This amendment seeks that the Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Justice, Equality and Law Reform would together deliver housing strategies to help young members of the Garda Síochána to live in local authority estates. There is demand throughout the country for substations. However, it would help if more gardaí lived in areas where there is anti-social behaviour. This amendment would address the issue. It would be useful to disperse a number of officers at locations throughout the country. A pilot project could be put in place to deal with the measures proposed by this amendment. It is worthwhile and something which local authority members and communities are looking for. People want gardaí living in their area. Visible Garda presence in an estate is a deterrent to anti-social behaviour. Both Ministers should get together and develop a pilot project where local authorities would subsidise the accommodation of gardaí. I ask that consideration be given to such a project.
Garda Síochána Bill 2004: Committee Stage (Resumed).
We had a good debate on this amendment yesterday afternoon when some of the difficulties attached to prescribing that gardaí should live in RAPID areas were highlighted. I am sure Senator Cummins will agree that Senator Leyden made a good point regarding past practice in relation to the construction of houses for gardaí through the National Building Agency. I am aware of group housing schemes in which three or four houses were made available to gardaí. I am sure those houses were constructed in as cost effective a manner as possible.
Also, general desire was expressed during yesterday's discussion to have gardaí living in the communities in which they serve. Such a move would be a positive dynamic for policing and could result in gardaí obtaining the acceptance, support and co-operation necessary for effective policing in communities. One cannot be prescriptive about where people must live. Perhaps we could return to the scheme whereby houses were specifically constructed for the force. I agree with Senator Cummins that the local authorities could have a role to play in that regard.
Members will be aware that there is still good value, comparatively speaking, to be achieved in local authority constructed houses. While some local authorities are constructing three and four bedroom houses at a cost of approximately €110,000 or €120,000, similar properties in the same locality are being sold by developers for €170,000 or €180,000. We could make such a scheme attractive to gardaí with families. I am not sure that houses should be made available to single gardaí. Adopting a positive approach to the provision of houses for gardaí with families might be the way to achieve what the Senator is arguing for.
The Minister when discussing this amendment yesterday afternoon expressed misgivings about a possible scheme of rent subsidies or allowances drawn up by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. There is, of course, a fundamental difficulty with this amendment in that full account has to be taken of the fact that members of the Garda Síochána are free to reside in an area of choice. There is no regulation or legal requirement in that regard.
While we all share the worthy sentiments expressed in the amendment we are dealing with legislation. Before proceeding to discussions with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the matter should first be raised by the Department with the relevant representative bodies through the normal consultative channels. A prudent and logical first step would be to examine their views on the proposal. I am willing to do that.
I accept the Minister of State's bona fides that the matter will be discussed with the Garda Representative Association and believe it would be a good way of addressing the issue. The amendment does not seek to dictate where gardaí should live. There should be no compulsion in that regard. However, we believe there is merit in the proposal and also believe the representative associations will see merit in it. A number of young gardaí deployed throughout the country who are encountering difficulty in getting accommodation which is quite expensive would be willing to take up such houses.
As was stated yesterday, the Garda Síochána previously provided accommodation for gardaí in barracks and so on. We have moved a long way since then. I accept the Minister of State's suggestion that the matter be first discussed with the representative associations and will withdraw the amendment for Report Stage at which time he may, having met with the representative associations, come back to us on the matter.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 17, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(a) secure and allocate any additional resources which are required as a result of his or her actions under subsection (1).”.
If the Minister is to have the power to set priorities for the Garda Síochána, then he must also be prepared to put in place the extra resources required to implement them. We could talk about the provisions of resources for hours. In setting priorities, the Minister should also provide, to use the new buzz term, an "envelope of resources" to implement them.
I am always amazed by Senators' creativity in terms of amendments tabled in this House and by the amount of time spent trying to deprive Governments and Legislatures of power. Were I to accept the amendment that the Minister secure and allocate any additional resources which are required as a result of his or her actions, I would be asking that he or she not present a Vote to the House, rather that he or she should always seek such resources in accordance with a statutory obligation. The Minister should, at least, retain the power to recommend a Vote to the House and the House should retain the power to approve or disapprove it, constitutionally speaking.
The allocation of resources is a matter for Government in the publication of the Estimates each year. It is not a matter for particular reference in legislation. The Vote for the Garda Síochána is determined in liaison with the Garda Commissioner. The amendment goes further and seeks to oblige the Minister to secure resources which, ultimately, is a matter for Government and for discussion between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am sure Senator Cummins is not proposing we repeal the Constitution and abolish the system of collective Government responsibility. The amendment also suggests the Minister should allocate such resources. The allocation of resources is a matter for the Commissioner, not the Minister.
Far be it from me to get into constitutional matters with the Minister of State. The amendment seeks the provision of adequate resources. The question when is a commitment not a commitment arose on the Order of Business. The amendment merely seeks to tease out that issue. The Government has given a number of commitments in terms of resources for the Garda Síochána, but such resources have not been put in place. The amendment highlights that adequate resources are not currently available. Recognition must be given to the fact that to meet the priorities laid down for the Garda Síochána adequate resources will have to be put in place.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 19, subsection (4), line 38 to delete "to limit the independence of" and substitute "in respect of the role of".
This is a technical amendment as the Labour Party believes the existing wording is inappropriate as it refers to the independence of a member of the Garda Síochána in the investigation and prosecution of an offence, whereas the Bill makes it clear a member is not wholly independent in that respect. For example, a garda is subject to the directions of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has examined the issues raised in subsection (4) but is not prepared to accept the amendment. In common law, certain matters on which a garda can exercise a discretion relate to his or her position as an officer of the peace and a constable. That common law position has never been altered in this jurisdiction. Each individual member of the Garda Síochána has an individual discretion in certain matters. For example, a garda has the discretion as to whether to arrest an individual and whether to proceed in the prosecution of certain types of summary and minor offence. However, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform cannot direct a garda to arrest or prosecute an individual, who, for example, may have infringed the road traffic code by not having adequate illumination on a bicycle. These and many other matters are left to the Garda. This is of great importance to the citizen who needs the reassurance that a garda cannot be subject to a direction.
