Before Question Time concern was expressed by Deputy McGahon about one of the matters raised earlier. I said it was inconsistent of Deputy McGahon to be making a case for a completely independent investigation of the Garda while at the same time proposing something that is not in the Bill, that is, that the Garda should be represented on the board. I had said that by comparison with the present position, the main change is that the investigation of complaints about the Garda would be carried out under the supervision of the board and that they would give added reassurance to the public and to the Garda about the investigation of complaints. When the board believe that the public interest would demand it and when they were not satisfied that a complaint had been properly investigated by the Garda, they would ensure that the complaint would be investigated by their chief executive.
Garda Síochána (Complaints) Bill, 1985: Committee Stage (Resumed).
I am afraid the Minister misunderstood what I said earlier. I was not suggesting that there was a contradiction between what the Minister said and what his predecessor, Deputy Noonan had said. My point was that there is a contradiction between an independent investigation and a Garda investigation. You cannot argue on the one hand that we would need a large number of investigators and on the other that the scale of the problem would be so small that it would not warrant the appointment of a number of investigators.
The Minister repeated what the former Minister said in January, that there would be a large number of investigators needed, that it was presumed that retired gardaí would not be acceptable, that the appointment of investigators would be too costly and would not be justified because of the scale and seriousness of the problem, that supervision by the board would be just as effective and that career opportunities for independent investigators would be nearly nil because of the small number of complaints involved. There are a number of contradictions there.
In regard to the point that a large number of investigators would be needed, the Minister indicated that in 1985 there were about 400 complaints. If it is accepted that many of the people who make complaints will want them dealt with on an informal basis, it can be assumed that a high proportion of them will not need the services of the board at all. I will take a comparison. The Ombudsman employs about 16 investigators and in 1985 his office dealt with 2,392 complaints. That would not bear comparison with the pursuit and investigation of complaints in relation to the Garda. It is reasonable, however, to draw a comparison to indicate the numbers involved. The Minister suggested 400 complaints against the Garda, and we can compare that with 2,392 investigations by the Ombudsman. We can take it, accordingly, that no more than eight investigators would be required to deal with complaints against the Garda, and that is allowing a fairly wide margin for possible increases in complaints on the 400 specified, and a shorter period for investigation. Perhaps the Minister will contest that, but he did not give an indication of the number of independent investigators who would be required.
On the question of the unacceptability of retired gardaí, that is an Aunt Sally set up by the previous Minister. I do not know if anybody made that point against retired gardaí. I would not have any problem with such personnel as independent investigators if they were no longer members of the Garda and had no connection with the force from the point of view of remuneration or discipline. That question, therefore, does not arise. On the point about the justification for appointing independent investigators by the scale or the seriousness of the problem I indicated that the serious element is the importance to establish beyond question the independence and the fairness of the investigation procedure so that people would see it was independent because of the involvement of independent investigators.
Under the Bill as it stands, the board and the chief executive would request that a Garda superintendent would carry out the investigations. Surely a superintendent's time is fairly expensive, and such an officer, anyhow, would be better disposed doing other work.
It is my opinion that it would make sense to have a corps of independent investigators whose full time job it would be to investigate, and who would be on salaries. Clearly, the level of salary would be the attraction to take on the job. I do not know much about career prospects but I am sure there are all sorts of transfer facilities available within the Civil Service which would ensure that people of a certain grade could be transferred to other areas in the service or who could apply for positions in a higher grade. I do not think that is a valid argument. I have not heard it argued in relation to any other job in any agency or State board that career prospects would be stunted by such a position.
The Minister said that supervision by the board would be just as effective. I agree it would be just as effective in terms of getting the job done but not in creating public confidence which was my basic argument in looking for independent investigators. The Minister has said that the Bill gives the board the right to investigate in exceptional circumstances. Again, one has to say that would be only in exceptional circumstances, that it would be the exception rather than the rule. It would probably only happen where there was a fairly high public profile involved in a case, where there was public concern expressed in the media or in this House. I am talking about the generality of complaints which the public might bring to the board, which they were anxious to have dealt with in a formal way and the outcome of which would be strengthened by having a team of independent investigators.
We are travelling ground we have already travelled. Deputy De Rossa's comparison of his proposal with the position obtaining regarding the Ombudsman is not a relevant comparison. The kind of investigations carried out by the Ombudsman are completely different from the investigations we are talking about in the context of this Bill, some of which could concern cases in which a criminal prosecution might arise. That is very different from investigation of the operation of administrative machinery carried out by the Ombudsman. Quite frankly, I do not think the public would be very happy if they were to find we had a corps of investigators doing the kind of job in relation to the Garda Síochána that the Ombudsman does in carrying out his investigations. I hasten to add that this is not in any way to indicate any disrespect or lack of appreciation of the work carried out by the Ombudsman——
Nobody suggests any such disrespect.
I am not putting words into the Deputy's mouth and I want to be sure that nobody puts words into my mouth. My point is that the work involved is of a completely different nature and thus a parallel does not exist and the comparison is not therefore relevant. In relation to the independence and fairness of the procedure, I wish to point out again that the board will, I hope, be clearly seen to be both independent and fair-minded. Deputy De Rossa is aware of the proposal in relation to the size of the board and my amendment in that regard is to take account, in part, of some of the concerns expressed here on Second Stage.
Neither is it directly relevant to suggest that since these investigations will be carried out by the Garda, superintendents who will be carrying out the investigations might be better employed otherwise. Superintendents carry out such investigations at the moment. It is part of their management job in the Garda Síochána. It is important, as Deputy Woods pointed out, that the management structure in the force should be aware at all stages of the nature of the complaints against and about the Garda Síochána so that they can build in, where possible, appropriate remedies to the management structure and practices of the force.
In relation to the team of investigators proposed by Deputy De Rossa, the effect of his three amendments would be that every complaint to the board would have to be investigated by the team of investigators. I do not know what would be the size of such a corps but I can only repeat what I said earlier, namely, that if it were possible to devote extra manpower and resources to this area I would put them into the Garda Síochána and not into investigators of the type suggested. We have made the maximum allocation possible to the Garda in terms of manpower and that is where such additional resources, if available, would be best employed.
I am not going into the fine argument about whether it would be a small force or a large one and whether the career prospects would be good or bad. Quite apart from what I said about that earlier on and which was not contradictory, the point I have just made is a valid one. If I had extra resources in terms of manpower I would put them into the Garda Síochána, partly because I think they are needed there and partly because the structure we are setting up in the board will gain the confidence of the public and the gardaí.
Finally, in case there is any misunderstanding, I did not indicate — and if I did, which is not admitted, I did not mean to indicate — that the board would direct the chief executive in exceptional circumstances to carry out an investigation. I said that the board are given power under section 6(5) to have a complaint investigated by the chief executive where the board believe the public interest demands it or where they are not satisfied that a complaint has been properly investigated by the gardaí. It could be — and I hope it is — that those two categories cover exceptional circumstances but obviously they are not intended to cover only exceptional circumstances.
I expect I am only going through the motions in rising to speak on Committee Stage.
We are dealing with amendment Nos. 5, 18 and 19.
The wind has been removed from my sails by the announcement after the break that Committee Stage will be restricted — which seems to be a habit of the House — and also by the fact that the Minister has the numbers on this side. It is possible but very unlikely that any changes to the Bill will be accepted. It will be rammed through in the same way as happened in the case of the Criminal Justice Act——
If I might be of benefit to the Deputy, it is a pity he did not hear the discussion earlier that led to that decision being made by agreement.
With respect to the Minister who can be so sarcastic and cynical, in the same way it is a pity he was not here when I spoke on Second Stage. It is also a pity he did not refer to anything I said then. Second Stage was guillotined and we had only a debate of three and a half hours——
We are now on Committee Stage.
The Minister said something to me and I am going to answer him. In that three and a half hour debate I spoke for one hour and three other people also spoke. The Minister was not present during the debate but in his reply he commented on the contribution of everyone else apart from my contribution. Some speakers spoke for only ten minutes and then only in general terms but I covered the matter widely.
It was a wide reply.
My contribution was wide-ranging and I dealt with the situation that obtained worldwide. I stand over what I said on Second Stage. The Minister did not think it worth while either to listen to it or to comment on it but yet he has to throw in a cynical remark that I was not in the House earlier. My point is that the towel has been thrown in by the main Opposition Party and there is practically no possibility of the Minister accepting any recommendations. It is almost certain he will not do so. We discussed the independence of the board already. The former Minister started out with an independent board but we end up with something much less than that. For the benefit of the Minister who did not think anything I said on Second Stage was worth listening to——
I hope you are not about to repeat your Second Stage contribution.
I beg the opportunity to be allowed make my contribution. I have not gone away from the amendment, nor do I intend doing so, and it is very disconcerting to be interrupted every two minutes with some sarcastic or smart remark, even from the Chair.
The Deputy is being slightly disorderly. I am explaining that we are dealing with amendments Nos. 5, 18 and 19 and I am asking for your co-operation.
You are getting it.
Please continue along those lines.
