate.

There is consensus in the House in that we want the best complaints procedure which we can provide, both from the point of view of the general public and that of members of the Garda Síochána. Deputy Woods and other contributors suggested that the new complaints board could not properly be regarded as independent because of the Commissioner's participation. I do not believe that that suggestion stands up to scrutiny. Under the Bill at present, the Commissioner or his representative will be only one of seven members of the board and only one of three members of any tribunal established by the board. The remaining members of the board will be civilians in the sense that they will not be drawn from the ranks of the Garda Síochána. The procedure envisaged for the board and their tribunals is that they will arrive at their decisions by majority. I do not think it can reasonably be suggested in those circumstances that the board are not independent of the Garda, nor can it be suggested that the Commissioner or his representatives would be in a position to exercise undue influence on those decisions.

The Garda member of the board will be either the Commissioner or a deputy or assistant commissioner nominated by him. This member will have experience of police work at all levels and will be in a position to make a responsible and essential contribution to the deliberations of the board. I do not thing I need emphasise the point that the contributions to be made by the Commissioner or his representative will be fully supportive of the board in their concern to see that complaints are properly and thoroughly investigated. We should not lose sight of the fact that the Commissioner is the custodian of the good name of the force and also the chief disciplinary officer. From that point of view it is right that he should be involved in a formal way in the processing and adjudication of complaints alleging breaches of discipline. Otherwise the Commissioner, the chief disciplinary officer of the force, would be denied an adequate role in ensuring that the highest standards are maintained in the force.

Another consideration which is relevant in this connection, mentioned by Deputy Woods was that the complaints procedure should have the confidence of the public. I agree and Members who mentioned this aspect attached great importance to it as I do. It is equally important that the procedure should have the confidence of the members of the Garda Síochána if the scheme is to operate satisfactorily. That being so, the presence of the Commissioner or his nominee on the board would contribute to ensuring that that is the case.

A number of suggestions were made in relation to the constitution of the board. Deputy Woods said that the Bill should make provision in relation to membership of the board which would include a medical practitioner and representatives of community and vocational interests. That is an interesting proposal and I accept that it is desirable that the board should be representative of a crosssection of the community. It is necessary, of course, that a board of this kind should have a number of legally qualified members, if only to ensure that proper procedures are followed.

The Bill already provides that three of the board's seven members are to be legally qualified. It requires also that one of the remaining members is to be the Commissioner or a deputy or assistant commissioner nominated by him. The final three members of the board will be nominated by the Government. I cannot anticipate what specific decisions the Government will make in that regard or what the professions or occupations of those three members will be. It would be a mistake to provide in the Bill that the Government of the day should be obliged to appoint persons to these positions with particular qualifications or interests. I have no doubt that concerns expressed in the House on Second Stage and on Committee Stage will be borne in mind by the Government when they come to make these appointments but there are other concerns which perhaps have yet not been expressed that should be borne in mind.

One particularly important aspect relates to the question of public confidence in the board and the Government will be very concerned to ensure in the appointments they make that they will respond to that need and that the people they appoint to the board are people who will immediately command the respect and confidence of the general public and of the Garda. It has been suggested that there is nothing to prevent the Government from appointing further members of the Garda Síochána to the remaining positions on the board. It is the Government's intention that none of the remaining members of the board would be members of the force. If Deputies feel it necessary to do so, I will be prepared to make this clear by moving an appropriate amendment at a later stage. For the moment I want to make it quite clear that it is not the Government's intention that any of the three positions would be filled by a member of the Garda Síochána.

Deputy Woods was concerned that the Bill should not prevent any necessary preliminary investigations being undertaken in relation to a complaint, pending the appointment of an investigating officer by the Commissioner. He was concerned that section 4(5) of the Bill would come into operation only when the Commissioner was formally notified of a complaint. That is not the case. While the section provides that the Commissioner may take any necessary measures to obtain or preserve evidence on being notified of a complaint, it also provides that any member of the Garda Síochána can take any necessary measures on becoming aware of a complaint. A member of the force will also be under a duty to take these measures in the absence of a complaint where a criminal offence had been committed. I accept that the provision in the Bill could be made clearer in this regard and I am looking at subsection (5) of section 4 to see how this might be done. Depending on the outcome, I will come forward on Committee Stage with an appropriate amendment.

Deputy Woods was also concerned that the procedures which the Bill provides for the informal resolution of complaints should not be over-centralised or bureaucratic. He expressed some misgivings about the procedures set out in the Bill and indicated his belief that it would create a wasteful administrative nightmare. I share the concern to avoid excessive bureaucracy in this connection. It is important that the procedures we provide for the resolution of complaints should have the maximum flexibility consistent with the need for an element of supervision by the board. The Bill is intended to provide this flexibility and I think the concern expressed by Deputy Woods is based on a misunderstanding of the provision in question.