Section 22 gives the Minister power to issue to the Garda Commissioner written directives concerning any matter relating to the Garda Síochána. While it is drafted with a wide scope, subsection (4) ensures this wide power to be conferred on the Minister cannot be exercised to limit the independence of the Garda Síochána in performing functions in the investigation or prosecution of an offence. I gave the example of the exercise of the power of arrest. The same principle applies to many of the investigative powers which the Garda exercises at common law or statutory level. Equally, in the prosecution of an offence, a discretion rests with the Garda on a wide range of matters which come before the District Court. In the District Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions does not have power over the Garda, as a matter of law. He may have certain powers in practice but not as a matter of law. It is important that this discretion, essential to the confidence in the community enjoyed by the Garda, is safeguarded and respected by the legislation.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 20, subsection (2), line 31, after "information" to insert "(subject to the putting in place of sufficient safeguards to protect personal information relating to individuals)".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Garda Commissioner is not given a free hand to transfer personal information relating to individuals to a foreign police force or other law enforcement agency. Sufficient safeguards must be in place to protect the privacy of personal information relating to individuals in such agreements.
I understand Senator Tuffy's concerns but they would be better dealt with under the Data Protection Act rather than in the Bill. The nature of police work is the transfer of information about people. I believe this could lead to an unnecessary trammelling of an investigation and prevent co-operation with other police forces and Interpol. Increasingly, crime is becoming a cross-border activity. It would be better not to express this in the Bill but to provide for the necessary protection for innocent citizens, concerned at the transfer of information, in the Data Protection Act.
I agree with Senator Maurice Hayes that the appropriate context to review this question is in the data protection legislation. The exchange and supply of information goes to the heart of proper policing. In the global village, which our world has become, it is essential that police forces in different jurisdictions exchange information candidly. This is already the practice. Senator Tuffy's amendment would interfere with this and cast a doubt over it. In doing so, it would impede the effective investigation of offences.
Is this protection provided under the data protection codes?
I understand the provisions of the Data Protection Act apply to data gathered by the Garda Síochána. The exchange of information goes beyond the question of data to the supply of verbal information.
Protection applies to material on computer.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 20, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) An agreement pursuant to this section shall be in writing and shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and shall not enter into force until such time as the terms thereof have been approved by Dáil Éireann.".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution that requires any international agreement to be approved by Dáil Éireann where it involves a charge on public funds. This requires a copy to be laid before the Dáil, except where it is of a technical nature.
The subject matter of these agreements between the Garda Síochána and other police forces concern policing and operational issues. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform sees no reason they should have to be publicised or require Dáil approval before they enter into force. They are the type of agreement of an administrative or technical character which comes within the meaning of Article 29.5.3° of the Constitution. The Houses of the Oireachtas, therefore, do not have a strict constitutional function in these matters as they are within the constitutional proviso which permits such agreements to be concluded without parliamentary approval.
As a way around this, can it be suggested to the Minister that the fact that the Garda is co-operating with police forces in other jurisdictions should be a matter of public knowledge? Agreements are entered into under Interpol and other agencies. It may be possible for these broad subsidiary agreements to be reported to the Oireachtas without requiring the facts of the operations to be divulged.
I am prepared to examine Senator Maurice Hayes's suggestion. I would be unhappy that an agreement should be subject to parliamentary approval, which is not of a class that I respectfully suggest should be subject to parliamentary approval. I am interested in exploring a route whereby the existence of such an agreement could be disclosed.
Amendment No. 37 is an alternative to amendments Nos. 38 to 40, inclusive, and amendment No. 53 is consequential. Therefore, amendments Nos. 37 to 40, inclusive, and amendment No. 53 may be discussed together by agreement.
The Government amendment seems to address my party's concerns as set out in amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 53. The purpose of Fine Gael's amendments is to delete the definition of "local authority" in the Bill to ensure the term has the meaning it has in the Local Government Act 2001. Amending the Bill will ensure that town councillors can contribute to policing committees whereas the Bill, as initially drafted, had the effect of excluding them. Town councillors should be allowed to make an important contribution to the process. Representatives from the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland, quite a number of whom I have met in the past couple of weeks, feel very strongly about the exclusion of town councillors. If a policing committee were to meet in a town as large as Tramore, it is possible that under the existing provisions not one member of Tramore Town Council would be present. That is not what the Minister wished to provide in drafting the legislation. I ask that the exclusion of town councillors be rescinded to allow them to be part of the committees.
I agree with Senator Cummins and welcome amendment No. 37 which provides for the inclusion of all local authorities, including town councils. It significantly strengthens the Bill. I have no doubt the insertion of the provision will create a new dynamic in the operation of the policing committees and the functioning of the Garda.
I support the amendment. Senator Jim Walsh made a very strong case to the Minister on the subject of local authority representation on the policing boards. It is very important that local authority members are involved as opposed to representatives of subsidiary local authority organisations. Local authority organisations include county development, enterprise and other boards, but the policing committee in an area should be composed of councillors nominated by the council itself. As the representatives elected by the people, local authority members are aware of circumstances in the local area.
While provision is made for the attendance of local superintendents at policing committee meetings, representatives of the Garda Representative Association and the Association of Sergeants and Inspectors should also have an input or, at least the right to attend in areas in which those bodies are active. It would allow them to know what was happening and to respond quickly to events.
The provision in section 30 for local involvement in regional Garda administration is innovative. Elected councillors are very well aware of the issues and concerns of local communities. I thank the Minister for refining through amendment No. 37 the Bill's provisions in this regard. I emphasise that nominees should be chosen from among local authority members and representation should be proportional to the strength of the various groups on a council rather than political basis. No party should have a monopoly. If necessary, the full council should sit on a committee given the importance of this matter. Most meetings will probably be held in camera as issues will be raised which should not necessarily be in the public domain. I welcome the involvement of local authority members in the policing boards.
