Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 2004

Vol. 178 No. 23

Garda Síochána Bill 2004: Committee Stage.

On a point of order, I have just received notice from you, a Chathaoirligh, that you are disallowing amendment No. 12.

I will not discuss that matter.

A Chathaoirligh——

No. I will not discuss the matter.

A Chathaoirligh, the protection of members of the Garda should be part of a Garda Bill.

We will not discuss the matter. The Senator should please resume his seat.

We are discussing amendment No. 12, which you have disallowed.

We will discuss it when the section comes up.

The protection of a member of the Garda should be an integral part of any Bill relating to the Garda Síochána.

Senator Cummins should please resume his seat.

The Cathaoirleach has disallowed amendment No. 12 which I tabled.

We have not yet come to amendment No. 12. Please resume your seat.

On a point of order, why was my amendment disallowed?

Please resume your seat. I will suspend the House for five minutes.

Sitting suspended at 2.50 p.m. and resumed at 2.55 p.m.

On a point of order, my colleague, Senator Cummins, raised an important issue. He was given a letter just as he rose to his feet. I have not been given this letter. Given that the amendment is in my name also, I ask the Cathaoirleach to explain how a matter of such fundamental importance to the security of the Garda Síochána concerning a manslaughter or murder conviction could be outside the scope of a Bill which is all about the Garda Síochána.

The Cathaoirleach knows I respect him. May I conclude on this point? We regularly have examples in the House where a variety of aspects of legislation are included in legislation of this nature but the Cathaoirleach has arbitrarily decided to exclude this.

We are not discussing the matter now.

As I understand it, a substantial number of Government Members support this amendment but will not have a chance to speak on it because it has been ruled out of order. That is not right and requires a full explanation.

I apologise for the short notice. That was due to computer problems.

I still have not received a copy of that notice.

If the Senator read the letter, it stated "please convey this to your colleagues".

One minute's notice is not acceptable before we rose to our feet on a matter of such fundamental importance.

I have accepted that and apologised for the notice. It was due to a computer error.

There is no explanation being given on why it is out of order. As my colleague has stated and as I tried to state, surely the protection of a member of the Garda Síochána should be part of any Garda Síochána Bill.

I am sorry. We cannot discuss the ruling.

The protection of gardaí is a fundamental part of the legislation. It should be part of a Garda Síochána Bill.

This is a sentencing matter and, as such, is clearly not relevant to the Bill.

We are trying to have it included in a Bill.

I have ruled on that and we cannot go any further.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 9, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) The Garda Síochána Acts 1923 to 2003 (so far as unrepealed by this Act), the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Acts 1941 to 2003 (so far as unrepealed by this Act) and this Act shall be construed together as one and may be cited as the Garda Síochána Acts 1923 to 2004.".

In this amendment we suggest the insertion of a general collective citation in the Bill. The Bill does not consolidate all Garda legislation and leaves a considerable amount still in force.

I appreciate the intention behind the amendment but I cannot accept it. The Parliamentary Counsel advises that while a collective citation and construction section could be included in the Bill, the recommendation was that it should not be because it could give rise to conflicts in interpretation between definitions in this Bill and those under previous Acts. This Bill effectively supersedes all earlier legislation relating to the Garda Síochána and a provision of this type would lead to confusion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 10, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—Every order or regulation made by the Minister pursuant to this Act shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and, if a resolution annulling the regulation or order is passed within the next twenty-one days after the House has sat following such laying, the order or regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder.".

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the standard provision for accountability to the Oireachtas. A number of powers to make regulations do not involve the laying of regulations before the Dáil or Seanad, for example, sections 106 and 107 regarding organisation and discipline of the Garda Síochána, and we feel this provision is necessary in the Bill.

I am not in favour of the amendment. Effectively, it is a blanket provision applying to all orders and regulations made by the Minister. Quite a number of such instruments are provided for in various sections of the Bill. I am advised it is not necessary in every case to lay such instruments before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The approach taken in the Bill is that in each case where the Government has decided that an order or regulation is to be made under the Bill, provision for the laying of the instrument in question before the Houses of the Oireachtas, either with or without a resolution procedure, is dealt with separately. Essentially there are some cases where the procedure should be invoked, for example, under section 108 governing the matter of police co-operation under the provisions of sections 45 to 49, inclusive, in the context of police co-operation and the movement of persons between the Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Equally there are other areas, for instance, in the case of section 106 and regulations made in respect of the management of the Garda Síochána, and section 107 concerning the disciplinary regulations for the force, where the Government considers that it is not appropriate.

Why would it not be appropriate in the case of section 106?

