Limerick East): I had explained that I did not intervene earlier in the debate today because I wanted to listen to points made by various Deputies in this House and to be in a position to reply to any question raised. First of all, I want to make some remarks about points made by Deputy Woods and then proceed to contributions by other Deputies and subsequently give my view of the amendment put down by Deputy Woods.
Deputy Woods suggested that I had a particular strategy in putting this Bill through and that I was insisting in putting it through before the complaints procedure Bill was published and before the regulations came before the House. This is not so. I had no such intention. The heads of the complaints Bill were approved by the Government last April. The Bill is in its fifth draft and consultations with Garda associations are in their final stages. The reality of legislation is that it takes a long time, especially when the subject is fairly complex and is likely to give rise to a lengthy debate. It is a matter of coincidence that the complaints Bill is now almost ready just at the time when the Criminal Justice Bill is about to pass through this House on its way back to the Seanad again. The regulations are also at preliminary draft. There was no such strategy along the lines Deputy Woods suggested.
With regard to the question of the two memoranda issued initially with the Bill I should like to state that I made the point previously that this was not an afterthought on the part of the Government. The decision taken was that a complaints procedure involving a very strong independent element would be introduced. This proposal was put before Government with proposals on the Criminal Justice Bill and there is no question whatever of an afterthought. However, the advice was that it would not be proper to put into an explanatory memorandum something which was not in the text of the Bill. I had to devise another mechanism of communicating to Deputies and Senators what the intent of the Government was on the complaints procedure.
I have been asked whether the complaints procedure would involve complaints above the rank of chief superintendent. As I said on Committee Stage, I am not ruling that out. I am giving an indication the line along which I am thinking but it is helpful to have the views of Deputies before the Government take final decisions on the final draft of the complaints procedure Bill which comes before them.
I do not wish to go over the ground I covered last week but a number of specific points were raised. For example, Deputy O'Kennedy asked what would fall within the ambit of the complaints procedure, would it be simply complaints of physical abuse or could a person complain about gardaí omitting to do their duty. As I explained to the Deputy, it would fall within its remit as I envisage it that any act or omission would be appropriate for the complaints procedure.
I should like to correct another impression which may have been deduced from what Deputy Woods said, that I have any objection to an independent body to adjudicate or investigate complaints. There is no withdrawing from the commitment I have given to the kind of complaints body I have been talking about but I am objecting to the use of the word "independent" in the text of the amendment for the same reasons that I objected to it when the same formula of words was proposed by the Deputy on Committee Stage.
Deputy Skelly made the point that he was worried about gardaí being consulted beforehand and that they might unduly influence the shape of the complaints legislation. Gardaí, like all public servants, have a right to be consulted about any legislation that may specifically affect their conditions of service. It is good management-staff relations to do this. However, there is another factor to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. As a legislature, and as a Government — like previous Governments — we have forbidden the Garda Síochána to be members of trade unions. I suggest to the House that while it is good staff-management relations to consult with employees in any work situation, when it is a decision of the Government not to allow the Garda Síochána to unionise, then there is an obligation on us to have detailed consultations about matters which affect their pay or their conditions of work. This will affect their conditions of work. That is not to say that the Garda have any veto over what is going to be in the complaints Bill. Consultation is proper and has been indulged in and some consultation will still take place but in the final analysis the Government will propose detailed legislation for the House and it will be a matter for the House to dispose of the proposals. There is no question of a Garda veto of any sort. Most of the other points raised were dealt with on Committee Stage last week.
With regard to the amendment proposed by Deputy Woods, I should like to state that it is exactly the same as the amendment defeated last week in a Committee of the House with two additions about regulations. The first of these, the requirement that the regulations should provide for "adequate safeguards", is open to the same objection as I made to the reference earlier in the amendment, to the use of the word "independent" in relation to the complaints commission, that is, that it could lead to argument later on as to whether the commission were independent, with the possibility that the detention provisions of the Bill could be successfully challenged.