I welcome amendment No. 37, which addresses the issue satisfactorily. When we spoke about the matter on Second Stage, everybody agreed that borough councils should be involved in joint policing committees. The point was made that if one were to carry out an analysis, it would become apparent that the incidence of crime is higher in urban areas due to the concentration of population.
Town councils can play an ideal role. They are an excellent local forum model and I wish we had them in my local authority area. While we have local area committees, they usually deal with two areas. In my part of south Dublin, the local area committee deals with Clondalkin and Lucan whereas a town council would focus on one of those urban areas. Members of town councils work at the coal face and are very much aware of local circumstances and the actions necessary to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour.
Can the Minister of State explain in his reply what is the purpose of the use of the words in the proposed new section "unless the context otherwise requires"? When is it expected to have the guidelines ready? On Second Stage, I raised the question of whether it was a good idea to involve county development boards, which we might reconsider when the committees are established and operating. I am happy enough to accept for the time being the involvement of the boards. As the Labour Party was the first to propose a committee of the type provided for in the Bill, I am very glad the Minister has taken the idea on board.
I warmly welcome amendment No. 37. The matter arose on Second Stage when I, among others, pressed very strongly for the inclusion of town councils rather than just county and city councils. I have come to the House from the Oireachtas Library where I consulted section 2 of the Local Government Act 2001, which contains the definitions of terms used in that statute. According to the Act, "local authority" means a county council, city council or town council.
From my experience in Tipperary, I can see the enormous value of establishing policing committees which are based, to a degree, on the district policing partnerships which have been established in the North under the Patten reforms. Currently, where there are grievances or concerns about policing, there is no institutional mechanism for conveying them except in an informal manner. Policing committees will be of great value in allowing people to convey any concerns to the Garda. Equally, the committees will allow that to be a two-way process whereby the Garda can convey any concerns it has. Not everything which has an impact or is related to policing is within Garda jurisdiction. There are things local authorities can do to facilitate the Garda to better carry out its functions. Again, I warmly welcome the Government amendment which arose out of the Seanad debate on Second Stage. I can see it having a most positive impact.
Senator Mansergh referred to the Patten proposals in regard to this amendment. The rationale behind the Patten proposal, as Senator Mansergh highlighted, is that policing is far more than just police work. It requires the co-operation of various agencies including those in education, youth work, social work, probation services, local councils in respect of lighting and so on. It was thought that this was the forum in which those agencies could be brought together to discuss those areas.
Will the Minister clarify whether he foresees a single joint committee for each local authority area? It needs to involve the local authority areas in some way or the Garda command divisions aligned to local authority boundaries. It may be that in large local authorities — I am thinking of the cities — it would be desirable to break those down to get them as near to people as possible. Generally, however, like Senator Mansergh, I welcome this reduction.
I am glad Senators have welcomed what the Minister has now proposed. During the course of the debate on Second Stage a number of Senators commented on Chapter 4 in this particular context and on the establishment of joint policing committees. What is allowed for now is a two-tiered structure where local policing committees can be established to deal with any issues at a more fundamental level.
The original provisions sought to marry proposals from the National Crime Council for the establishment of crime committees involving local authorities and the Garda Síochána under the county and city development board model and the more community focused local policing committees but one of the concerns the Minister had about this model, with which he found a good deal of resonance in this House on Second Stage, was the need to involve town councillors in the joint policing committee. As a result, the Minister proposes to make a number of changes in the provisions of sections 30 and 31 and to delete section 33.
The first amendment is to section 30. It is designed to provide for a definition that includes all local authority bodies as defined in the Local Government Act 2001, namely, a county council, a city council and a town council. The existing definition used in the Bill excludes the latter and by restoring the full definition we will enable joint policing committees to be established down to town level, if required. That may not be what is required, however.
An option that would be possible under this legislation would be to divide a county into two areas and marry a town council with its surrounding county electoral area. That would be an appropriate model. To take the example of County Louth, there might be a case for having one area based in Drogheda and one in Dundalk, although County Louth has a mid-Louth electoral area and it too might stake its claim but that type of flexibility is allowed under what the Minister is now proposing.
The Minister proposes also that the democratic character of the joint policing committee be clearly recognised, which is welcome. Those who will have primacy in this matter at local level will be the elected representatives who have a mandate. Whether that mandate stems from the town council or the city or county council, there will be a mandate. In considering an earlier amendment I made the point that a member of the Garda Síochána has considerable discretion and it is important that the citizen has confidence in that discretion and in the force. That confidence is more easily fostered and sustained when the citizen knows that those to whom the force is making itself accountable have a democratic mandate and can be called to account by the electorate for the manner in which they consult with the Garda Síochána. I very much welcome the contribution the Seanad has made on that and indeed the generosity of Senators, many of whom are elected by city and county councillors, but not by town councillors, in recognising the importance of town councillors in this context. Senator Leyden referred to the joint policing committee as being fundamental, and I agree with him on that.
Senator Maurice Hayes asked whether a realignment of Garda boundaries would be required by this legislation. The difficulty with Garda boundaries is that in the case of the larger urban areas they turn very much around the location of individual police stations.
It is important to know, as a matter of historical fact, that in the Dublin area, because of the existence of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, they were always called stations and were never colloquially known as barracks, which is the case outside Dublin. In the Dublin area, however, the location of the station has had a crucial influence on the formation of the districts and divisions. The districts and divisions do not correspond with the local authority boundaries in Dublin, which is a great difficulty because there is a need for far greater co-operation, as Senator Maurice Hayes said, between the local authorities and the Garda Síochána. This is one of the difficult areas. Outside Dublin we go back to the districts formed in the times of the Royal Irish Constabulary and its modern replacements within the Garda Síochána. The division is more in the nature of an administrative unit where the chief superintendent supervises the work of the individual districts. The individual districts are of very long standing but by and large they correspond to the principal provincial towns and their hinterlands. It would be easier outside Dublin to construct local authority committees that reflected the districts than it would be in Dublin.