There are matters which are appropriate to lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas and in other areas there are not. For example, it is not customary in respect of every minute detail to do with management of Garda members that everything should be put before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I will cite an example. Section 106(1)(h) deals with matters relating to:

the payment of pensions, allowances and gratuities to members and their spouses, children and dependents, including—

(i) the conditions under which those pensions, allowances and gratuities are payable,

(ii) the rates and scales of payment, and

(iii) the penalties for fraudulent conduct in relation to an application for a pension, allowance or gratuity;

Other areas of regulation include paragraph (p), which states: “the limitations, restrictions or conditions applicable to the exercise of the Garda Commissioner’s powers under section 27;” and paragraph (q), which states: “any other matter relating to the organisation, training, carrying out of duties, efficiency, management or administration of the Garda Síochána.” These provisions are so broad in their remit that it is considered that they are not all required to be put before the Houses of the Oireachtas for approval in the manner in which the Senator’s amendment suggests. However, they are capable of review by the committees of either House or by the Houses themselves. The Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights, could discuss any regulation it considered inappropriate. I do not wish to make every aspect of the Garda Síochána and its management subject to far-reaching legislative procedures in the manner envisaged in the Senator’s amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 11, line 12, subsection (1)(b), after “property” to insert “and the human rights of individuals within the State”.

The purpose of the amendment is to provide that it would be a function of the Garda Síochána to protect the human rights of individuals as well as life and property. Section 7(4) already provides for protection of human rights. For that reason it would seem appropriate to provide this function here. Much of the work of the Garda Síochána does not relate to protecting life and property but to other fundamental rights such as bodily integrity.

I am surprised that something as fundamental as the protection of human rights is not deemed sufficiently important to be the function of the Garda Síochána. The issue was raised by the Human Rights Commission. Will the Minister explain why this provision has not been included in the Bill? I ask him to accept the amendment.

I recently saw a television programme concerning the training of ordinary members of the force in the Garda Training College in Templemore. I was very encouraged to see that the issue of human rights is taught as a course subject. This is a recent development. Recruits to the force are being educated and trained in Templemore and must now be aware of the issue of human rights. It is important to focus on this function of the Garda Síochána. Much of the adverse or positive comments about members of the force relate to a person's personal experience of the Garda Síochána or a member of the force. The issue of human rights should be enshrined in the legislation not only because the Human Rights Commission has asked for it, but primarily because it has now become a factor in the education of gardaí and in their daily work on the streets. What is more important than protecting the human rights of the individual? It is the individual experience of dealing with members of the force that informs people's positive or negative attitudes towards members of the force. There is a solid, practical reason that this matter should be included and I ask the Minister to consider the amendment.

I also favour some strengthening of the reference to and the protection of human rights in the Bill, partly because of the work of the Patten commission which was suffused with this issue. When debating this section, we may be confusing three aspects. One of these is the function to protect human rights in the same way as protecting property and life. One might say that this is implicit in what the force does.

The second aspect is that the members of the Garda Síochána, when dealing with a citizen, should have due regard for the requirements of standards of human rights. The third aspect is that a human rights culture should be inculcated in the Garda through its training programme. These aspects surface on a number of occasions in the Bill and I am not sure where the Minister wishes to place the emphasis. It seems to me declamatory at least and worth saying that the function of the Garda Síochána is to protect the human rights of the citizen. I will deal with the other points as we reach them.

Human rights are not confined to civil and political liberties as they are sometimes understood to be. Their definition in the Human Rights Commission Act shows that they extend far beyond that. It is not the function of the Garda Síochána to be an enforcement mechanism for the broad category of human rights. The functions of the Garda Síochána are primarily policing functions. There are many forms of human rights which would, in accordance with the Human Rights Commission legislation, come under the aegis of the Human Rights Commission and these would not be in any sense the province of the Garda Síochána.

I agree with the approach taken by the Parliamentary Counsel, set out in section 7(4), which states: "In performing its functions, the Garda Síochána shall have regard to the importance of upholding human rights." Those human rights are categorically included in all other functions. I draw Senators' attention to the provisions set out in sections 15 and 16. Section 16(1) establishes a code of ethics that includes standards of conduct and practice for members of the Garda Síochána. Section 16, subsections (2), (3) and (4) state:

(2) Before establishing or amending a code of ethics, the Minister shall consult with the Garda Commissioner and may request the Commissioner to prepare and submit to the Minister a draft code of ethics.

(3) If requested to prepare a draft code of ethics, the Garda Commissioner shall consult with the following about the content of the draft:

(a) the representative associations established under section 17 or this Act or section 13 of the Garda Síochána Act 1924;

(b) the Equality Authority;

(c) the Human Rights Commission;

(d) the Ombudsman Commission;

(e) any other person or body appearing to the Garda Commissioner to have an interest in the matter.