You are getting my co-operation but I represent a point of view in this House — some people would say I represent a point of view from this side of the House — that is not put forward by anybody else. I represent 100,000 people in my constituency but I speak for people all over the country. If the Government want to use the guillotine or the jackboot to put legislation like this through the Dáil, then they have to answer to the people because this country is going down the drain as a result of these measures. There is no need for this type of tactic. The people can make up their minds at the next election as to whether anything I am saying is worth listening to. I resent the cynical remarks made by the Minister in cutting across my contribution as if it meant nothing. This Government are playing the numbers game because they have a majority, but one would think they would be more cautious since their majority has been reduced in recent times.
On Second Stage I referred to the police complaints board in Toronto and drew attention to the fact that the people mistrusted the ability of a police officer to be objective in investigating complaints against his colleagues and, the other extreme, that some members of the police community would not like it if investigations were carried out entirely by civilian investigators. I gave examples of what has happened in difficult countries and I think I argued very conclusively that nowhere in the western world are people happy with the police investigating themselves and that this always gives rise to mistrust and dissatisfaction. We have gone a long way backwards in rephrasing the Bill in such a way that the investigative officer is a member of the Garda Síochána, although there is some measure of reassurance in that someone not below the rank of superintendent will be carrying out the investigation. There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction in this country for some time past about the way investigations are carried out and because it is the members of the force who are carrying out these investigations. Many people will not go to Garda stations to complain when they know that members of the force will be carrying out the investigation.
There are people in my constituency who made complaints but unfortunately for me they mentioned that they came to me for help. Since then, to say the least, they have been victimised because of their association with me. Many sarcastic remarks have been transmitted to me through these people because my name was mentioned. Even though an officer not below the rank of superintendent will be carrying out the investigation, he will send a member of the Garda into an area in which the complaint was made. It will be common knowledge among members of the force who is being investigated and who is instigating the investigation. The same type of dissatisfaction which so many people in other countries feel today will be rife here. I am not suggesting that members of the force will set out to do this, but that is a fact of life throughout the world not just in Ireland.
The word "balance" was used all through the criminal justice legislation as well as this Bill. The former Minister said he looked forward to having at the end of the day a system of criminal law and pre-trial diligence in bringing offenders to justice, with respect for the personal rights of persons in custody and their dignity as human persons. That is all we are asking for, but that is not the kind of satisfaction the Irish people will get, with the co-operation of the main Opposition party. They will get unbalanced legislation and it will be extraordinarily difficult to overturn that. It is hard enough to get something changed on Committee Stage. But there is no possibility of getting an Act which is already on the Statute Book changed in this House unless the system is changed, and that is not likely in the very near future.
Investigation of complaints by the Garda themselves will not have the confidence of the public, not will it be fair to the Garda. Investigations by fellow members of the force will be perceived by the general public as being more favourable to the member under investigation, but it could also result in being very unfair to the member if the person conducting the investigation is prejudiced against him. It is not in anybody's interest that such a system should be used and it will not work to anybody's advantage.
The main argument against this has been that it might not be possible to find people with sufficient investigative skills to undertake such a task — the Ombudsman was suggested as a possible answer — but we already have people who undertake very complex tasks and investigations, for example, people in the Revenue Commissioners and Customs and Excise. If the arguments and reports which are available worldwide had been taken into account we would not have come up with this system of the investigative officer being a member of the Garda Síochána, nor would we have a representative of the Commissioner on the board. We would have a completely independent complaints tribunal, but we are not even prepared to try that for a while. We have to go another road and, in the long run, the citizen will be the sufferer.
When the sections of the Criminal Justice Act which have been withheld come into force the real possibility of injustice or abuse will arise. People will have to depend on a complaints board for redress but we can see all kinds of flaws in this. A person can be fobbed off or intimidated and members of the force in a particular station, as happens at present, will go into the district where the complainant lives and the members of the force serving in the nearest Garda station will investigate the complaint. With this system in force, it will be less likely that people will come forward with complaints, but I hope it never comes to that.
We have gone a long way from independent investigation and I am very unhappy about that. I disagree totally with this and I have been consistent in my objection to it from the very beginning. It did not get through without notice because it was mentioned many times whenever the former Minister brought it up, and he tried to bring this package through in three different elements. It was pointed out that he could eventually do what is being done now because he started off by talking about a totally independent complaints tribunal, and that is what the citizen in Ireland wants but apparently for many reasons is not going to get. Those are the reasons that should be under the spotlight. These are the things that must be changed if there is to be any hope for the ordinary Joe.
As I have said, I see no real chance at all of changing this. I do not really feel happy about having to get up and object to it for the umpteenth time. It is a shame. It is very bad for democracy. The way legislation can be brought in here and not scrutinised in any depth at all, the numbers, the majority of the party or parties in power can use that to push it through is verging on scandal. It is a disgrace that many Members on this side of the House who say they are caring people who stand up for social justice, for the individual in society, for the disadvantaged, for people with the chips stacked against them are not in here speaking out. Let me put on the record also that they were not in here when we spoke on the Criminal Justice Bill. For God's sake, one would think the Garda were under siege. As far as I am concerned the Garda are being hoodwinked into standing with the establishment against their fellow citizens. That is not good for the Garda in the long run any more than it is good for the citizen. It is good only for the same small group who benefit all the way down the years.
I mentioned in my worthless contribution on Second Stage that the report of the GLC in Britain identified four factors responsible for the lack of public confidence in the complaints system. The first of these factors was that the police investigated themselves. The second was that the police complaints board were too remote and failed to exercise their obviously limited powers adequately. Third, the DPP may be too cautious in recommending the prosecution of police officers. Fourth, investigations are not conducted thoroughly enough and are not pursued as vigorously as they would be if the offence had been committed by a civilian.
I would like to emphasise also the number of new instances that will arise as a result of new sections coming in where offences may attract five years in jail and the person can be detained for questioning. In many cases the frailty of human nature could see a citizen ending up for four, six, eight or 12 hours in a police cell or a police station under investigation, maybe because he has annoyed the police officer who happened to stop him, or because he had a borrowed car and did not know the number on the plate and in order to get at him he was accused of stealing the car. He could be brought in for that sort of thing.
Therefore, all of the patience and painstaking scrutiny that the few Members gave to the Criminal Justice Act when it was going through this House and this legislation, which was referred to at length several times, are thrown out the window, and with that Deputy Woods on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party has thrown in the towel because he knows as well as I do that it will go through anyhow come hell or high water. If it has not been said often enough in the past, let me say again that this is only an exercise that we are going through in here. We really have no say in changes which can be made for the good of legislation which would affect citizens. If the Government and Minister of the day decide to use their majority to pass that through the House we are only rubber stamps and the Dáil is not effective as a parliament.
I was not sure whether Deputy Skelly had finished. I am sorry if he thinks there is not a huge level of agreement with his point of view. I would like to make a couple of points because they are important in presenting the progress of this Bill to the public. Let me begin by remarking that the fact that we are talking about 66 amendments on Committee Stage, 49 of them from me and a number from Deputy Woods, Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy De Rossa, seems a reasonable indication that the Second Stage debate has had its effect on certain parts of the Bill. I do not agree with Deputy Skelly's contention that a fully independent investigation system is a sine qua non of public acceptability of the system, because that is a separate point. When this Bill was being prepared a number of contacts were made with police forces elsewhere on the question of independent investigation. I refer to two groups. One was in the United States where we had a look at the complaints procedures operating in Washington DC, New York, San Francisco, Cade County in Florida and a number of others. The other was in Toronto which Deputy Skelly mentioned. In only one of the systems that were examined were investigations carried out by investigators independent of the police; that was in Washington DC. The nature of the complaints which the complaints commission there could investigate was limited to four non-criminal categories of complaint. Therefore, neither the scope nor the type of procedure bore any comparison to what we are talking about here.
The US Civil Rights Commission have expressed the view that the success of a complaints scheme depends not on the question of whether independent investigation is provided for but on the commitment of police management to make sure that the investigations are properly and fully carried out. Let me make another reference to a system in another country not too far away, that is, the UK. There, all investigation of complaints is carried out by the police and I am not aware of any widescale public disquiet with that. In that jurisdiction there is no provision that corresponds to the provision in section 6 of this Bill for the complaints board to direct that an investigation be carried out in circumstances where they are not happy that the complaint is being investigated properly.
The UK system is based on a series of principles set out in a report published in 1974 of a working group for England and Wales on the handling of complaints against the police — Cmnd. 5582 of March 1974. Paragraph 14 on page 6 of the report makes a number of interesting points in relation to the investigation of complaints about the police. It sets out the principles:
(i) The investigation of complaints in the first instance must remain in the hands of the police.
This is a fundamental point since, if accepted, it rules out the possibility of investigations into complaints against the police being taken out of police hands altogether. One prime consideration here is that any complaint from a member of the public may raise the possibility that the officer concerned has committed a criminal offence. The more substantial complaints most often amount to allegations of crime (assault, theft, perjury, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, corruption). These are the very cases in which, although they are investigated by the police in the first instance, subsequent action is determined by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We take it as a matter of basic principle that the police must operate and be seen to operate within and under the law. This in our view means that police officers alleged to have committed offences must be subject to the same procedures as other citizens — starting, in the normal course, with a police investigation. Investigations of allegations of criminal conduct by police present the same difficulties and require the same qualities as the investigations of such allegations against any other member of the community. The necessary skill and expertise is in practice only to be found in the police service, and is in practice equally required for many investigations into complaints against the police of other kinds. Many complaints involve both non-criminal and criminal aspects, and investigation of an apparently non-criminal allegation may reveal the possibility of an offence.