The word "adequate" is an even less precise word than "independent" so that the scope for argument about the adequacy of this or that provision of the regulations is greater. In whose interests are the safeguards? Those of the person in custody, against ill-treatment obviously? Or of the Garda against unfounded allegations, or, more likely, of both? It would be necessary to spell this out. The safeguards could be adequate in relation to the detained person but not so in relation to the Garda.
Who is to judge "adequacy". Adequacy can be a fairly subjective judgment. I might think it was adequate but Deputy Woods, or other Deputies, might have a different view of what an adequate safequard was. I interpret the word "adequate" as satisfying this House, and the other House, a majority in each House voting on the safeguards and by their vote saying that they were adequate. That would be the situation in any event because the safeguards have to be brought through the House and voted on. Why include a word in an amendment which is subject to ambiguous interpretation and bring about a situation where we would be in agreement here, and in the other House, about the adequacy of the safeguards but a test could be made in a court to establish whether what we had decided was adequate was objectively adequate? There is a difficulty, as there was in the draft of the amendment last week, about the use of the word.
The second addition, the reference to the regulations being made by the Minister as well as being approved by the Oireachtas, brings that portion of the amendment into line with the amendment passed in Committee. There is no net gain there. Incidentally, the present, and the previous amendment, moved by the Deputy are defective in speaking of the regulations under section 7 being approved by the Oireachtas. The reference should be to the draft of the regulations being approved by each House of the Oireachtas. As the House is aware the President is not involved in the approval of regulations or, more precisely, using the terms of section 7 (5), in a resolution approving the draft having been passed by each House. It is much simpler to say, as the Seanad amendment does, "until regulations under section 7 have been made".
I am not being critical of the Deputy's drafting. I appreciate the difficulty of trying to draft a technical amendment and having it absolutely correct with the resources available to an Opposition spokesman. However, there are technical flaws in the amendment, even if we had agreed on everything else which would make it impossible for me to accept it. I am not relying on technical drafting points, though they cannot be ignored or brushed aside. The essential fact is that the amendment now before the House contains the same elements which made it unacceptable in Committee. It pre-empts the decision of the Oireachtas when dealing with the complaints Bill as to whether the ranks above chief superintendent are to be included. The word "independent" could, as I have said, cause serious difficulties. I want to make it clear that there is no doubt that the complaints board will, in fact, be independent in the exercise of their functions. I am committed to that. Indeed I think all sides are agreed on that. As a matter of fact the Bill will contain an express provision to that effect, that it will be independent in the exercise of its functions. The same goes for adequate safeguards. I do not think it is necessary to go into the further detail. We shall have this debate again on the complaints Bill. In the meantime, when it comes to the Government taking final decisions with regard to the text, they will have the advantage of considering the various views put forward in this House on the kind of body that will be likely to find general acceptance.
I should like to revert to first base and remind the House of what we are at here. What we are saying is that there are certain sections of the Bill which we consider to be controversial, that there are certain sections of the Bill which we consider should not be implemented until there is an independent complaints procedure established and until there are adequate safeguards, by means of regulations, accepted by both Houses. That is what we are talking about. We should not move away from first base because that is the purpose of the amendment. That purpose is more than adequately fulfilled by the amendment which came from the Seanad and certainly has been strengthened by the amendment by all sides here on Committee Stage.
I said, in an article in the Irish Independent of Saturday, 27 October 1984 — referred to here on a number of occasions:
I would submit that, when the Bill is in operation together with the new complaints procedure and the statutory regulations for the treatment of persons in custody, we will have a system of criminal law and procedure that will for the first time not only give the police adequate powers to investigate serious crime — questioning, forensic testing and so on — but also provide firm guarantees that they will be fully accountable for the welfare of persons in custody.
This is the last opportunity I shall have of speaking on this Stage of the Bill because it is Deputy Woods's amendment and he will conclude. I should like to thank everybody who has contributed to this debate. Like all Stages of the debate on this Bill, I have found this to be particularly helpful. As I have stressed, I am not just sitting down waiting for the Bill to pass through. I am listening to the points being made. I will bring the views of the House on particular points to the Government when they are taking final decisions on the drafting of the complaints Bill which is now almost ready.
I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Deputy Woods for having been so helpful.