(4) In addition, in preparing a draft code of ethics, the Garda Commissioner shall have regard to——

(a) the standards, practices and procedures applicable to the conduct of police officers in other members states of the European Union, and

(b) any recommendations of the Council of Europe.

Could the Minister make that a mandatory code? It uses the word "may" but if the word "shall" were used, it would cover many of those things.

That matter can be addressed and I will consider it at a later stage. The Bill, as drafted, encapsulates the notion of human rights. Each member of the Garda Síochána will be required to make before a peace commissioner a declaration under section 15, which includes the paragraph: "I will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda Síochána with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and impartiality, upholding the Constitution and the laws and according equal respect to all people..."

The issue of human rights, therefore, features in the area of conduct and in the solemn declaration, which is effectively the oath of office. A third area is the requirement under section 7(4) that the Garda Síochána, as an organisation, performs its functions having regard to the importance of upholding human rights. To go further, as the amendment suggests, and provide that it is a function of the Garda Síochána to enforce or protect human rights places members of the Garda in the position that part of their function would be to stop all torts and embark on a broad mission equivalent to that of the Human Rights Commission. That may be a subtle point but I believe the functions of the Garda are properly stated as policing functions in general terms.

The value of human rights is incorporated in sections 7(4), 15 and 16. It is better to do this than to make the pretence that it is one of the functions of the Garda Síochána to protect the broad panoply of human rights. Non-criminal, non-policing matters comprehended in human rights are outside the province of a police force.

Section 7(4) states the Garda Síochána "shall have regard to the importance of upholding human rights". What is the purpose of the words "shall have regard to"? Will it be mandatory for a garda to have regard to human rights? Legislation frequently uses the term "have regard to" for the purpose of requiring a person to take a matter on board. Does this terminology make it permissible for members of the Garda to take a different course of action or will it force them to have regard to human rights?

The protection of human rights should be a function of the Garda Síochána, rather than merely a consideration as is currently the case. Some time ago the Minister described advocates of human rights as part of the human rights industry. Will he expand on this comment? I hope it has nothing to do with his refusal to accept the amendment.

I am persuaded by the Minister's argument as regards the inclusion of the function of protecting human rights. What is important is how gardaí behave towards citizens. It may be too difficult or restrictive to begin to try to define how gardaí should behave in every circumstance. Could the matter be dealt with by the code of ethics and force orders?

The Minister has distinguished between, on the one hand, the modus operandi of the Garda and, on the other, the fact that human rights in their entirety are not a matter for the Garda to police. I often get the impression during discussions on human rights that people have in mind criminals in the custody of the Garda. I am much more persuaded by the human rights of the victims of those in custody which have been seriously infringed. They should be part and parcel of the Garda’s approach to the protection of human rights. Gardaí should ensure that no stone is left unturned to bring people to justice and prosecute cases. This is an important consideration. Obviously, in operating this principle it is important that the Garda Síochána does not overstep human rights requirements while dealing with those being brought to book or held in custody.

We must maintain a balance on this issue. A body of opinion holds that, through our legislative process, we have tipped the balance too far in favour of criminals and further from the interests of victims. This legislation is about striking a balance and the phraseology in this context is fair and reasonable.

I am persuaded by comments made by the Minister and, in particular, Senator Maurice Hayes, indicating that the key issue in this regard is behaviour and the need to show common respect for people in dealing with them. It is fair to point out that gardaí must have regard to the importance of human rights in all their functions, as required under section 7(4).

This is a relatively new area. New Garda recruits undergoing training are alerted to the issue of human rights in human rights modules of the course. A television programme I watched noted that while it is all very well informing recruits about human rights issues when they are in Templemore, human rights must be inculcated in members of the force when they move to the various Garda stations.

As has been argued, the main issue is behaviour. By alerting members of the Garda to the importance of human rights in the code of conduct, the legislation will mark a significant improvement on current practice. Too often in the past, gardaí have not been aware of human rights issues and common bad practice in one Garda station or area has come to be accepted. Through the legislation, we must indicate that at all time members of the Garda must observe the importance of human rights in carrying out their functions. I accept the Minister's argument.

I agree with Senator Walsh that the human rights of victims are often forgotten. Tilting the system in favour of criminals rather than victims is not on my agenda. While I accept that a balance must be reached on matters such as this and that human rights are covered in other sections, I tabled my amendment in the belief that the protection of human rights should be part of the functions of the Garda. The Minister made a reasoned point. I ask him to respond to the question I raised.

In response to Senator Walsh, the purpose of the amendment is to protect the human rights of the wider public, not to afford greater protection to the human rights of one section of it. Although the public wants a strong police force, it also wants it to be accountable and trustworthy. Legislation providing for the protection of human rights is one way of achieving this.