There is a lot more than that, but it set out the general principles and a number of considerations relating to the way in which investigations should be carried out which are central to the way our whole system of criminal justice and administration of the law work. It makes the very simple point — one which we should bear in mind — that since we regard the matter as so important, we should ensure that investigations against the police which may lead to evidence of criminal activities should be carried out in the same way as for anyone else.
That is what we provide for here and we also provide a power for the board to decide that particular attention should be given to certain investigations, as I pointed out earlier. Therefore, far from it being the case that it is universally held that there can be no satisfactory system which is not completely independent, I am making the point that it is widely held that the kind of system we are putting forward in this Bill is not alone satisfactory but that considerations adduced and set out in this report require it to be done in that way.
There are a number of points on which I wish to comment, some of them relatively minor. The Minister introduced the question of career opportunities and I responded by saying where I thought they may exist. If the Minister is not prepared to pursue that line——
I will not spend time on that point.
Is it not worth spending time on?
I have said all there is to say about it.
There is still a major point in that the main purpose in setting up a board and attempting to create an independent procedure to deal with complaints was to ensure that the confidence of the public in investigations into misconduct or alleged misconduct by the Garda would be such that there would be no doubt that a person going to a Garda station to make a complaint would have it fully dealt with. I wish again to make the point that the largest number of complaints I receive about existing procedure is that the Garda investigate themselves. That is the main point which people make when they ask how to make a complaint. They regard such a procedure as nonsensical. Why should the Garda investigate complaints against themselves? I am pressing this amendment because it is fundamental in ensuring that people have confidence in the processes of law and order.
The Minister is not prepared to argue the case in relation to the large number of investigators which it is claimed is required. He said that if he had the money he would appoint more gardaí instead of independent investigators. I am sure he would, but that is not an argument against having independent investigators because it does not overcome the basic point that people need to see independence in relation to investigations. That is the nub of the problem. I mentioned the number of investigators which the Ombudsman has simply as a yardstick by which we might judge the number of investigators who might be needed.
In 1985 the Ombudsman dealt with 2,392 complaints and he had 16 investigators to help him. I made the point that I was not arguing that the same type of investigation would not be needed regarding complaints against the Garda but it is reasonable to draw a conclusion that if 16 investigators can deal with 2,392 complaints in a year, eight investigators could deal with less than 400 complaints in the same period in relation to complaints against the Garda. I asked the Minister to say, if he did not agree with those figures, how many investigators would be needed to deal with the existing level of complaints. Then we would know the costs involved because, although the Minister said this morning that cost was not a major problem it is clear that it is in terms of appointing investigators.
I qualify that by saying that clearly the Minister also feels he has gone far enough in amending this Bill. The amendment which I am seeking is a fairly major departure from what is proposed in the Bill. Perhaps there is an element of that as well. The Minister feels he has gone far enough and is not prepared to go any further. But I feel that, in the interests of assuring the public of the independence of the procedure, it would be well worth the cost of employing eight, ten or 12 investigators, or whatever figure the Minister can come up with. I am sure it would not be a great problem for him to produce a reasonable figure. I am sure he has to come up with figures of this nature at various times when deciding on the manning of services. He certainly has enough experience in judging what will be required to come up with that kind of estimation. I am pressing the amendment. It is an important one. To ignore it and to argue it out of existence simply on the basis that other countries are largely satisfied with their investigation procedures is not dealing with the situation at home where traditionally there has been an unease with the procedure we have whereby the Garda investigate complaints against their colleagues.
Amendment No. 5 in the names of Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa. The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand". On that question a division has been challenged. Will Deputies supporting the call for a division please rise in their places?
Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa rose.
As fewer than ten Deputies have risen, in accordance with Standing Orders, I declare the question carried.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, subsection (1), to delete lines 25 and 26.
It is proposed, subject to agreement, to take amendments Nos. 6, 32 and 52 together. I understand that these amendments are accepted.
Silence, please. It is impossible to conduct the business of the House.
With the exception of these amendments, the only remaining references to the Garda discipline regulations will be in section 14. There is no need to have the regulations defined in this section. This section is concerned with defining expressions occurring in more than one section of the Bill. The necessary definitions will be included in section 14, so the other references covered by these amendments are no longer required.
Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 43, after "solicitor" to insert the following:
"or through a peace commissioner, minister of religion, member of the medical profession, teacher or trade union official".
Basically, I am suggesting that a person who does not feel competent or feels nervous about making a complaint, should be free to make a complaint to a body other than a solicitor. Tying it down just to a solicitor makes the situation very formal and legalistic. I appreciate that one does not want vexatious complaints or people stimulating complaints or abusing the system. That is why I suggest people such as peace commissioners who perform other functions for the Minister, ministers of religion, or members of the medical profession, responsible people who would know persons in the community and would be known by them and accepted by the Minister's Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs or other Departments in that capacity, including also teachers or trade union officials. This would meet some of the questions raised here about ensuring informality in the system, so that people can feel more readily that they are being represented and that their point of view has been carried forward. I suggest the amendment for consideration and think it would be helpful to the practical application of the measures we are discussing here.
I understand the point the Deputy is making, but must take the view that this amendment is not the way to do it, nor is it particularly appropriate. The procedure set out for making a complaint is a very simple and straightforward one. Complaints can be made orally or in writing; we discussed earlier some aspects of this. The complaint can be made direct to the board or at a Garda station. There is nothing particularly difficult about the procedure.
If a complainant is reluctant to make his complaint at a Garda station — and Deputies, including Deputies Woods and Skelly, have indicated that people sometimes are reluctant to do so — he can go either to the board's offices or write to the board. If the complainant has difficulty in formulating a complaint or putting it on paper, there is absolutely nothing to stop him from getting assistance from any quarter from which he wishes to seek it, as long as he personally signs the complaint. It is important that the complainant, given the nature of the procedure that we are setting up, should sign the complaint. To allow any third party other than a solicitor — the reason for including solicitors is obvious — or the parent or guardian in the case of a person under 17, to convey complaints to the board would introduce an unnecessary complication and a further unnecessary risk of misunderstanding or mistake.
While not denying the number of cases such as those we spoke about earlier where complaints are about matters that are not very important or which the complainant would prefer to have dealt with at local level, the making of a complaint is a serious enough procedure to expect the person making the complaint to make it directly himself. For that reason I would not be disposed to accept this amendment because (a) it would run the risk of introducing unnecessary complications and (b) it would in a sense unnecessarily distance the complainant from the complaint that he or she wishes to make.
This borders on an area of reluctance. Reluctance and the reasons for it would have to be examined. One reason may be shyness. Some people would find that to deal with a person in uniform is intimidating. Other reasons are lack of education, articulateness and bad experiences. In some cases where members of the force or any authority are not held in high regard there may be a reluctance on the part of people to come forward. These should be more flexible. In the past we used the magic word "solicitor". Many people realise that they are not as accessible or as easy to deal with as, for example, the medical profession. At the same time they are very expensive.
We should consider the possibility of making a complaint by telephone. I do not think that is covered in the section. Many of the complaints which most of us get are by telephone. Telephone complaints are not taken on a whim. They are usually an emergency. Very often these are emergencies. It may involve a meeting at a later stage but a telephone call would break the ice for some people. The obvious answer to that is that we would get anonymous calls or calls that are not serious. That happens with the fire brigade and in other cases but I am sure it could be handled. There is a definite case for allowing complaints to be made in this way. In rural areas or disadvantaged areas where people would not have access to the offices of the complaints board they may not be confident enough to express themselves in writing. They may be reluctant to call in person to the local Garda station to register their complaints. In such cases I cannot see any reason for not allowing people to make the initial complaint by telephone. It could be followed by an interview with an officer of the board to ensure that the person wanted to pursue the complaint. The amendment is asking for a degree of flexibility which might make the submission of complaints much easier.
I would be very reluctant to make complaints under this new system. I have held back from making complaints because of experiences in the past. As a public representative I have been very reluctant to make complaints because I am tired of the backlash that comes from speaking out as I do and from complaints which I make. With these new sections inserted, with the members of the Garda force being the investigating officers and with the Commissioner being represented on the board and with the lack of independence, as a member of Parliament and a qualified lawyer, I would be very reluctant to make complaints. If that is the way I feel about it, I am sure there are tens of thousands who feel the same way.
With habeas corpus in the legal system a person can throw a note out of the window of his cell or whisper to someone going by if he wants help. Fortunately, that has not been removed from the law. As we have said in the past, the solicitor is available to a very small section of the community. It is surprising the number of well heeled and well educated people who could not name a solicitor. In the section there are only two ways of making complaints, either personally or through a solicitor. If it is left to the person, a huge percentage will not make a complaint. On the other hand the argument is put forward that if the complaint is serious enough people will make the complaint. In order to have a really good system of social justice we need to have easy access to solicitors. It should not be as it is at present where people have no confidence in the system. This is another reason for them not to use the system.
I appreciate the point made by the Minister in relation to anyone being permitted to assist a person in preparing a submission. They do not have to make the complaint on behalf of the person. If a person comes to the board presumably the members or officers of the board would help him or her to put their case. I appreciate that. It is a pity that this should be confined to a solicitor, particularly in rural areas where a solicitor may not be readily available. There must be other people in the community who are sufficiently responsible to help a person without setting about a process of just causing trouble in one way or another. I appreciate that could be a difficulty in a case like this. The more people we bring into it the more we could make it open to those who might want to abuse the system.