Senator Leyden raised a question about those who would attend these committees. The intention is that the chief superintendent attends the committee but that does not preclude him being assisted by an officer, be it the superintendent, an inspector, a juvenile liaison officer if an issue of juvenile crime is under consideration or the relevant officer as the case might be.
As amendment No. 37 has been agreed, amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 cannot be moved.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 23, before section 31, to insert the following new section:
31.—Prior to the implementation of any significant work practice changes or reorganisation, the Commissioner and the Minister shall consult with Garda representative associations.
This amendment deals with the requirements of the Minister and the Garda Commissioner to consult with gardaí on work practice changes. That may take place anyway but it should be included in the Bill because an association should be entitled to consultation and negotiation prior to any changes in work practices. This should be taken as a given in every walk of life. The amendment proposes that the Minister and the Garda Commissioner shall consult with gardaí and their representative associations on the question of changes in work practices.
As a matter of normal industrial relations and management one would expect people to consult with their workforce and their representative bodies but to give people a statutory right to consultation is to introduce rigidities into systems that we might want to keep flexible. It produces a recipe for a group which knows it must be consulted and then consultation can move subtlety into a necessity for agreement and approval. That introduces a rigidity into what is a normal management and personnel relations function and it would be better left out.
I understand the case being made by Senator Cummins in trying to ensure that these new arrangements would be reflected in negotiations with the representative associations. The Garda Commissioner would carry out these consultations. Including the provision in the legislation might be too rigid but it is important that we voice that concern here. I support the amendment because the principle underpinning it is correct. Before changes are made, normal consultation should take place. As Senator Maurice Hayes stated, it is normal practice for the Garda to respond to the requirements of the representative organisations. The amendment should be accepted in principle by the Minister of State so that it is conveyed to the commissioner that changes should be made in consultation with the representative associations.
It is not clear that the provisions in the chapter will provide for changes in work practices or reorganisation. However, if they do, there is established arbitration and conciliation machinery in the Department, which has worked well down the years and which is available to be used. I share the concern of Senator Maurice Hayes that is not essential as a matter of legislative practice to insert a statutory right of consultation. I do not want that to take from the Department's good relations with the relevant representative associations. While the conciliation and arbitration machinery is available to be used, if required, it is not clear it is required and, therefore, for that reason, I do not see a strict requirement for the amendment. I am not aware that concerns have been expressed about work practice changes as a result of the legislation.
There will be a number of changes to work practices as a result of the establishment of the joint policing committees. However, if the Minister of State gives an assurance that the consultation process and conciliation machinery will continue and will not be changed, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. I take on board Senator Maurice Hayes's comments that it may be too rigid to make the provision in legislation. Perhaps, the necessary procedures are in place but I seek an assurance that they will be continued.
If issues are raised, they will be discussed. However, I would not like the Seanad to think I am attaching a price tag to my comments because the Garda engages in a great deal of liaison with the community and bodies of different character have been established in various parts of the country such as policing forums and local consultative bodies to work with the Garda. The legislation will give a fundamental local democratic impetus and mandate to that process and will formalise the local democratic liaison with the force and that is important. However, it is not radically new or different from what good policing has always required, namely, liaison with the community and its representatives.
It may not be radical but there will be changes in work practices as a result of the legislation.
Amendment No. 43 is an alternative to No. 42 while amendment No. 44 is related and all may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 16, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
My amendment is similar to that of Senator Cummins. The joint policing committees should be established in every area and it is not appropriate the Minister should have discretion to establish such committees. The Minister will be remembered for this initiative and he might as well go the whole hog to make sure the committees are set up. I presume they will be established while he is still in office but what if they are not and his successor does not have the same enthusiasm for them? The Minister should make the establishment of the committees a mandatory requirement. This could be an important and worthwhile initiative and I hope the Minister gets the committees up and running while he is in office. If he does not, he might regret that he did not make it mandatory.
I am not comfortable with the ambiguous nature of this section. I seek a firm commitment that the policing committees will be set up and that is why I propose the substitution of the word "may" with "shall". I also seek a time limit of three months within which the Minister must issue guidelines under the section.
Amendment No. 44 proposes the deletion of paragraphs (a) and (b) and the insertion of a more expansive and comprehensive series of paragraphs, which state what should be provided.
I support amendments Nos. 42 and 44 but I am not sure about the three-month stipulation proposed by Senator Cummins. The joint policing committees cannot be established unless guidelines are issued by the Minister. The mandatory "shall" is preferable to the discretionary "may" and I hope the Minister will examine the wording.
Amendment No. 44 relates to the guidelines. Hopefully, there will be a positive reaction to amendment No. 45 later but the use of the word "shall", which is proposed in amendment No. 44, is also more desirable. If the provision remains discretionary, anything that is agreed under amendment No. 45 can be changed subsequently by ministerial order. A great deal of work has gone into the Bill and the joint policing committees are one of its strengths. They could transform public support for the Garda and the flow of information to the force. I will give examples when we discuss amendment No. 45. I ask the Minister of State to look sympathetically on amendments Nos. 42 and 44.
This is a core value of the legislation and the Minister should have the courage of his convictions to accept the responsibility to produce the guidelines to ensure the committees are established. Senator Cummins might agree that if everybody is to be consulted, as should be the case, it is unlikely to be done in three months but, nevertheless, a reasonable time should be set for the commencement of the committees. The word "shall" should be used rather than "may".
The amendment is worthwhile and it must be ensured the committees are established. The word "may" is weak whereas "shall" is much stronger. I sympathise with the Minister of State, having been in the same position many times in the House. Perhaps he is anxious to change this. I suggest the Minister insert the word "shall". I would welcome that because it would ensure this will happen. If it does not happen, a change of Government might mean the new Government could decide to do it then or in the future. However, if we include the word "shall" the issue is definite and would be set up.
I am flexible with regard to the three months. As far as I am concerned it would be all right to state "within a reasonable time". If the word "shall" is included the three months will, probably, become a reality. I hope the Minister agrees to the amendment. If he is not in a position to agree to it today, I suggest he consult his colleagues and change it on Report Stage.