The amendments were obviously inspired to some extent by the observations of the Human Rights Commission. The real question, a fairly narrow one, is whether protection of human rights should be one of the statutory functions of the Garda Síochána. To make it such a function would require one to define the human rights one is talking about. One cannot, for example, require the Garda to protect human rights normally protected by civil law, which is also a function of the Garda Síochána. One cannot say that it is the function of the Garda to prevent people from slandering or defaming each other or carrying out myriad acts which would be unlawful in civil law but are none of the Garda's function in criminal law. By the same token and to take the example of defamation, the good name of a citizen must be protected under the terms of our Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. In carrying out their function, gardaí must be mindful of the good name of a person with whom they are or could be dealing. The scheme of the Bill, as currently drafted, considers it a value to be integrated into their behaviour. They must take on board the human rights dimension of dealing with the public. That is qualitatively different to stating one of the remits of the force is to ensure people do not defame each other. That would imply the protection of human rights is an independent statutory function of the force.

The Garda Síochána is established under the terms of the Constitution and, as a matter of constitutional law, every organ of the State must uphold constitutional rights. It is implicit in every statute that constitutional values are at the heart of the functioning of every statutory body or creature of the Oireachtas. In addition to the constitutional function and obligations of the Garda Síochána, there is also a statutory obligation. For the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, the Garda Síochána is an organ of the State. It is bound by the terms of that Act to discharge its functions in accordance with the convention and to interpret and apply all statutory instruments in a manner that is consistent with the convention.

I have great respect for the observations on the Bill by the Human Rights Commission and a number of them have been taken on board. However, it would be a mistake to go further and say a protection of human rights as an independent head of activity is an independent function of the Garda Síochána. It is too wide a function to confer on a police force.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, subsection (3), line 25, to delete "Garda Síochána's functions are to" and substitute "Garda Síochána shall".

This is a drafting amendment. The existing wording is ungainly in terms of grammar. It states the Garda's functions are to perform any other functions. It would be better to use the word "shall" rather than "are to".

It is a drafting point and the Parliamentary Counsel prefers his own wording. I prefer to stick with what is already drafted. However, I will look at it again and if I am persuaded that the Senator's proposed language is better, I might revisit the matter on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 11, subsection (4), line 30, after "rights" to insert "and ensuring fair and equal treatment and respect for all".

This amendment repeats what the Minister has already stated. We expect gardaí to ensure fair and equal treatment for all. It probably goes without saying, but it must be spelt out in legislation as fundamental as this.

The first paragraph of the solemn declaration which members of the Garda Síochána are obliged to take under section 15 of the Bill reads: "I will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda Síochána with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and impartiality, upholding the Constitution and the laws and according equal respect to all people."

That provision is as good as it gets.

I agree with the Minister, but it should probably also be in this section of the Bill.

It should be included for the sake of consistency.

It should be included if any consistency is to be maintained.

Is the Senator pressing the amendment?

I hoped the Minister would accept the amendment since it was stated in another section of the Bill. However, we can return to the issue if the Minister will not accept it now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 11, lines 34 to 41 to delete subsection (6).

Subsection (6) undoes much of section 7 and renders it meaningless. It is an opt-out clause in terms of rights the section might create. Section 7 confers rights, such as how gardaí should act in their dealings with the public. Why then provide an opt-out clause?

The purpose of subsection (6) is to protect the Garda Síochána from civil actions with regard to it having failed in carrying out its functions. When I was a student at University College, Dublin, at the time of Bloody Sunday, I saw a mob burn down the British Embassy. One could argue that the gardaí, who had a cordon around the embassy, carried out their function to the best of their ability. However, we do not want a situation where the protection of life and property, as set out in section 7(10)(b), confers on an individual property owner the right to sue the Garda Síochána if his or her property is destroyed, notwithstanding the force’s best efforts. It would create a new form of civil tort whereby the State would be liable for damages if the Garda Síochána, culpably or not, failed in its duty or function to protect life and property. It would expose the State to potentially huge claims for damages. When stating the purposes of a body, one does not want to imply the creation of a statutory duty, the breach of which vests in others the rights to damages. If it is left to an individual judge’s decision in an individual case to create a tort based on section 7, the consequence for the Exchequer could be very significant.

If a garda breaches his duty in an unlawful or criminal manner, the State is liable. There are occasions where negligence by members of the Garda Síochána has given rise to liability. I am trying to protect us from a litigious society in which everybody would sue the State because they could establish that the damage done to them could have been prevented had gardaí discharged their function as set out in section 7(1) or section 7(3). It is wise when establishing functions for the Garda Síochána to make it clear whether we are making them actionable, per se, in the event of somebody suffering loss as a result of the non-performance of those functions.