On the other hand, if we want to keep it as informal as possible, for instance, a peace commissioner appointed by the Minister who is causing trouble can be removed at any stage. Therefore, he would seem to be a person who is relied on by our system generally which can be controlled if it is going out of order. I would have thought a member of the medical profession or some of the responsible groups could be helpful in presenting a case, bearing in mind that a large number of cases will result in no particular action after the investigation. In other words, much of it, in practice, as we would expect, will be an exercise in maintaining good relations with the public and in being able to assure people that there is a suitable system to deal with any of these queries when they arise.
I put down this amendment for consideration. I leave it to the Minister to consider it further. I appreciate what he has said about not wanting to introduce unnecessary complications into the system. Out of that group there are at least one or two who could be added to the list without introducing unnecessary complications. I also appreciate the point the Minister made about the fact that these people could help others by introducing them to the board or to the Garda station or by advising them on their rights in that respect. Having done that they could help them in the preparation of their complaint so that they would only have to sign the complaint. It would help many people if they could have assistance in those circumstances. Some people are very much afraid to come forward and make their case. Those are the very people who could probably be reassured subsequently by the process. They will need to be reassured.
I ask the Minister to bear the amendment in mind, or some modification of it, between now and Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 43, after "person" to insert the following:
"who is mentally handicapped or a person who is"
This amendment follows on directly from the last amendment. After "... considered by the Board shall himself or through his solicitor or, in the case of a person ...". I am suggesting that the Minister adds in the following words "who is mentally handicapped or a person who is" under the age of seventeen years. I am pretty sure the Minister would agree with me that this section should include both a person who is mentally handicapped and a person who is under the age of 17 and allow them to make their complaints through a parent or guardian as the section otherwise provides. In the proposals for regulations to be made by the Minister for Justice on the treatment of persons in custody in Garda stations, in April 1986 which we discussed at the beginning of last week — we have discussed so many Bills on justice recently that we could get them confused — the Minister specifically provided on page 23, section 22:
The provisions of these regulations relating to persons under the age of seventeen years shall apply, in addition to any other applicable provisions, in relation to a person in custody whom the member in charge suspects or knows to be mentally handicapped.
That arose from the deliberations and discussions we had earlier in relation to that area. It would be consistent with the thinking which the House adopted in that area to include this amendment in section 4 or some technical version of the same wording.
I agree with Deputy Woods' concern. I was going to point out, if he had not done so, that we had made that provision in the draft regulations for the treatment of persons in custody. I have one difficulty with the text which Deputy Woods has proposed and that is that it equates mentally handicapped persons with persons under the age of 17. I would put it forward, and I think Deputy Woods would agree with me, that the reference to a parent or guardian might not always be appropriate in those circumstances. For example, we could be dealing with a mentally handicapped person who is middle-aged or elderly. Therefore, the reference to a parent or guardian in the text, as it would be if amended, might not always be appropriate.
What I propose to do, therefore, and I think Deputy Woods will agree with this, is to hold this one over until Report Stage. I am having an alternative amendment prepared which would meet the case Deputy Woods is making and which would also meet the case of mentally handicapped persons over the age of 17 or who are not in a position to be in the care of a parent or guardian.
I appreciate the Minister's approach to this matter. I will be very happy if he will relook at the drafting before Report Stage to ensure that persons who are mentally handicapped or who are under 17 years will be covered separately and not tied together. I accept that point. I will withdraw my amendment for the present.
Amendment No. 9 has already been discussed with amendment No. 3 and dealt with. Is amendment No. 9 agreed?
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 44, to delete "his parent" and substitute "a parent".
Amendment No. 10 has already been discussed with amendment No. 4. Is amendment No. 10 agreed?
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 5, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(b) A complainant who makes a complaint to a member under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be presumed, for the purpose of that paragraph, to wish to have his complaint considered by the Board unless, at the time of the making of the complaint, he himself or his solicitor or, in the case of a person under the age of seventeen years, a parent or guardian requests otherwise in writing.".
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 5, subsection (2) (c), line 27, after "member", to insert "of the Garda Síochána".
This is basically a drafting amendment. It has been suggested that the reference to a member above the rank of chief superintendent does not include the Commissioner having regard to the definition of a member in section 1 (1) which excludes the Commissioner. This is a drafting amendment to make the matter clear.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 5, subsection (3) (a), line 44, after "complaint", to insert the following:
"or is the parent or guardian of a person who is mentally handicapped or is under the age of seventeen years and who was directly affected by or witnessed the conduct alleged in the complaint".
This would mean that subsection (3) (a) would then read:
On receipt by the Board of a complaint or of a notification under subsection (2) of this section, the chief executive shall consider whether the complaint is admissible and the complaint shall be admissible if the following conditions are satisfied—
(i) the complainant was a member of the public,
(ii) the complainant was directly affected by or witnessed the conduct alleged in the complaint or is the parent or guardian of a person who is mentally handicapped or is under the age of seventeen years and who was directly affected by or witnessed the conduct alleged in the complaint.
Essentially it is a similar point in that I was trying to include those two categories. This subsection specifies clearly those two categories. This subsection specifies clearly those who should be included as admissible when it says: "... the chief executive shall consider whether the complaint is admissible and the complaint shall be admissible if the following conditions are satisfied". Therefore those conditions have to be satisfied. Whereas the amendment to section 4 (1) related to the putting of the complaint, this subsection deals with the complaints which are admissible. I am suggesting that mentally handicapped persons and those under 17 be included where it says: "the complainant was directly affected by or witnessed conduct alleged in the complaint, or is the parent or guardian of a person who is mentally handicapped or is under the age of seventeen years and who was directly affected by or witnessed the conduct alleged in the complaint."
This is a technical amendment which appears to be based on the view that, in this context, a complainant means the person who actually makes the complaint, for example, the parent or guardian in the case of a complaint made by an under-seventeen year old. That view is not supported by the definition of a complainant given in section 1 (1) which says:
"complainant" means a person who makes a complaint orally ... and, in the case of a complaint so made, ... by a person through his solicitor or his parent or guardian, includes where the context so requires, the solicitor of the person or the parent or guardian, as the case may be;
It is clear from that definition that it is only where the context so requires it that a person who makes a complaint on behalf of an under 17 year old will be regarded as a complainant. The context of section 4 (3) (a) (ii) does not require such a parent to be so regarded. The explanation I have given is one that has been checked and supported by the parliamentary draftsman. Therefore, given the definition of "complainant" set out earlier, the amendment proposed is not necessary.
I take it then that this would also include the parent, guardian or friend of a mentally handicapped person. I appreciate that the parent or guardian of an under 17 year old or the solicitor acting on behalf of a person is specified in the definitions.
Such a person would be included on the same basis.
As long as the Minister is happy that that would be the case I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 13 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 5, subsection (3) (a) (iii), lines 45 and 46, to delete "a breach of discipline" and substitute "be conduct specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act".
Amendment No. 14 in the name of Deputy Woods——
Just on the Fourth Schedule——
We will come to it later——
We will be dealing with the Schedule later. We have three Schedules only.
No, there is an amendment that proposes the insertion of a Fourth Schedule.
I take it that the point Deputy Skelly is making is right, that the Fourth Schedule is there even though it is not to be seen at the end of the Bill at present and that we will discuss it when it comes up. Is that correct? This amendment actually refers to conduct specified in the Fourth Schedule. Will there be an opportunity to discuss the Fourth Schedule further? That is the point.
Amendment No. 66 has already been discussed with amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 13.
But it is agreed to include it as a Schedule now. Will there be an opportunity to discuss that Schedule later when we come to it?
We cannot really discuss the amendment.
It is still an amendment.
So, from Deputy Skelly's point of view, there will not be an opportunity later, except on Report Stage, to discuss the Fourth Schedule again?
Unless there is an amendment on Report Stage.
Can you tell us, sir, then what is the difference between the "breach of discipline" and "conduct specified in the Fourth Schedule"?
All of that was discussed with amendment No. 1. We have already discussed amendments Nos. 1, 2, 13 and 66 together.
In that case I would be entitled to discuss that now — amendment No. 13 — I do not want to hold up the discussion; I am just asking a simple question.
On amendment No. 13?
Yes.
That is all right.
What is the difference then between the conduct specified in the Fourth Schedule——
Deputy, I just want to point out that earlier today we discussed amendments No. 1, 2, 13 and 66 together. We have already discussed amendment No. 13.
I asked a simple question. We are on Committee Stage. There can be no objection to the answer.
We have already discussed this amendment, Deputy.
All right. I will go by the rules later on. But I do not see why the hell every time I stand up in this House someone has to try to put me down.
Deputy Skelly, I am acting within the rules of the House.
I will act within the rules later on——
I am acting now and moving on to the next amendment.
Be prepared.
Is that a threat, Deputy?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 6, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) If at any stage of the investigation of a complaint the Board is of the opinion that the participation of the Commissioner as a member of the Board or Tribunal, as the case may be, would prejudice the fair hearing of such a complaint, the Commissioner shall not participate any further in the consideration or investigation of such complaint".