I support the views of my colleagues, particularly on amendment No. 42. I agree with the points made by Senator Jim Walsh. It would be difficult for policing committees to be established without the issue of guidelines. It is not an option, but is something that would have to be done. I am more agnostic about the three months and would be even more so with regard to amendment No. 44 because we might want to include other provisions in the guidelines. However, in the case of amendment No. 42 there is an unanswerable logical case for the use of "shall".
I will have a fresh look at the matter. With regard to the suggestion that the word "shall" should be substituted for the word "may" in section 31, Senators should consider the express terms of section 32, because it provides that "A local authority and the Garda Commissioner shall arrange for the establishment of a joint policing committee in accordance with guidelines." Therefore, there is an obligation in section 32 to establish the joint policing committees. The Senators' difficulty is that there could be an unconscionable delay in the drawing up of the guidelines. I respectfully suggest that it might be better to consider the issue of putting a time limit on the drawing up of the guidelines because as a matter of statutory draftsmanship that would ensure the creation of the joint policing committees.
The expression "may" in section 31(1) relates to the issuing of guidelines. Whenever power is given to a Minister in legislation to do something such as issue guidelines, the permissive rather than the mandatory form of the word is generally used because the Minister, at his discretion, is drawing up guidelines. The key issue is to put a time limit on that and I will have that examined before Report Stage.
Section 32(1) imposes a duty on the local authority and the Garda Commissioner to establish a joint policing committee, but they cannot do that unless they have the guidelines.
Correct. I am suggesting that we consider an amendment that will impose some element of obligation on the drawing up of the guidelines. However, the correct form of amendment may not be to replace the permissive word "may" with the mandatory word "shall" in section 31(1), which is what most Senators favour. The correct course may be to put a strict time limit on the drawing up of the guidelines. We must remember, however, that the drawing up of the guidelines requires consultation between two Ministers.
I appreciate what the Minister of State has said. However, I am concerned that by leaving the word "may", it could leave the possibility that they would never be drawn up. Having looked at section 32, it is clear the problem is the issuing of the guidelines. It is not the same, but in the area of public private partnerships the issuing of guidelines has been holding up certain projects. If we have to wait for guidelines, we could be waiting a long time. While we could put in a time limit, if the word "may" remains in section 31(1), it could mean that it will never happen. That is my concern.
I have difficulty following the Minister of State's logic. If he is going to include a time limit but keeps the word "may", that will not impose an obligation. I cannot see the consistency between a time limit which implies "shall" with retention of the word "may".
It creates even more difficulty. If it states he may do it within three months, but he does not, this seems to remove the obligation totally.
That is the point I was going to make. The word "shall" should be used. We put down a three-month period in this amendment, but accept it could take more than three months for guidelines to be drawn up. The Minister of State agreed there should be a specific time limit. If we say the committees "shall" be set up, a time limit should be put on the issuing and implementation of the guidelines. Perhaps the Minister of State will come back with a suggestion on this on Report Stage. If we have not got guidelines within a specified period, the issue will remain up in the air. We want some consistency and permanency.
I welcome the Minister of State's undertaking to have a look at the matter prior to Report Stage. Convincing a man against his will may leave him staying still. Everybody in the House supports the provision in the Bill for joint policing committees as do the Minister of State and the Department.
The Minister referred to section 32 which states: "A local authority and the Garda Commissioner shall arrange for the establishment of a joint policing committee in accordance with guidelines issued under section 31.” It seems consequent on this that if we do not have guidelines the committees will not be set up. Therefore, guidelines are essential and will, I am sure, be issued. There may not be great difficulty in changing the “may” to “shall” and the Minister will examine the matter.
I have some concerns about amendment No. 44. To some extent we are a little premature in that discussion. It might be better if this amendment were grouped with amendment No. 45, depending on the Minister of State's response on amendment No. 45. I am a strong advocate of amendment No. 45. If we get agreement on it, it should not subsequently become a ministerial discretion as to whether the section is applied. Its provisions should be included in the Bill, in the same manner as is done in section 32 which prescribes comprehensively what the functions of the joint policing committees will be and what they will address.
Therefore, it would be good to underpin the structure of the committee in the legislation. This should be done in a mandatory rather than discretionary format. While Ministers have a view on it today, it could happen that in time there might be resistance from vested interests to the existing structure that would leave it open to change without the House being involved in making that decision. I support the change from "may" to "shall" in both cases and I urge the Minister of State to consider the arguments so that the issue can be addressed on Report Stage.
The Minister of State is putting his best case forward in this regard. However, seldom do we have such agreement in the House on amendments.
I will upset the Senators in a moment.
The Minister of State will do so. That is why he is such an eminent senior counsel.
The word "may" has been an issue in legislation before. The Minister of State may come up with a better word than "shall". He could use the Minister "will" which is also a strong word. There is tremendous support in the House and throughout the country and among local authority members, whom we represent, for the establishment of these committees.
The bringing forward of the concept of local policing committees acting in conjunction with local representatives is a great opportunity on which the Government, the Minister, Deputy Michael McDowell, and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, should be commended. It offers a new and enhanced role for local authority members. We would like it to become a reality sooner rather than later. There is a concern that if it does not happen under this Administration it may never happen. I hope Deputy Brian Lenihan, who is a very prominent Minister of State with a great future in Government, will ensure this becomes a reality.
That is true, but Senator Leyden should confine himself to the Bill.
This is important. The Minister of State has said he will come up with some ingenious response which I await with great interest. It is the first time in a debate on proposed legislation in the House that we have had so much support for changing one word. I know the Minister of State would, in his heart of hearts, favour this measure which I suggest he could introduce on Report Stage. We will not take too strong a position today so as to leave room for flexibility on Report Stage.
In my heart of hearts I have great sympathy with the unanimous view of the Seanad. That said, the words "may" and "shall" have caused endless grief in litigation over many centuries. Senators will be pleased to hear that courts have often decided that the word "may" does, in fact, mean "shall".