The Minister's point is valid. If individual members of the force are individually liable and culpable for their actions, very few would want to join because of actions which could be taken against them. However, Senator Tuffy alluded to an important point, whereby liability is required if somebody makes a claim as a result of misbehaviour or inappropriate action by the force. The State has responsibility to discharge liability if an action is taken. Currently, there are cases where the State does not meet people half way, if at all. I am thinking of, for example, a raid on a house based on faulty information during which a person's front door is kicked in and a follow-up cost is transferred to the landlord or owner of the property. It is difficult, in such circumstances, for the person to obtain the type of financial recourse to which he or she is entitled. I am not suggesting individual members of the force should be liable; no one would be willing to join it if that were the case. The only remedy available to the many injured parties is to go to the courts, an option they would not take if there was a better mechanism through which they could gain payment for damage to their house or other property.

People whose houses are damaged are entitled to be recompensed by the State. However, the appropriate place from which such recompense should be sought is the complaints mechanism. I would be worried if this section were not included. We are all aware of the hay which organised crime could make of an investigation if at every stage a garda could be brought to court and asked to justify his or her actions. Such a situation would make policing impossible.

The point of the section is to require the Garda Síochána to perform particular functions in a particular way. Surely one way of ensuring it follows the provisions is to provide that gardaí could incur liability. I wonder if the Minister is taking away the force of the section in removing such liability.

Senator Maurice Hayes mentioned that people have recourse through the complaints procedure. A provision which would allow people to go to court if all other options did not work out would provide a confidence in the system which a complaints structure alone would not provide. Most people will try the complaints structure first for many reasons such as cost and risk. People will have confidence in an overall system which also allows them to take the matter to court.

As the Minister said, we have become a very litigious society. In that regard, any loopholes identified will be exploited. Senator Brian Hayes and others have spoken of innocent victims who get caught up in situations which give rise to their seeking recompense for damages. However, existing legislation provides them with such rights. The more we inhibit the Garda Síochána the greater will be our difficulty in tackling crime.

One has only to read Paul Williams's book or to look at programmes on television to learn of the serious criminals committing heinous crimes who are not being convicted because the evidential barrier cannot be achieved to prosecute them successfully. The more obstacles we put in the way of the law the greater will be our difficulty. I agree with Senator Maurice Hayes that there are other mechanisms for dealing with such complaints. I am coming at this legislation from the point of view of enabling gardaí to be more effective in the fight against crime while at the same time, as provided for, having total regard for human rights. We can go overboard and create obstacles or excuses as to why people are not being successfully prosecuted. The removal of subsection (6) would dilute the effect of the Bill.

I agree with the points made by Senators Maurice Hayes and Walsh. The removal of subsection (6) would mean that a court could suggest it was deliberately removed by the Houses of the Oireachtas and that the protection afforded by it was expressly removed from the Garda Síochána. It would not simply be a drafting error. A court could suggest that the Minister on introducing the Bill proposed that the law should have the effect provided in section 7(6) but was later persuaded by the Houses of the Oireachtas to remove that provision. The court could then take as an interpretative guide the legislative history as to what exactly was meant by the remainder of the section. That would be a serious matter.

Section 7(6) states: "This section is not to be taken to confer on any person a right in law that he or she would not otherwise have...". That is a crucial point. If a garda smashes his or her way into a person's house and uses excessive force to arrest him or her, he or she then commits the tort of trespass to the property and to the person. If a member of the Garda Síochána commits a crime or a civil wrong in the exercise of his or her duty, there are, as a matter of criminal law, penalties and remedies available to deal with such wrongs.

Subsection (6) provides that section 7 does not confer on any person a right in law that he or she would not otherwise have to require gardaí to carry out a function or to provide a service referred to in the section or to desist from any such action. That, too, is important. If that provision were not included, a person could maintain his or her property is constantly being vandalised and could go to the Circuit Court or High Court to obtain an injunction requiring a garda to be stationed outside the property to protect him or her. Such a provision would be beloved of some but it would also mean the courts would decide everything and the Minister and Commissioner would be told by the courts how they are to conduct policing in Ireland.

The same applies to seeking damages. The limitation on damages applies only in cases where a person would not have a claim for damages but for this section. If a member of the Garda Síochána fails to perform his or her function as envisaged by this section, that does not of itself give rise to a separate claim for damages on behalf of an aggrieved or dissatisfied person who claims he or she has suffered loss as a consequence. The more I think about it, the more essential it is that this subsection be included and the more mistaken it would be to remove it. Its removal would turn the section into a charter for litigation against the Garda Síochána, both injunctive legislation requiring it to do things and compensatory litigation demanding money on the basis of things it had not done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.

Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 12, subsection (3), line 7, after "In" to insert "deciding whether to institute or in".

Amendment No. 8 is a drafting amendment which seeks caution in terms of the interpretation of the wording currently used. The subsection, as drafted, presumes that members of the Garda Síochána would be instituting the proceedings as opposed to making a decision on whether to institute proceedings. The garda in question should, in both cases, comply with the direction referred to in the subsection.

The provision reflects the current position in this area. The Garda Síochána as a matter of practice no longer institutes proceedings in its own name as common informers. Though that is the current position it used not to be so. The prosecutions commenced by it are generally founded on a direction or authorisation of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is important to note that section 8 introduces new rules governing the prosecution of offences by the Garda Síochána. It will not be possible for it to decide to institute a prosecution, except in respect of the most basic offences, and then only where clear guidelines exist from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Accordingly, the proposed additional words in the amendment are not necessary. However, I will examine it again for Report Stage.

Senator Tuffy is concerned with whether a prosecution should be commenced in the first place. Logically that question precedes the institution of proceedings, for example, if the Director of Public Prosecutions made a general direction that prosecutions shall be brought in particular cases. However, the effect of the amendment could be that if they are not brought this could constitute a breach of Garda duty. Take the scenario where the Director of Public Prosecutions said that anyone found in particular circumstances doing a particular thing is to be prosecuted. If a garda then decides, on his or her initiative, not to prosecute in a particular case, it may be argued that the subsection has no application, as it merely says that in instituting or conducting a prosecution, the person should comply with the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In such a case, the garda involved could say that he or she did not institute or conduct a prosecution and, therefore, subsection (3) has no effect. I will examine this amendment between now and Report Stage. I want to think through carefully whether gardaí would not be obliged to comply with a direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases where they decided not to prosecute.

I appreciate the Minister's comments. Amendment No. 9 seeks to clarify whether the Director of Public Prosecutions is entitled to prohibit members of the Garda Síochána from instituting certain types of proceedings at all or without specific reference from the director. Amendment No. 10 provides that proceedings shall not be invalid where the section has been ignored. It would be wrong for proceedings to go ahead until the Director of Public Prosecutions gave a specific direction.

Following consultation with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, we believe they would not improve the text from the director's viewpoint.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Following on from the amendments tabled by Senator Tuffy and the Minister's undertaking to examine them prior to Report Stage, a related issue is when the Director of Public Prosecutions decides not to take a case, based on the file submitted. Under the current system, the director is not obliged to give an explanation as to why this happens. In some cases this has led to frustration within the Garda. I am not sure how this circle can be squared and it may not be possible to do so. However, such action can impinge on Garda morale. Gardaí may have invested much time in pursuing a case where they felt comfortable the evidence was sufficient to back it up in court. However, it is then not prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions for good reasons he or she may have. As there is no liaison on this, it can lead to an adverse effect on morale within the force. Can this issue be addressed?

There are good grounds that reasons for not prosecuting cases are not given. For example, the Garda could believe that an individual, making an allegation of, say, assault, rape or robbery, is being untruthful. The Garda could argue that, in the past, the individual had a reputation for fantasising. A reporter could then ask the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions why a case was not brought and be informed that the individual concerned was a shifty character and an unreliable witness. To publicly state so would be a great injustice to that person. I accept this is a basic and unlikely example. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions often has private reasons for not prosecuting and, if put into the public domain, these could be injurious to the injured party or someone closely associated with him or her.

This is not an easy aspect for the Director of Public Prosecutions to deal with. The director must also deal with the proposition that if reasons are given in some cases, as they are inoffensive to the parties concerned, and not in others, the natural inference will be that something was wrong with the injured party. It is not easy to push this through.

Senator Jim Walsh raised the issue of where investigating gardaí, having put much effort into a case, put together a file they consider will lead to a successful prosecution, only to find, to their dismay, that the Director of Public Prosecutions declines to proceed and offers no real reason for such a decision. Based on my experience at various levels in the prosecution process, and as an officeholder, in such cases the director will normally explain the basis of the conclusion reached. There are few cases where a one line answer is given to the Garda, with no explanation offered if asked. We are dealing with human blood and flesh in these decisions. If a team of detectives has made a great effort in putting together a case against an individual and convinced itself it has done the needful, it is disquieting and disheartening if someone sitting in an office 100 miles away declines to proceed. However, this is the whole point of having an Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Otherwise, prosecutions would be brought by the people at the coalface without the intervention of the director.