This amendment deals with complaints made to the board, the way the board conduct their business and handle such complaints. The Commissioner could be the complainant or he could be called as a witness. If he is involved in any case he should not be present at the hearing of the case. If he was present the case could be found to be outside the bounds of natural justice. There should be a provision in the Bill which would enable a request to be made to the Commissioner not to participate in the hearing of a case in those circumstances. That is the purpose of this amendment.
The Commissioner could not be a complainant. Such a case could not arise. The Commissioner is the head of the force. He is the chief disciplinary officer of the force. He is the custodian of the good name of the force. If it is suggested that the Commissioner could seek in any circumstances to prejudice the fair hearing of a complaint, then the wrong person would have been appointed as Commissioner. I do not think that is what Deputy Woods suggests.
I oppose the amendment. I cannot think of any circumstances in which the kind of case Deputy Woods has in mind could realistically arise. I cannot conceive of circumstances where the head of the force, who is the chief disciplinary officer of the force and the person who above all others has an obligation to ensure that the force does its job properly, could seek to prejudice the investigation of a complaint.
If the Commissioner is called as a witness how could he, in natural justice, sit on the board which would consider the case? The Commissioner would be involved with the Deputy Commissioner on a regular basis and, if he was called as a witness in a case involving the Deputy Commissioner, then natural justice would require that he would not sit on the board. If that is so, then the board would need a procedure whereby it could handle such a case.
There is provision elsewhere in the Bill for the Commissioner to be represented by another person and there is also provision to ensure that a given member of the board does not sit on the board and at the appeal. We have provided safeguards to prevent the kind of situation Deputy Woods has in mind. As I have said, it is very difficult to conceive of the type of case in which the kind of difficulty Deputy Woods mentioned would arise but if there was such a case it would be up to the board to take whatever steps were necessary — it is difficult to conceive what those steps might be — to prevent anything being done which would be contrary to the idea of natural justice.
The purpose of the Bill is to make provision for any circumstances that might occur in the future. If such a case arose the board might need to have under its own rules the authority to request the Commissioner to absent himself from a particular hearing. If the board so suggested and if the Commissioner thought it would not be advisable to absent himself, I appreciate that the provisions of natural justice could override that, but it would be preferable to anticipate such a situation and have a provision in the Bill which would ensure that in case of conflict there would be a procedure to be followed. Cases would not have to go by default.
I understand the Deputy's concern although I find it hard to imagine circumstances in which it could become a reality. There are two things which will run side by side. We have the complaints procedure and in addition we have the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations. In some cases these will overlap. I find it inconceivable that the person appointed as the chief officer of the force and the chief disciplinary officer should not be involved in a case either where there is a complaint from a member of the public about a member of the force or where there is a case of a disciplinary inquiry within the force into some allegation of misconduct that falls under the discipline regulations rather than under the complaints procedure. At the end of the day the Commissioner has responsibility to ensure that the force carry out their job in the way intended. I do not see how it could be suggested since he is, and must be, acquainted with questions of discipline, that his presence would be prejudicial to the conduct of any such proceedings.
The problem arises because of his function as disciplinary officer and his relationship with the public at large in relation to the complaints procedure. As head of the force and as the person responsible for discipline within the force there are matters with which he would be directly involved. That is a separate question. These matters relate to complaints by the public about the conduct of an officer in the carrying out of his duties. In certain instances the Commissioner may be a witness to or in some way a party to some of the actions complained of. In those circumstances the board would be infringing natural justice if it could not deal with such an occurrence.
The Minister may say that we should leave such matters to the board and the Commissioner and if the Commissioner's presence on the board on such an occasion was unwarranted it would be up to the board, and the Commissioner, to identify that and make appropriate arrangements. It may be necessary to call the Commissioner as a witness in relation to complaints against a senior officer. In such circumstances, if my amendment is accepted, there will be a procedure in place to enable the board to handle the matter.
I would prefer if the Commissioner was not on the board. I agree that the Garda should carry out investigations and that the board should have the power in exceptional cases to make other arrangements for an investigation, but it is not desirable to have the Commissioner on the board. The Minister is insisting on the Commissioner being a member of the board and that means he will be present for all cases. What are the consequences of that? Could it cause difficulties? In my view problems will arise and we should have a provision in the Bill to deal with them. Otherwise we are depending on the board and the Commissioner agreeing and taking the appropriate action in line with natural justice.
I should like to reassure Deputy Woods on this point. I am not going into the argument as to whether the Commissioner should be on the board because the Deputy is aware of my views on that matter. The Commissioner could not be the complainant and that conflict cannot arise. If there is a complaint about a very senior officer of the force it seems to me that only the Commissioner can advise the board from his particular perspective. The only other circumstance in which there could be any question, remote though it might be, of the difficulty to which Deputy Woods referred arising would be in a case where the Commissioner witnessed conduct about which a complaint was made but did not participate in it. It is my view that as chief disciplinary officer of the board he should be more informed by witnessing such conduct although the likelihood of that happening is remote. It would be up to the board, with the help of the Commissioner as a member of the board, to decide on the procedure to adopt and the weight to attach to the views or advice expressed during the course of the board's deliberations on the case.
It is possible for a Commissioner to witness the activity complained of. It is also possible for the Commissioner, in some circumstances, to be party to such conduct. His instructions may be misinterpreted. It is not hard to think of cases that may arise. To what extent would senior officers sent to carry out an investigation or an interrogation be acting on the instructions of the Commissioner? If in the course of an inquiry it is revealed that there was a close relationship between the Commissioner and senior officers in regard to instructions the inquiry will have to find that the board is infringing natural justice. The Minister may say that the board, and the Commissioner, should be aware of those circumstances and take the appropriate action without having any guidelines from the House — and I appreciate that they can do that — but a member of the board may say that because of the operation of natural justice it would be preferable if the Commissioner was not involved. It must be remembered that we are not really dealing with internal discipline but with the external perception of complaints. I appreciate that either the board or the Commissioner could come forward and say that the Commissioner should not be involved in the consideration of this case because of a possible danger of infringing natural justice. The Commissioner could say that he would step out of the case, or the board could ask him to do so.
If my amendment were included, the board, including the Commissioner, would be given guidelines and alerted to the dangers. If the Minister is not disposed to consider the matter I will withdraw the amendment, but if the Minister considers this with his legal advisers he will find that this problem will have to be covered in some other way.
This matter gives rise again to the lack of independence of the board. I can visualise situations — and I am sure there are others that we cannot visualise — in which the Commissioner's presence on the board will compromise the board: there can be imputations made because of his presence on the board. Fellow members will have difficulties because of the Commissioner's presence, like the vacant Archbishop of Dublin's chair that was left when he did not attend early ecumenical meetings. Many difficulties will be caused because the board will not be independent, any more than the investigations. These doubts will always arise. Here we have a doubt raised at a very early stage and it will not do any good for the force or the management of the force, as further sections will reveal. It will not do any good overall for our system of justice. When there are doubts like this at an early stage doubts will be cast in the minds of the people. The Commissioner should not be on the board, which should be totally independent. I hold that view right down the line.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 6, lines 24 to 34, to delete subsection (5) and to substitute the following subsection:
"(5) It shall be the duty of the Commissioner and of any member (whether authorised under section 1 (2) of this Act or not), on becoming aware of a complaint, to take any lawful measures that appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining or preserving evidence of or relating to the conduct complained of and, in a case where the Commissioner proposes to take any such measures, he may postpone notification of the complaint to the member concerned under subsection (4) of this section until the measures have been taken."
In response to points made by Deputy Woods on Second Stage, I undertook to have this subsection redrafted to make its meaning clearer. The object of the subsection is twofold. It authorises the Commissioner or any other member of the force, on becoming aware of a complaint, to take any necessary measures to obtain or preserve evidence of the conduct complained of. It also allows the Commissioner to postpone notifying the member concerned of the complaint until the measures have been taken.
Deputy Woods was concerned on Second Stage that the present text might not be adequate to ensure that these preventive measures could be set in motion immediately on receipt of a complaint by the board, the member receiving the complaint or the local superintendent. I explained at the time that this was not the case but I accepted that the provision could be made clearer. The new draft imposes a positive duty on the Commissioner or other member to take any such measures as are necessary and to take them on receipt of the complaint.
It also meets a point made by the Garda associations that the existing text could be interpreted as giving the Commissioner and other members of the force a free hand in the kind of preventive measures they should take. That is not so, but in deference to the associations' views the subsection now being substituted refers to lawful measures, to ensure there can be no doubt about the kind of measures that would be taken.
The Minister has explained the effect of the amendment. My concern was to get in the Bill a provision to collect any evidence that might be necessary, "by lawful means". I am happy with the amendment and the Minister has answered the queries I put. I was aware of the concern of the Garda associations.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 6, subsection (1), after line 51, to insert the following paragraph:
"(c) if he considers that the Complaint is not suitable for informal resolution, so inform the Board, and have the Complaint investigated under section 6 of this Act".
This relates to the informal resolution of complaints. The subsection states:
(a) having made such inquiries (if any) as appear to him to be necessary, consider whether the complaint is suitable for informal resolution, and
(b) if he considers that the complaint in suitable for informal resolution, so inform the Board and undertake the resolution of the complaint in accordance with the provisions of this section.
My amendment proposes to add the following:
"(c) if he considers that the complaint is not suitable for informal resolution, so inform the Board, and have the complaint investigated under section 6 of this Act".