Section 5 provides that the informal resolution of a complaint will be undertaken by the Commissioner. Section 1(2) states:

Functions of the Commissioner under this Act may be performed by any member of the Garda Síochána authorised in that behalf by the Commissioner and references in this Act to the Commissioner shall be construed accordingly.

This provision makes it possible for the Commissioner to delegate any of the functions he is expected to perform under the Act to another member or members, including the function of deciding which complaints are suitable for informal resolution and for actual resolution of a particular complaint. It may be that it would be desirable for all complaints to be routed through the Commissioner's office for some initial period while experience is being built up in the operation of the new procedures and that would be a matter for the Commissioner to decide.

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent complaints being referred by the board directly to the chief superintendent in whose division the conduct occurred, that is, where the Commissioner would have delegated his responsibility for the informal resolution of those complaints to a chief superintendent. The local chief superintendent could then arrange for the resolution of a particular complaint to be undertaken by a member of appropriate rank. I agree with the contention by Deputy Woods that the informal resolution of complaints could best be dealt with locally from the outset and I would envisage that this would be the case.

Deputy Woods also mentioned the absence of any provision prohibiting disclosure of information by members, officers or servants of the complaints board. There does not seem to be any uniformity of procedure on this point in the legislation setting up State boards with comparable functions. Some have provisions about disclosure of information but others do not. In this case the board's officers and servants will be civil servants and as such they will come within the scope of the Official Secrets Act, 1963. The members of the boards are not covered by the 1963 Act but of course any improper disclosure of information by them would constitute misbehaviour which, if it were sufficiently serious, would justify their removal from office by the Government under the terms of paragraph 2 (8) of the First Schedule of the Bill. I am not convinced, therefore, that a special provision on this point is necessary, but it is another of the matters to which I will give some thought between now and Committee Stage.

Deputy Yates suggested that a member of the board who was involved in deciding that a complaint should be referred to a tribunal should not sit on that tribunal. This point had already been raised by three of the Garda associations in their discussions with my officials and my predecessor. He drew attention to it in his introductory speech and indicated then that he had been impressed by the arguments put forward by the associations. This is a matter I will examine again before Committee Stage to see whether the concern expressed here and by the three associations can be met by a suitable amendment.

Deputy Hyland mentioned the Garda disciplinary regulations. Lest there be any misunderstanding, until they are replaced by any new procedure or body of regulations they continue in existence. Deputy Hyland claimed that there seemed to be some uncertainty about the present position. The existing disciplinary regulations remain in force until such time as they are replaced by something else. On that score there is no uncertainty. The procedure provided for in this Bill will replace the disciplinary regulations for the purpose of complaints concerning the conduct of a member made by a member of the public and which the complainants wish to have dealt with by complaints board. The disciplinary regulations will continue to govern matters of internal discipline in the force and minor indiscretions which a member of the public might prefer to be dealt with without the involvement of the complaints board.

Discussions are taking place with three of the Garda associations on the preparation of new discipline regulations. This is being considered at present by officers of the Department under the auspices of the Garda Conciliation Council. The new regulations will incorporate the changes proposed in the Bill to the 1971 regulations. Further changes will be made in existing procedures which experience has shown to be necessary or desirable. The concern expressed by the Garda associations in relation to the existing regulations will be taken fully into account.

Deputy Hyland made a number of points and, though I would not agree with him on all points, I share the general drift of his concern, for example, to have the remaining provisions of the Criminal Justice Act brought into operation as quickly as possible. I regret that we have not got further with this Bill. I want to put the record straight about the timetable.

The Criminal Justice Act was passed in November 1984. This Bill was circulated in June last year. The drafting of an entirely new measure of this kind and the consultations involved with the interests most directly affected inevitably take time. Pressure on parliamentary time did not allow the Second Stage to be taken earlier, but I hope we will have this Bill passed before the summer recess. Deputy Hyland seemed to think that my predecessor, Deputy Noonan, needed to be convinced by the Opposition of the need for an independent complaints procedure. That is not the case. When the Criminal Justice Bill was published in October 1983, the Minister circulated, in addition to the normal explanatory memorandum, a further memorandum spelling out the Government's intention.

Dr. Woods

Please do not go into that.

Mr. Dukes

This has been a very constructive debate——

Mr. R. Burke

Until the Minister rapidly sent if off the rails.

Mr. Dukes

I hope that in its concluding moments it will not degenerate. With the greatest respect to the Chair, if Deputy Woods starts that, he will be bitting off a bit more than he can chew. In the short time available I am very anxious to deal with all the points raised. The memorandum to which I have referred spelled out very clearly the Government's intention that the provisions in the Bill giving increased powers to the Garda would not be introduced until a new complaints procedure had been established. Deputy Browne got it right in the course of his contribution. It is a pity Deputy Hyland was not here to hear it from one of his own colleagues.