I understand what Senator Jim Walsh is driving at. I am aware from my own experience that what he says has been true on occasion. Teams of detectives and individual prosecuting officers have felt greatly deflated when projects have not been accepted for prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The obverse of the coin is that if we did not have an outside authority to decide whether a case had made the grade, there would be no Director of Public Prosecutions and no outside view. I temper my remarks with my experience, which has been that the Director of Public Prosecutions works closely, but not improperly closely, with investigating teams and, generally speaking, offers advice and guidance to them. I would be very surprised if the director did not offer a reason for his or her decisions, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. To offer an entirely theoretical explanation, it might have been the case that the director had come to the conclusion he or she could not trust what he or she was being told. The director might not be inclined to say that to the gardaí in question. If that happened, it would be on a very rare occasion.

On a point of information, is section 8 the appropriate section in which to introduce measures for the protection of Garda members and to send a message to that effect? Mandatory sentences should be introduced for the manslaughter and murder of a garda and no remission of sentence should be allowed.

That is not relevant to this section.

While I accept the Chair's ruling on my amendment on this issue, the protection of members of the Garda should be addressed in some section of the Bill. Is this the appropriate section in which to provide for that protection? The message we send on Garda protection is very important in the context of plans to recruit officers. We must send a strong message that the Legislature will not accept under any circumstances the remission of sentences of persons convicted of the murder or manslaughter of gardaí.

Senator Cummins, the Cathaoirleach has ruled that this issue is not relevant to the Bill. Amendment No. 13 is out of order.

It is a sad reflection on the House that we are not prepared to provide gardaí with the protection they need. We are sending the wrong message in ruling the amendment out of order.

Hear, hear.

I am sorry Senator Cummins, but I can do nothing about it.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 13, before section 9, to insert the following new section:—

"9.—The Commissioner and members of the Garda Síochána shall be accountable to a Garda Síochána Board, which shall consist of a chairperson and members appointed in a manner determined by regulations made by the Minister, and the Board shall have the function of giving general direction and control to the Commissioner and members of the Garda Síochána and shall perform such other functions as are specified in regulations made by the Minister.".

The purpose of this amendment is to provide a new section 9 and is based on the Labour Party policy which seeks the establishment of a body to oversee the operation of the Garda Síochána. While I welcome the Minister's legislation and recognise that he has many ideas in common with the Labour Party, such as the need for an ombudsman, I wonder if he considered the idea set out in this amendment. The body would be similar to the one in place in Northern Ireland and this is the Bill into which measures to provide for it should be inserted. Is the Minister considering introducing such a body in future or is he totally against it?

I agree with Senator Tuffy. As my earlier comments indicated, I am very much in favour of providing greater empowerment to the Garda and of the reasonable removal of some of the inhibitions which may constitute obstacles to its effectiveness. If such provisions were made, there would be a concurrent need to provide for strong accountability. I am persuaded to a greater extent by the amendment Senator Cummins will move later on providing for accountability at local level. It would be much more effective to provide for accountability in that way rather than on a national basis. The best approach is to provide for co-operation between the Garda and local public representatives to create a dynamic for the accountability which is essential to a modern, effective police force.

I am against the idea of an independent police authority in Ireland. It is a proposal to which the Labour Party is deeply attached. On Second Stage on 11 March this year, I set out in general terms the reasons for my objection. There would not be much point in rehearsing everything I said on that occasion.

Unlike the PSNI, the Garda Síochána is not a regional constabulary established within a sovereign state. It is the national police force of Ireland and has the functions the British Government is providing in its creation of an FBI for Britain. The Garda is also our MI5 and MI6. With the enactment of this statute, the Garda will be a force in respect of which there will be significant accountability measures, not least of which shall be the requirement for the Commissioner to come to the House and be accountable to committees, including the Committee of Public Accounts, for the manner in which he or she discharges his or her functions. The provision constitutes a significant, new layer of accountability on top of what already exists.

The model used in Northern Ireland and among regional English constabularies is quite political. Places on the police board in Northern Ireland are, in part, handed out on d'Honte principles to political parties. We must ask if we want a police authority which is broadly political in complexion. Is it a good idea to have nominees of Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil on the police board? Is that something people really want? It is by no means self-evident to me that such a board would represent an improvement. The Government has the right to hire and fire the Garda Commissioner and his deputies, which creates a very immediate accountability mechanism. Under certain circumstances, the sovereign Government of this independent State can tell the Commissioner his or her services are no longer required. While there are legal and stronger limitations under the Bill concerning the exercise of that power, it makes it very clear that in the last analysis it is the Government of the people of Ireland which calls the shots in the context of policing in the State.