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure there will be a positive provision that the complaint will be pursued under section 6. The Minister may say that would be the natural thing for the Commissioner to do if he found a complaint was not suitable for informal resolution. I am suggesting it should be made explicit and clear, that having made inquiries as to whether a complaint was suitable for informal resolution, he then informs the board and undertakes resolution of the complaint in accordance with the provisions. Secondly, if he considers a complaint not suitable, to so inform the board and have the complaint investigated under section 6. I wish to include a positive requirement that would allow a complaint to be pursued under section 6 if it is not suitable for informal resolution.
I wish to point out that section 6 (1) (a) constitutes a positive requirement to have a complaint investigated. It states:
The Commissioner shall appoint a member of the Garda Síochána (in this Act referred to as an investigating officer)—
(i) not below the rank of superintendent, or
(ii) if he considers that the circumstances so warrant, of the rank of inspector,
to investigate an admissible complaint (other than a complaint resolved under section 5 of this Act) and a person so appointed ...
For any admissible complaint received by the board that is not investigated under section 5, by virtue of the provisions of section 6 (1) (a) it will be investigated. That appears to cover adequately the concern expressed by Deputy Woods.
Going further than that, it seems unnecessary to inform the board in a case of the kind the Deputy has in mind. He seems to start with the viewpoint that, for the purposes of section 5 which deals with the informal resolution of complaints, it is necessary to say specifically what the Commissioner should do if he considers the complaint is not suitable for informal resolution, namely, to inform the board and have the complaint investigated under section 6. I point out that section 5 (1) (b) requires the Commissioner to tell the board where he considers the complaint is suitable for informal resolution. That has its own importance because the board have their own responsibilities in relation to informal resolution and they need to be informed if they are to discharge their responsibilities. For example, the board have the power to request the Commissioner before, during or after the informal resolution of a complaint to have it formally investigated under section 6 where they think the complaint is or was not suitable for informal resolution. Therefore, even going through the procedure in section 5 is not a conclusive determination that the case is one suitable for informal resolution. The board have the ability to change their mind.
There is no particular reason for telling the board that a complaint is being formally investigated. They could assume a complaint is being formally investigated unless they are told otherwise by the Commissioner. As provided for in the Bill, the investigating officer is required to complete his investigation as soon as may be and to send the chief executive an interim report if he cannot complete the investigation within 30 days. If the chief executive has not heard within 30 days of the matter being informally resolved, of course he can inquire about the case. Taking all of that into consideration, and in particular the provision in section 6 (1) (a), it is clear that any complaint not informally resolved must be formally investigated. Therefore, I suggest there is no need for this amendment to achieve the end required by Deputy Woods.
I note the Minister is quite happy that that is the situation, that section 5 provides specifically for what the Commissioner should do if he considers the complaint suitable for informal resolution. It does not state specifically what he has to do if it is not suitable but, as the Minister pointed out, section 6 (1) (a) states that the Commissioner shall appoint a member of the Garda Síochána to investigate an admissible complaint. We are assuming the complaint will be regarded as admissible and will be investigated under the provisions of the other section.
The purpose of my amendment is to make section 5 clearer and to leave no doubt about the specific obligations to inform the board if the Commissioner considers the complaint not suitable for informal resolution and to have it investigated under section 6. The Minister is happy that this would happen in any event and I accept his assurance. I appreciate that the matter is covered in an indirect way but it would be an advantage to set it out specifically.
It is covered directly.
Yes. It is covered in section 6 because then it would be regarded as an admissible complaint.
They all have to be admissible complaints.
I accept the assurance of the Minister that the matter is covered adequately and I withdraw the amendment.
Obviously there is need for an informal method to deal with minor complaints: otherwise the work of the board will be slowed down considerably by many trivial complaints. I suggest that the informal resolution of complaints must be strictly supervised. In that context I refer to a report of the Police Complaints Board in Britain in 1983 which stated:
If not properly supervised, informal resolutions will attract the same fears that are sometimes expressed about complaints that are withdrawn under the present system, that is to say, that complainants are pressurised into accepting a solution which falls short of a proper response to the complaint.
I know it is difficult to draft legislation to deal with every eventuality and that we must have trust in most of our dealings. We are leaving a lot in the hands of the Commissioner and we are placing much trust in him. Without referring to any particular person in the position of Commissioner — and I am not referring to the the present incumbent — the members of the force might fear that participation by the Commissioner or his representative might prejudice a fair hearing of the complaint. Taking human nature into account, personal reasons could influence such a person. I mentioned this earlier on section 5 when we were discussing fellow officers investigating complaints. The officer being investigated might not be too happy that a certain senior officer is investigating a complaint against him because they may have had a run in in the past.
The answer to this problem may be a monitoring system. If a complaint is not serious it can be treated informally and this will not take up a great deal of time. At any stage the board can intervene if they are not happy with the way an investigation is progressing, but on what basis can they intervene? Must they depend on information from another source? Can the complainant get in touch with the board if he or she is not happy with the way the investigation is being conducted? I imagine the majority of complaints will be dealt with informally. The public will judge the force by the way complaints are handled and, therefore, it is necessary that such complaints are handled efficiently and courteously. There should be a monitoring system to ensure that informal complaints will be monitored.
I note that all complaints will come back to the board who will look at the type of complaint, the time taken to investigate it, the numbers involved and so on. It would be preferable if this could be written into this legislation so that no commissioner or any other officer would have carte blanche to operate his own system. The drafters of this Bill appear to have gone into great detail to ensure that this part is fair.
The amendment is withdrawn.
The section provides a number of safeguards. Section 5 (1) (a) and 5 (1) (b) give the Commissioner certain powers to decide whether a complaint is suitable for informal resolution. Section 5 (3) provides that a complaint shall not be resolved informally on certain conditions if the complainant or the member concerned does not consent in writing to the resolution of the complaint under this section. Section 5 (4) allows the board to prescribe procedures to be followed in the resolution of complaints under this section, that is, informally. Section 5 (5) gives the board the power to change their mind about whether an informal resolution procedure is appropriate.
It is important to note that that allows the board, before, during or after the resolution of a complaint, to request the Commissioner in writing to have the complaint investigated under section 6, that is a formal investigation, and that section shall thereupon apply and have effect accordingly. There is no room for argument there. If the board come to that conclusion, that is what must be done.
The Minister said that under section 5 (5) it was important to note that the board, before, during or after the resolution——
Deputy Woods to move amendment No. 17.
In respect of——
Technically the Minister is out of order because the amendment was withdrawn some time ago.
I am responding to Deputy Skelly.
The amendment is withdrawn.
The Deputy cannot withdraw the amendment when Deputy Skelly and I are discussing it.
It was withdrawn before the Minister and the Deputy had their chat.
The Deputy is tempting me into a indiscretion.
I am calling the next amendment.
My reply arises from Deputy Woods' amendment.
The amendment was withdrawn some time ago.
Deputy Skelly and I were having this discussion and I heard voices in the background. I accept I was a little disorderly in having the discussion while seated but as I am on my feet perhaps——
I have been very patient but technically the Minister is out of order.
Under section 5 (5) the board can at any point before, during or after the informal resolution decide, notwithstanding the opinion of the commissioner that a case is suitable for informal resolution, take a different view and say they want it to be formally investigated.
This is a limited debate and I am withdrawing the amendment.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 7, subsection (3), between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(b) the conduct alleged in the complaint resulted in the death or serious injury to a person. Serious injury for the purposes of this section means a fracture, damage to an internal organ, impairment of bodily function, a deep cut or a deep laceration, or".
I want to make it clear that a complaint should not be resolved under this section informally if specific conditions exist. I appreciate that under various clauses the board can decide and refer back to the Commissioner, but we should be specific about the areas which we regard should not be resolved informally.
The restrictions already in the text appear to be sufficient to ensure that a complaint will not be informally resolved when it should be formally investigated. The first safeguard is that a complaint may not be informally resolved if the conduct constitutes criminal offence and the member concerned has been, or is likely to be, charged with it. That should cover any case where the conduct causes death or serious injury and the complaint is that the conduct involved is assault.
The second safeguard is that the complainant must consent in writing to have the complaint dealt with in this way. In the circumstances mentioned, that is, where the conduct alleged in the complaint resulted in death or serious injury to a person, it would be most unlikely that a complainant would agree to an informal resolution if the injury was in any way intentional.
The third safeguard in the text as it stands is that a copy of any informal resolution arrived at must be sent to the board who have the power, as I pointed out a moment ago during the slightly disorderly discussion I was having with Deputy Skelly——
The Minister is in order now.
If they think the complaint is or was not suitable for informal resolution the board have the power to request the Commissioner to have the complaint formally investigated. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, and it may be for the purposes of the record an obiter dictum, if the board take that view, as I read from section 5 (5), “it shall, as soon as may be, request the Commissioner in writing to have the complaint investigated under section 6 of this Act and that section shall thereupon apply and have effect accordingly in relation to the complaint ...”. Therefore, there is no further argument about it at that stage. If death or serious injury were caused in serious circumstances not amounting to an offence by the member concerned and the complainant agreed to informal resolution, the board themselves could still insist on a formal investigation being carried out.