In the context of the Bill, if the Minister did not proceed to issue the guidelines, the courts might well take the view that "may" does mean "shall" but the word "may" has been chosen by the Parliamentary Counsel with care. If Senators press the amendment and insert it, which it is open for them to do, the position is that the Minister would not commence that section of the Bill until the guidelines were ready because he would be under a strict legal obligation to have them ready as and from the commencement of the section.
Senators have already passed the commencement provision of the legislation, which provides that the Minister can commence this or that section or different sections on such day or days as he is pleased to appoint. The Bill already provides that the Minister can delay the establishment of these committees by not commencing the section at all. What we are dealing with is the sequencing of implementation. Given the sympathy I have for the unanimous view of the Seanad, I will have the matter looked at to see if we can come up with a formula which will give greater certainty to the establishment of these committees. I take it that is the unanimous wish of the Seanad.
I had made the suggestion because it is a common one used in statutory practice that one puts a definite time limit on when the guidelines would be issued. A period of three months might be a bit tight. We may opt for a more extended period, provided it is not too long. There is the question of inter-ministerial consultation but as we know that can often take a long time there would be no harm in looking at a strict time limit on such an exercise. The alternative is that we accept the mandatory formula about which Members are so enthusiastic, but then I suspect the Minister would not commence the section at all until the guidelines are in existence.
I reluctantly accept what the Minister of State has said. We would not be happy if, as he said, the Minister would not commence the section. We want some certainty in this area about which there is unanimity of opinion. I will not push it to a vote. The Minister of State knows what we want in this area. I hope he will come back——
If Senator Cummins puts it to a vote, he would put us in a very embarrassing position.
I have no intention of putting Senator Leyden in an embarrassing position by calling a vote. I accept that three months may not be long enough but surely these guidelines are already under discussion. The Department must have already have the guidelines in mind. The Minister of State knows that we want certainty on this matter.
I will come back to the Seanad on this point on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 46 is an alternative to amendment No. 45 and amendment No. 47 is related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 45 to 47, inclusive, shall be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 23, subsection (2), lines 22 to 29, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b), and substitute the following paragraphs:
"(a) the establishment of the committee on a county or city council area basis, comprised of members from the relevant local authorities, members of the Oireachtas, and senior ranking members of the Garda Síochána,
(b) the designation of the number of members to be appointed from each local authority within the city or county area,
(c) allowing the appropriate local authorities to nominate members to the committee,
(d) the appointment of the chairperson of the committee to be a member of a local authority,
(e) the term of the committee to coincide with the local authority term,
(f) the establishment of sub-committees for geographic or policing reasons,
(g) the engagement or co-option of additional persons onto a committee if specialist expertise is required,”.
I inadvertently referred to this amendment when speaking on earlier ones. The purpose of the amendment is to replace section 31(2), paragraphs (a) and (b), with a more expanded and comprehensive series of paragraphs. We are trying to achieve greater clarity on the establishment of the policing committees. This proposal is not set in stone and if there are better suggestions, we are willing to go along with them. The amendment reflects the intent of the legislation.
Regarding Senator Cummins's amendment, I am concerned that paragraph (a) would exclude town councils from being involved in setting up policing committees. I have the same concern about the original Government proposal. I did not realise until now that this amendment was proposed. I agree with the Government amendment to delete the reference to the city or county development boards because it should be possible for a town council to set up a joint policing committee, which I think is what underlies the Government amendment. I consider that is the best way to proceed. It is wrong to be too prescriptive, which is why I am concerned about the Fine Gael amendment. The terms “city and county development board” and “county or city council area” are not so different. Both terms could have the possible effect of excluding town councils from setting up policing committees or ensuring they would only be involved on a secondary basis, such as with the invitation of the local authority. That is why I am unhappy with the Fine Gael wording and would prefer the Government approach.
I am not sure about the other matters. In terms of the guidelines which the Minister will produce, perhaps the Minister of State was correct to say, in terms of amendment No. 44, that he wants to leave it open to other possibilities in terms of what the guidelines might prescribe, although this may need to be reviewed down the line. I agree with the Government in that regard.
Rather than provide for the co-option of other persons, the legislation should state whether it is possible for others to become involved in the committees. Co-options are something in between. One either agrees or disagrees with the involvement of people who are outside the Oireachtas, local authorities or the Garda. Given that co-option is as good as having other people on the committees, why not allow for the possibility, as is provided for in the Government proposal? Section 31(2)(b) refers to, “such other public authorities, bodies or persons as may be provided for in the guidelines.” I consider that to be the best approach. I am not in favour of the Fine Gael amendment.
This amendment relates to the nuts and bolts of how the committees will be established and function. Senators who debated this issue on Second Stage will laud the Minister for accepting the point that the county development boards should not carry out this function. County development boards mainly comprise civil servants, including gardaí, as well as representatives of the IDA, Forfás, Teagasc, the VECs and a range of other bodies and would not have constituted a suitable forum or vehicle for what is intended in this Bill. Therefore, I welcome the fact that amendments Nos. 46 and 47 remove the county and city development boards from the equation.
I am conscious that amendment No. 37 changes the definition of "local authority", which will affect how these committees will operate. In that context, I am firmly of the view, as are other Senators, that the body should be constituted of elected public representatives and members of the Garda. Nothing in the provision precludes liaison with other groups; the committee can obviously effect such liaison. I do not agree with Senator Tuffy's amendment because she may be misinterpreting the provision. The establishment of the committee will be on a county or city council area basis and will comprise members of the relevant local authorities.
Senator Maurice Hayes correctly alluded to coinciding the geographic areas of the local government system with those of the Garda, but that will not be possible. For example, the chief superintendent in Gorey, County Wexford, covers quite a significant part of south Wicklow. I would like to see this system organised on a county basis. In such circumstances, a joint policing committee in County Wexford would be made up of gardaí and members of Wexford County Council as well as Gorey, Enniscorthy, Wexford and New Ross town councils. The committee should also comprise a workable number of members; it should not comprise so many as to render it unworkable.