Dr. Woods

It was unique that there were two memoranda.

Mr. Dukes

Deputy Hyland wants us to establish a dialogue with the Garda, who will be affected by the Bill. I want to assure the House and Garda representatives that there is no difficulty about continuing and improving dialogue, as far as I am concerned. I already have had discussions with the Garda Representative Association and I will be meeting the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors shortly. In addition, there have been regular discussions in the Garda Conciliation Council between officers of the Department and representatives of all the Garda associations except one, in relation to this Bill.

I will deal with some of the comments made on section 7(9) which provides in limited circumstances safeguards for the gardaí concerned against any possibility of criminal prosecution and that the board would require information to be furnished. On that point there was full consultation with all Garda associations before the Bill was published. There were discussions in the Garda Conciliation Council, my predecessor met representatives of the associations to discuss their objections, and after consultations with his Government colleagues he decided to proceed with the provision, but indicated that he would be prepared to consider any reformulation which would leave the underlying principle intact. After discussions with three of the associations, an amendment was agreed that will exclude from the provision matters not arising in the course of a garda's duty.

It is not always possible for a Government to negotiate on matters which they regard as necessary in the public interest, and I know there has been some discussion as to the adequacy of the talks that went on before the Bill was published, I do not think continued discussion on the point would have produced a different result. I do not intend to go in detail into the justification for that provision — my predecessor dealt with it in his introductory remarks — because we can deal with it more fully on Committee Stage. However, I re-emphasise the point that it is intended in that provision to place a garda in the same position as any other public servant whose conduct is complained about and who is asked for an explanation by his superiors. During the course of today's debate I got the impression that that is not entirely understood. It would place members of the Garda in exactly the same position as other public servants. It does not discriminate against them or treat them differently as compared with other public servants.

Deputy De Rossa complained that the Bill does not provide adequate facilities for some people who would wish to make complaints, expecially people who would not wish to go to their local Garda stations, or those who live outside Dublin where the office of the board will be. I understand his concern but I am not sure it is well founded. He seemed to be referring to people who are not literate, people who feel they could not express themselves properly in writing. There is nothing to prevent such people from going to a friend or neighbour and getting the substance of the complaint set down in writing and sent to the board. That is what I would expect anybody to do who had a complaint to make and who did not want to go to the local Garda station. Whether the complaint is expressed in writing or orally to the board or in a Garda station, it would be further investigated in detail by an investigating officer who would call on the complainant in order to get a full statement of the complaint. Deputy De Rossa indicated his intention to put down an amendment to deal with this problem and I am perfectly open to consider the terms of such an amendment.

Deputy Barnes wanted clarification of the position in regard to frivolous or vexatious complaints. The Bill provides that the chief executive of the board, when deciding whether a complaint is admissible, must consider whether it is frivolous or vexatious. If he is of the opinion that it is, he would notify the complainant accordingly and that would be the end of the matter. His decision in that regard would be subject to review by the board, but the complainant would be informed.

Deputy Hyland asked about the proposed Police Authority. The Government have undertaken to establish such an Authority and that will be honoured. The matter is now being pursued and we have had a considerable amount of initial discussion and fact finding in regard to the type of Police Authority that would best suit our needs. Both Deputy Glenn and Deputy Bell thought that six months was too long a period during which complaints could be accepted. My predecessor dealt with that point in his opening remarks and indicated that he was prepared to have a further look at this. One alternative was to reduce the period to three months, while allowing a complaint to be accepted for up to six months in exceptional circumstances. There are other considerations. One difficulty in fixing any period in a provision of this nature is that there is always a possibility that the complaints board could be precluded from investigating a matter where a garda had been guilty of misconduct. The public interest would not be served by that kind of outcome. It is a matter which both my predecessor and I indicated we would look at with an open mind. I will certainly do that between now and Committee Stage.

I thank the House for what has been a very useful Second Stage debate on this. It has clarified a number of matters and has brought me to the point where I will consider some amendments before Committee Stage to meet the kinds of concerns outlined here. I thank the House for its application to this and I am quite sure that Committee Stage will be dealt with in the same positive and constructive fashion.

Dr. Woods

Is it the Minister's intention to place the discussion document in relation to the safeguards on the table of the House? I appreciate that this is essentially a discussion document but will the Minister place it on the table of the House as soon as it is available?

Mr. Dukes

I indicated in the course of my remarks, before Deputy Woods came in, that I would publish that very soon, that it would be a discussion document and I will be prepared to look at ways in which we might have a constructive discussion before we actually make the regulations.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 8 April 1986.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Mar 1986