I suppose there could be, nonetheless, cases where serious injury, for example a deep cut or laceration as referred to in Deputy Woods's amendment, could be caused by the conduct of a member but where it would be admitted on all sides that the conduct was not criminal in any sense but only carelessness. We have all seen cases in our own lives of deep lacerations caused by carelessness.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to bring it out later on. Such injuries could be caused by non-criminal actions. I cannot really see why in such circumstances the case should not be capable of being dealt with informally if the complainant and the member involved agree that is the proper way to do it.
In summary, three safeguards are built into the text of the Bill as it is to deal with the situations covered or envisaged in Deputy Woods's amendment. Again, I do not think the amendment is required in order to bring about the results that he wants.
I have given the Minister my advice on the matter and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 18 in the names of Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa has already been discussed with amendment No. 5 and, as amendment No. 5 was defeated, amendment No. 18 falls.
Amendment No. 19 in the names of Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa was also discussed with amendment No. 5 and falls.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 9, subsection (6), lines 19 to 26, to delete paragraph (b).
This amendment is to delete section 6 (6) (b) from the Bill. I wish to have it removed because it shuts off possibilities of inquiry at a stage where I do not think that is necessarily correct. I am sure the Minister will agree that strange things happen in courts. This paragraph provides that where conduct alleged in a complaint has been investigated by a court in civil proceedings and a determination of the issues is made by the court "no action or further action shall be taken by the Board under this Act in relation to the complaint".
The complainant should be entitled to come back to the board and give certain reasons in certain cases why he believes the board should pursue the matter. I cannot give an example from civil proceedings, but the Minister will be aware of criminal proceedings. Take the Shercock case of Peter Matthews. There were a number of criminal proceedings there. The man died but the situation had not been resolved and the complaint still existed. I am sure the Minister can foresee cases where similar proceedings will be taken and, for one reason or another, maybe a technical reason, maybe a vital witness not turning up, maybe the justice will be in a bad mood, or Justice Windle may be in court, and the matter reaches a determination which still will not resolve the complaint. If such circumstances arose the complainant should be entitled to put a case to the board as to why they should proceed or consider the case further. They could turn it down. If this paragraph is left in then no matter how good a case is put by the complainant they cannot act once the matter has come before a court in civil proceedings and has reached a determination. There can be circumstances in which a complainant should be entitled to have further action taken by the board.
Let me come in with an example. I agree with this and I can think of many examples. Suppose there are proceedings and serious charges or a number of charges are brought against the defendant and plea bargaining goes on. The gardaí concerned agree to drop or not to proceed with certain charges provided the defendant admits to one of the charges. In that instance the defendant may have no choice. He may have Hobson's choice, either to go ahead with the case and be hammered and have the book thrown at him and it is he against, say, three Garda witnesses, or he can agree to plead to a lesser charge so that they get a case against him. That is done frequently.
The person concerned, the defendant, might have a legitimate complaint against the Garda. For example, he may believe that he was blackguarded. In that case he would be able to make his complaint in the normal way. I can give a clearer example. In a case in which I was involved I had to plead to a lesser charge of breaking a speed limit when I was happy that I had not broken the speed limit. If I had not pleaded to that a whole list of charges including dangerous driving and all kinds of things would be brought up. Against my will, and despite the strong advice from my counsel, I did not intend to do that. I was convicted on a lesser charge; but, nevertheless, I felt I was badly done by and would have liked to have made a complaint. This amendment will enable me to make a complaint and, as it is an internal matter in the Garda force, I do not think it will unduly affect anybody — in other words, it would help the good name of the force.
I can think of many other examples where citizens were involved in arrests or in actions taken against them, and that should be left open. The other important point is in regard to what is commonly called "hit and miss justice" which takes place daily in abundance in the District Court and even in higher courts. However, it takes place mostly in the District Court with its huge volume of cases. Even Solomon could not impart justice all the time, which is a good reason for the amendment being considered.
I take the points made by Deputy Mac Giolla, when he introduced the amendment, and also those made by Deputy Skelly. I can see the difficulty of the board being in conflict with civil proceedings in the courts. However, as Deputy Mac Giolla pointed out, there might be a situation where as a result of a technicality, without taking natural justice into consideration, a very substantial complaint should be made to the board. For instance, a garda in giving evidence might think that he was justified in making a complaint in regard to how the proceedings had gone as far as he was concerned; but I know of such cases where gardaí are convinced that their complaints were not listened to. The board is being set up to ensure that justice is done in relation to the Garda as well as to those who complain. We all know that many gardaí still have a grievance as a result of civil proceedings which they feel need further investigation. Perhaps this could be taken into consideration.
The contributions made by Deputies Mac Giolla, Skelly and Barnes should really be considered in the context of whether in the case of proceedings with which people are dissatisfied they should proceed to an appeal, especially in relation to the kind of case to which Deputy Barnes referred. Deputy Skelly's case — and I do not like talking about particular cases — is not relevant because they were not civil proceedings.
Section 6 (6) (b) reads:
If the Board considers that the conduct alleged in a complaint has been investigated by a court in civil proceedings and a determination of the issues which are, in substance, the
issues involved in the complaint has been made by the court in those proceedings, when finally determined, in favour of the member concerned, no action or further action shall be taken by the Board under this Act in relation to the complaint.
We are talking about civil proceedings which involve the member against whom the complaint is being made and it is only in the case where a court has finally determined in favour of the member that the board would act in the way suggested here.
We should be careful, especially as we are talking about civil proceedings where there is always the provision for appeal, about trying to second guess the courts and claiming that because we did not like the conclusions of the court they were based on a technicality or not properly considered. It would not be proper to make disparaging remarks about the person on the Bench and, of course, I must abjure any such remarks in the interest of propriety. As I said, it is not our job to second guess the courts, particularly when there is an appeal to another court. Taking account of that, the argument might take on a slightly different hue.
Before the provision which Deputy Mac Giolla proposes to delete could come into operation, two conditions have to be satisfied. The first is that the board must be satisfied that the issues determined in the civil proceedings are in substance the same as those in the complaint. If it is not the same issue in substance, this does not apply. The second condition is that the proceedings must have been determined in favour of the member concerned so that, if the proceedings are the same in substance and have been determined otherwise than in favour of the member, then this does not apply. If the subject matter of the complaint is not the same subject matter as that of the proceedings, then equally this does not apply. There are a number of circumstances to be borne in mind in regard to cases where the question could arise in the first place. The civil proceedings could have been initiated by the complainant or by the member concerned. The matter would have been considered by a court which would have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence adduced by or on behalf of each of the parties concerned and the court would then have determined the issue.
Where the issue involved in the civil proceedings is the same as that in the complaint, I am not persuaded that the board should pursue the complaint further where the matter has been determined in favour of the member concerned. I do not think it is the business of the House to second guess the courts, nor do I think that it should be a function of the board to do that either. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the board from proceeding with an investigation where the issues involved in the civil proceedings are not the same as those involved in the complaint or obviously where a decision in civil proceedings is against the member concerned. While I am not persuaded that there is a strong case for deleting the provision which Deputy Mac Giolla proposes to delete, having heard the arguments, perhaps there is a case to be made for further reflection on it.
Before we conclude Committee Stage, I wish to point out that there are a number of matters to which I wish to return on Report Stage. One is in relation to section 6 (6) (a) but, in the context of this discussion, I will reflect on section 6 (6) (b) which Deputy Mac Giolla proposed deleting. If the House is agreeable I will come back to it on Report Stage and Deputy Mac Giolla will lose nothing by agreeing to that.
I want to thank the Minister for that. I would suggest that he look at the word "shall" and perhaps change it to "may".
I want to make a brief point on that. The Minister said it was in relation to civil cases. But what are civil cases but a joust between lawyers. The appeal through the courts system would not necessarily give satisfaction because, apart altogether from the cost consideration, which is usually the main factor, appeal may not be entered into. Often these cases come to court as a result of an accusation, and even if one wins one still may not be in a position to go forward — about 95 per cent of personal accident cases are settled before they go to court. In most of these civil cases there is a lot of horse dealing, with many people being left with no choice but to go through the procedure and suffer the consequences. One cannot always get justice because a lot of it will depend even on such things as the ability of those representing them and on lots of other things. Therefore, the Minister should consider that broadly, and as he is going to consider it on Report Stage, should accept that point as well.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 10, subsection (8) (b), line 4, after "Minister" to insert the following:
", after consultation with the Attorney General,".
This refers to where the conduct alleged constitutes an offence. Subsection 8 (b) provides:
Subject to paragraph (d) of this subsection, where a matter is referred to the Commissioner under paragraph (a) of this subsection, if the Commissioner, having made such inquiries, (if any) as he considers necessary, agrees with the opinion of the investigating officer in regard to the information in question or any portion of it, he shall report the matter to the Minister and, if or in so far as the Minister agrees with that opinion and so directs, the relevant information shall not be included in any report of the investigating officer.
My amendment is to insert after the word "Minister" the words "after consultation with the Attorney General". It is a technical provision to ensure that the law officer would be the person to advise the Minister in that respect.
The subsection at it stands allows a direction to be given that information relevant to an investigation should be omitted from the investigating officer's report to the complaints board. That direction would be given where the disclosure of information in the officer's report, information which would otherwise be appropriate for inclusion in the report, would be liable to affect the security of the State or to constitute a serious and unjustifiable infringement of the rights of some other person. What the Government has in mind in including that subsection was a case where, for example, the name of an informer was relevant to a report and its inclusion could have damaging consequences in certain circumstances and for the security of the State. Non-disclosure therefore would be permitted only in the most limited circumstances and before a direction could be given under this subsection three persons would have to agree that it was appropriate to do so. They were the investigating officer, the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice. They would all have to agree that disclosure would have the consequences that I have mentioned.