The amendment provides for the establishment of sub-committees on a geographic basis. Much of the good work of such committees will be done within their own geographic areas. There are now area committees in every local authority area. This is a unique opportunity to create a partnership between the Garda and community leaders, namely, elected councillors and Oireachtas Members, which will create a great deal of support and goodwill for the force and will provide a flow of information.
I used this approach when a particular drug problem arose on a housing estate in my area. We involved the Garda and the local people in a committee meeting. There were no fanfares because the people were concerned about harassment from those involved with drugs. Nevertheless, a tremendous exchange of information took place, which proved to be quite effective because it focused the Garda's attention on that area. Moreover, the local people took some confidence from the exercise, which gave them a conduit through which they could liaise with the gardaí without going to the Garda station. A great deal of good work can be done in this manner. The county council and the Garda have also used this approach effectively through an area committee on anti-social behaviour, which was a major problem for some people living in local authority housing. This was achieved quietly and without newspaper headlines, but was quite effective. I see tremendous potential in this concept. How we shape this process will have a direct impact on its success. Therefore, I support amendment No. 45 in respect of subsection (2)(a).
Amendment No. 45, as it applies to subsection (2)(b), addresses how many members should comprise the committees. The question is how those members will be appointed and by whom. Will it be by the local authority, the Garda superintendent or the Minister? My firm view is that they should be nominees of the local authority. For example, Wexford County Council would nominate so many members, as prescribed by the Minister, to the joint policing committee. In such circumstances, New Ross, Enniscorthy, Wexford and Gorey would also have nominees. It would then fall to the committee to decide on dividing into sub-committees and so on. By proceeding in this manner, one will secure greater commitment because councillors will opt to become part of the committee and will therefore have an interest in policing to begin with. As with other committees of the council, once local authority members are part of it, they will function effectively and constructively.
The appointment of a chairperson is important. The chairman of any committee will, to a large degree, determine its success or failure. Again, a decision must be made as to who appoints the chairman. It could be the Minister, but again I favour the local authority exercising this function in the same way as it appoints the chairman of an SPC. One of the issues which will be addressed at the first annual general meeting is the appointment of the chairmen and other members of the joint policing committees. I strongly recommend that the term of the committee coincides with that of the local authority and that, at the first AGM, the members of the committee are nominated and remain in place for five years unless someone resigns and is replaced. This approach will ensure commitment to the committee because people are interested and will be in place for five years. Moreover, they will have an opportunity do some homework and make a contribution.
Senator Tuffy also asked if people other than gardaí and local representatives should be involved on these committees. I do not believe they should. The gardaí want to develop a relationship with and ensure that local public representatives are responsible, supportive and discreet. This will create an openness which will assist the whole process. This joint policing committee can interact with various groups such as victim support and residents groups, which would form part of the function of such committees. There is tremendous scope in this proposal, which I support. However, I ask the Minister to consider the provision between now and Report Stage so that we can put a bit of meat on the bones in order to shape it. I am anxious that this be done in a structured way which will assist the process.
I support most but not all of Senator Jim Walsh's comments. The committees should be firmly rooted in local government and people should be appointed by local authorities, from which the chairman should also come. It is important that the Garda representative is of a senior level in that area to demonstrate that the force is taking the issue seriously.
On the inclusion of other people as members on the committees, I go further than Senator Jim Walsh. The liaison committees which were established in the North comprised a majority of local authority members, but they were carefully designed to bring on board other people too. Part of the reason for this was to provide a sounding board for feedback to the police to enable them to explain their policies to people upon whom they impacted most; those who consume more police services than others, particularly young people and marginalised groups. One could have a ready-up of local authority members who have a particular view of how Travellers, for example, were to be dealt with. There should be room, as provided for through co-options, for bringing other people on board, such as people in voluntary organisations, for example, a representative of the National Youth Council. It might be wise not to specify or list these groups in the legislation but there should be room for it. More work needs to be done in the area but it is important anchor all of this in local government.
By and large, the meetings of these committees should be open and public. The idea that gardaí will provide confidence for a group councillors and so on is a figment of people's imaginations. Nothing will restore confidence in the operation of these services more than the fact that they are seen to be done in public and that people are seen to explain themselves and listen to representations from other people in public.
There is a tradition of gardaí attending joint meetings with local authorities on road safety and speed limits issues. These have not met very often but this provision will ensure that these issue will be decided upon and agreed with the committee as part of its responsibility.
As it is 1 o'clock, I ask the Senator to report progress.
We are due to resume Committee Stage at 11.15 a.m. tomorrow, 9 December.
I ask that you to move the suspension until 2 o'clock.
There is a request that we continue for five or seven minutes to finish with amendments Nos. 45 to 47, inclusive, if the Minister of State agrees.
We will spend much more than five minutes on this because it is a matter which needs much expansion.
Perhaps 15 minutes, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. Perhaps we will finish sooner.
We should leave it until tomorrow.
Is the Senator suggesting we leave it until tomorrow?
Yes.
No, I recommend my proposal.
After Senator Leyden, there are two other speakers offering.
A Leas-Chathaoirligh, perhaps you could allow contributions from the other two speakers and the Minister of State?
I agree.
The debate need not end at that but it would be useful if the House had the benefit of his opinion before we adjourn it.
I will allow the other two speakers, if you all could be fairly brief, and then we will adjourn the debate until tomorrow.
It might assist matters if I spoke now.
I must let the other Senator speak first.
I will be brief. In section 31 there is mention of Members of Dáil Éireann but no mention of Members of Seanad Éireann. I ask the Minister of State to include the word "Oireachtas" in the section by way of an amendment on Report Stage. I suggest that section 31(2)(b) be changed to insert after the words “local authority, members of Dáil Éireann”, the words “and Seanad Éireann resident in the area” or whatever terminology he wishes.
Senators do not have local constituencies.
Members of the Oireachtas.