The provision itself is quite clear. Given the fact that it requires those three persons, the investigating officer, the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, there is already a very substantial safeguard. It is difficult for me to say this but I am going to say it in the most noncontentious and respectful way I can. I do not see that it falls particularly within the ambit or the functions of the Attorney General who, as Deputy Woods has pointed out, is the chief law officer of the State, to advise on matters relating to security in this particular context. So, frankly, I do not see the appropriateness of including a reference to the Attorney General. If Deputy Woods' concern is to ensure that there is a sufficient weight of opinion to the effect that a direction of this kind should be given, then I would think that the combination of the investigating officer, the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, if I may say so with due respect to the other two gentlemen and due to modesty in my own and my successors' regard, the weight of those three opinions should be enough to satisfy the House that such a direction would not be given lightly.
I would remind the Deputy that I intend to come back to section 6 (6) (a) and 6 (6) (b) on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 10, subsection (2), line 39, after "shall" to insert ", subject to section 6 (6) of this Act,".
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 11, subsection (7) (a), line 18, to delete "the Board is of opinion that".
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 11, subsection (8), to delete lines 30 and 31 and substitute the following:
"(8) Subject to section 6 (6) of this Act, where the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided whether proceedings for an offence should or should not be instituted in respect of".
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 11, subsection (9) (a) (ii) (II), lines 45 and 46, to delete "conduct alleged in the complaint" and substitute "conduct under consideration (being conduct alleged in the complaint)"
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 12, subsection (9) (a), line 5, after "may", to insert ", before dealing with the matter in accordance with subsections (3) to (8) of this section,".
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 12, subsection (9), between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(b) A direction shall not be given under this subsection unless the conduct alleged in the complaint concerned arose in connection with the performance or exercise, or the purported performance or exercise, by the member concerned of functions or powers conferred on him as such member.".
This is a very important amendment and I am glad to see that the Minister has put this in. It is one of the points we debated earlier.
Amendments No. 28 and 30 are related and will be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 12, subsection (9) (b), line 10, after "member", to insert "(other than a member who is the spouse of the member concerned)".
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 12, subsection (9) (d), line 26, after "him", to insert "in writing".
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 12, subsection (9) (e) (i), lines 32 and 33, to delete "other than the member against whom the complaint concerned is made" and substitute "(other than the member against whom the complaint concerned is being made or a member who is the spouse of that member)".
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 13, subsection (9) (f), line 2, to delete "(7)" and substitute "(8)".
Amendment No. 32 has already been discussed with amendment No. 6.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 13, subsection (9) to 17, to delete paragraph (h).
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 13, subsection (1) (a), line 32, to delete "and".
Amendments No. 34, 54, 56, 59, 60 and 61 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 13, subsection (1), between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"(b) the chief executive shall notify each member of the tribunal of the breach or breaches of discipline aforesaid and the names and addresses of the witnesses whom he wishes to attend before the tribunal, and".
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related. They are to be taken together.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 14, subsection (4), between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(b) requirement to retire or resign from the Garda Síochána as an alternative to dismissal therefrom,".
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 14, subsection (4), lines 19 to 22, to delete paragraph (c).
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 14, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) A reduction in pay under subsection (4) of this section shall not exceed in amount four weeks' pay and there shall not be deducted, in respect of any such reduction, from any payment to a member in respect of pay more than 10 per cent of the amount of such payment.".
May I interject in the proceedings? I am anticipating a little, but hope I shall be forgiven, so that we are not constrained in talking about any of the further amendments which may be discussed, is this an appropriate moment to give notice to the House of the matters to which I shall return on Report Stage which may not be reached?
The Minister would be free to return to them on Report Stage once we have not voted on them.
I shall put the Committee Stage question at 7 p.m. Is this a new matter that the Minister will be introducing on Report Stage?
One will be a new section before section 12 and another is an amendment to the Third Schedule.
We have almost come to section 12.
Amendment No. 38 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are related.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 15, subsection (2), between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
"(b) if a member has appealed from a decision of a tribunal finding him to be in breach of discipline but has not appealed from a decision of the tribunal in relation to the same matter that specified disciplinary action should be taken against him, set aside the latter decision, and decide that any disciplinary action specified in section 9 (4) of this Act other than that specified in the decision of the tribunal should be taken against the member,".
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 15, subsection (2), lines 12 to 16, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) in relation to an appeal by a member from a decision of a tribunal that specified disciplinary action should be taken against him, affirm or set aside the decision or set aside the decision and decide that any disciplinary action specified in section 9 (4) of this Act other than that specified in the opinion of the tribunal should be taken against the member,".
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 15 subsection (2) (c), lines 19 and 20, to delete "mentioned in the said section 9 (3)" and substitute "specified in the said section 9 (4)".
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 15, before section 12, to insert the following new section:
12.—(1) No information received by the Board, the Appeal Board or any tribunal in connection with any complaint shall be disclosed by any person who is or has been a member, officer or servant of the Board, Appeal Board or Tribunal, except:—
(a) to the Minister or to a member, officer or servant of the Board, Appeal Board or tribunal, or so far as may be necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of those bodies, to other persons,
(b) for the purpose of civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings, or
(c) in the form of a Summary or other general statement made by the Board which does not identify the person from whom the information was received or any person to whom it relates.
(2) Any person who discloses information in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both, and on indictment to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or to both such fine and imprisonment.".
The Minister tells me that the Official Secrets Act covers many people. I am proposing that there should be an explicit statement about disclosure. It applies to the Ombudsman Act, where there is such a safeguard. I think it is worth having.
I have been considering the terms of the Deputy's amendment. While I can understand his intention and go some distance with it, I am not sure that the text he has proposed is properly tailored.
If the Minister can propose a better text, I shall be quite happy with that.
I shall come back to this on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 15, subsection (2), line 49, after "specify", to insert the following:
"and shall be empowered to make a special report on any other matter which it considers to be of exceptional concern".
The idea here is to state explicitly that the board, apart from reports which they are required to make, shall be empowered to make a report on an interim or other basis if they feel that is necessary. It is an enabling power for the board.
I am not clear on the necessity for making a provision of this kind. Section 12 (1) already allows the board to include in their annual report "information and comment in relation to any matters coming to its notice under this Act to which it considers that its attention should be drawn", that is, to draw the attention of the Minister to these matters.
The intention was that if the board wanted to make any specific report, that would be stated explicitly. There may be no objection to the board doing that. I leave it with the Minister to consider it.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 16, subsection (3), line 4, to delete "of this Act".
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 16, subsection (4), line 7, after "Oireachtas" to insert "without delay".
This amendment deals with the presentation of reports and the requirement to lay them on the table of the Oireachtas. We had experience recently with a criminal injuries board where there was a long delay. Initially this was for an accidental reason, but then the delay became protracted. No time scale is given and that is why I wanted the words "without delay" added.
The comparison the Deputy is making to a recent case is not relevant. I draw his attention to the fact that the subsection requires that the Minister shall cause a copy of every report received by him under this section to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Obviously, the Minister cannot lay these before the House if he has not received them. The practice for a long time has been for reports received by Ministers to be presented at the earliest practicable moment to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The provision here is the standard one in all the Statutes which require reports to be presented to the Oireachtas.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 16, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsections:
"(3) A serving member of the Garda Síochána shall be disqualified from becoming a member of the Board or the Appeal Board.
(4) A member of the Board or the Appeal Board shall cease to be a member if he attains the age of seventy.".
There is no age limit at present. The Minister may like to consider this amendment.
An age limit of 70 years is very generous.
I had considered an age limit of 65 years earlier, but the Deputy might be going fairly strong at 67 and might have a different view on it then. She might have a lot of experience to offer to a board like this.
I do not think I would like that.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 16, subsection (1) (b) (i), line 32, to delete "Regulation 34 of".
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 16, subsection (1) (b) (i), line 34, after "member" to insert "and for this purpose the relevant provisions of the Regulations shall apply with any necessary modifications;".
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 16, subsection (1) (b), lines 38 to 40, to delete subparagraph (ii).
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 16, subsection (1) (b) (iii), line 43, to delete "Regulation 31 of".
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 17, lines 19 to 22, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following subsection:
"(4) The said section 12 is hereby amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the deletion of `for the Commissioner or for any other member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police not being of lower rank than Inspector nominated for that purpose by the Commissioner, or', and
(b) in subsection (2), by the substitution of `a fine not exceeding £700 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both' for `a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding three months'.".
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 17, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) The Regulations may provide that a person who is duly notified that he is required to attend at an inquiry being or to be held under the Regulations in relation to an alleged breach of discipline by a member and who neglects or refuses to attend at such inquiry or, in the case of a person other than the member aforesaid or his spouse, refuses to give evidence thereat shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £700 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.".
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 17, lines 26 to 36, to delete subsection (6).
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 17, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) In this section `the Regulations' means any regulations under section 14 of the Act of 1925 in relation to discipline for the time being in force.".
It is now 7 p.m. and I must put the following question:
"Garda Síochána (Complaints) Bill, 1985. That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice for Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and that the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee and, as amended, is reported to the House."