No, but it is important. The term "Members of the Oireachtas" would cover those. In fairness, there is a right to be heard. Senators would have a broad objective. Should he wish to be more specific the Minister of State could include the word "resident".
I compliment Senator Jim Walsh on this. He has put in a great deal of work behind the scenes with the Minister in discussing a formulation. The boards would not be representative of the councils as such. It is far better to provide for the inclusion of the councils instead of these statutory boards, which have a broad remit. Senator Walsh has done a great service in working to bring this about.
I support amendments Nos. 46 and 47. I have some reservations about amendment No. 45. I will make three or four quick points. It is good that the framework of the city and county development board is gone as it does not seem to be the appropriate framework.
As I stated on Second Stage, I would be attached to the idea of towns which have local councils having policing committees of their own. I would not like it organised on a big geographical county basis. I accept that Senator Jim Walsh's experience with Wexford may be different but the problems of Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir and Tipperary are not identical. I would prefer if this is organised on a more intimate basis.
Under the proposed legislation a system of co-options would have to be devised, which would be contrary to what Senator Jim Walsh argued for. I personally favour the district policing partnership model. It should be rooted in local authorities but the membership should not be a monopoly of local elected representatives. It is a good idea to bring in other people. In this partnership age, democracy is more than the sum of the elected representatives. I would have a broad, rather than a narrow view of democracy.
I strongly support what Senator Leyden stated. The section states "members of Dáil Éireann" and should state "Oireachtas Members" or, if one wants to be specific, "and Seanad Éireann resident within" a particular area. The term "Oireachtas Members" would be better. Although there is no amendment tabled to that effect, I ask the Minister of State to look at it. While sessions should in the main be in public, there might be occasions where confidential briefings would be desired and accepted.
The more I think about it, the more the Fine Gael amendment, particularly paragraph (a), would be a mistake. It would preclude town councils from setting up their own committees.
No, it would not.
From my reading of it, I am certain it would because it states "the establishment of the committee on a county or city council area basis . . . ". It does not state, "a local authority area basis." As it does not mention the town councils and does not state local authority, it would preclude the establishment of a committee based around the town council. There is no doubt about that.
It would also preclude the setting up of a committee based around the local area committee. In my local council, I would prefer a Lucan-Clondalkin joint policing committee. With the Government proposal that would be possible whereas it would not be possible with the Fine Gael one. For example, in my county council it is much more beneficial to have it based around the local area committee, the Lucan-Clondalkin area committee. When we sit through council meetings half of which are taken up with the business of Tallaght, Terenure and Lucan, local councillors wait for their particular area to come up and it is not as beneficial. If the Minister wants to get this working with the local gardaí, he must make these committees as local as possible.
I agree with Senator Mansergh. Some councils may decide it should be done on a county council basis. Others will decide differently. One is in danger of diluting the work we have done in terms of getting town councils included because they will not be able to set up their own joint policing committees under the Fine Gael wording.
I agree with the point well made by Senator Leyden about the inclusion of Members of Seanad Éireann. When he spoke on the abolition of the dual mandate, the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, indicated that we would have dealings with local councils.
And county managers.
The guidelines can deal with the point made by Senator Mansergh as to how one would designate the Oireachtas Members concerned.
Does the Minister of State wish to reply because Senator Cummins will want to speak tomorrow?
I will reply. It might assist the course of the debate. Senator Cummins has raised a number of interesting points and the Minister is undertaking to reflect on them and bring something forward on Report Stage. That was the point I felt might hasten debate on this issue.
To take up some of the points made in the debate, the point in the amendment about the terms of office of the joint policing committee having to be the same as the local authority term is a good one. On the other hand, the points made in paragraphs (f) and (g) of the amendment, about the establishment of sub-committees and the engagement or co-option of additional persons, are addressed in the existing subsection in the Bill. My proposed amendments, amendments Nos. 46 and 47, will also deal with that issue.
The Minister shares Senator Tuffy's concern, perhaps not in as definitive a way. He is concerned that paragraph (a), as drafted, might in some sense preclude town councils from the functions recognised in the Bill. The Minister wants to have a further look at this provision to see whether the formulation in the Bill can be improved.
I will address a few issues raised in the course of the debate. Reference was made by Senators Hayes and Mansergh to the in camera rule. This is a topical issue under a heading such as this Bill but it is a matter for authorities to regulate their own procedure. In general, it is desirable that local authority business should be transacted in public but they may benefit, on occasion and in very limit circumstances, from in camera discussions between local policing officers and members of authorities. This is a matter which can be addressed by the Minister on Report Stage, in bringing forward a further amendment. I can see clearly how on occasion it would be beneficial for the committee to have certain matters said in camera. At the same time there is a balance to be struck here. Clearly for public confidence to be maintained in the system and in the force, it is better that, as far as possible, business should be transacted in public. The question of the membership of the Oireachtas and the participation of Members of the Oireachtas in this system was raised by Senators Leyden and Tuffy and I will examine this on Report Stage. The issue of how to relate a Senator to a particular area will need to be addressed. It can be done by way of a suitable statutory formulation.
The other matter raised was the question of the appropriate boundaries of a particular area committee. This is an interesting question. Counties will have various options in the Bill as it now stands following the amendments which were agreed to. It is possible under this legislation to have one unitary authority for a county and to have all the elected members in that county, whether they are in the county council or in a town council, to represent it. It is also possible under the Bill as it stands to establish what Senator Tuffy referred to, to split a county for area purposes and have an area committee made up of county and city councillors. It is possible, as Senator Mansergh advocated, to have a town council unit simply and solely centred on that town council.
Perhaps, plus an electoral district.
It is also possible, however, to reinvent the poor law union and have the outlying area included by combining the town councillors with the relevant county electoral area councillors. That seems to me to be an attractive option in provincial Ireland. All these options are possible under the legislation. The Minister will need to draw up guidelines to accommodate a degree of local choice with a degree of national uniformity in this matter so that a fit to meet needs and requirements can be designed for the different parts of the country.