Under the 1924 Act, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is the person who is responsible politically to the Dáil for the execution of the police function in the State. What would happen if the police body was like, as I said before, the RTE authority, indifferent in the way it carried out its work, incapable of bringing about reform and in place for five years? Who would take the rap? Sometimes, some of us in the Houses, whether in Opposition or Government, become frustrated by media treatment of particular issues. It makes one want to lift the phone. Whatever accountability one has, one must admit that the RTE authority has very little influence over how fairly or unfairly one is treated. By contrast, it has to be said that the holder of my office is brought before the Houses, answers questions, is summoned before committees and, ultimately, can face a motion of no confidence in the Houses of the Oireachtas and must defend his or her decisions on policing. That is a better degree of accountability than is to be found with independent police board models put in place.

I am not saying the matter is beyond argument but the Northern Ireland model is not something that attracts me. It is a politicised model, for obvious reasons, that was necessary to bring into the whole policing function democratically elected politicians and to put party representatives onto the policing board. I do not believe management of policing in Ireland requires a cross-party consensus as to how it is done or explicit recognition of party political issues in the composition of a board.

The Labour Party has taken the view that what is good for Northern Ireland is good for the Republic and that the Patten report should be transposed lock, stock and barrel south of the Border, but we are dealing with something different here. We are dealing with a national police force, an intelligence service, a security service and a society in which it is not necessary for Fine Gael and Labour Party people to be involved in the policing function when Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are in office. Otherwise, society's support for the police will split in two.

I note, and it has been evident here today, that members of the Opposition bent over backwards in asserting their total support for the policing function, which is always a feature of Irish politics. They always tell the poor Minister of the day that he or she is not being sufficiently supportive of the police service in one shape or another.

That is a matter for the Government.

We do not have a situation where people stand up in the Dáil and say, "I urge my followers not to obey the police in future." We have the exact opposite.

We have some parties which say that. The Minister should read his speeches from last year.

We do not have a political system or a demographic make-up in which support for the police service is politicised. I doubt whether it would be a good idea to go down the political road.

The amendment includes a reference to "the Minister" in that the Minister would determine the manner in which the members were appointed to the board. It provides also that the board shall perform such other functions as are specified in regulations made by the Minister. Contrary to what the Minister said, the board envisaged by this amendment would not be a political body in the way he outlined. The idea behind it is for the public to have a broader input into the operation and direction of the Garda and so on. The Minister is a member of a political party and most people in society have some interest in politics. One could say that anybody has a particular political philosophy or whatever but that is not the purpose of the amendment.

The Minister mentioned earlier the constitutional role of the Garda. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Garda Síochána is run in a way that is accountable to everybody and in which everybody can have confidence. There should be a feeling of democratic accountability, the type of accountability the Minister is trying to provide in terms of his provisions on liaison between local authorities and the Garda Síochána.

There is no disagreement about the need for accountability. Members on all sides of the House agree with that principle. The difference arises as to the way that should be exercised. The Bill goes a long way to doing what the amendment proposes.

Senator Tuffy also made the point about democratic accountability. The ultimate place for democratic accountability is within the Parliament. The Minister is responsible to the Parliament and, therefore, there is a direct line of accountability which is a stronger accountability than ever would be the case if a body of this nature was established, which in some ways would be another independent quango operating in isolation.

Section 21 states that the Garda Commissioner may have regard to the most recent report of each joint policing committee. The policing committees, therefore, which will have local democratic input, must be taken into account in terms of the Garda Commissioner preparing the report. Section 21 also states that the Minister shall cause a copy of the policing plan to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and section 22 states that following the approval of the Government, the Minister may issue to the Garda Commissioner written directives concerning any matter relating to the Garda Síochána. That is the appropriate place where the exercise of the function should be applied rather than through the type of body Senator Tuffy recommends. The Bill goes quite some way to providing a type of non-governmental control or input into policing, which has been absent until now. From that point of view, the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 are Government amendments and are related. I ask the Minister to speak to both amendments.

Government amendment No. 14:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 9, after "appoint", to insert ", subject to and in accordance with the regulations,".

These are technical amendments that arise from the fact that the appointment of persons to the rank of Deputy Garda Commissioner and Assistant Garda Commissioner is a matter that is covered by existing regulations and it is considered necessary to make that clear in the section.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 15, before section 13, to insert the following new section:

"13.—The Commissioner, in consultation with the Minister shall establish guidelines and structures so as to encourage members of police forces outside the jurisdiction to—

(a) apply to become permanent members of the Garda Síochána .”.

(b) apply for secondment to the Garda Síochána.”.

I am aware measures are in place to allow members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to be seconded into the Garda and vice versa but that type of approach needs to be expanded to allow gardaí avail of the experience and expertise of members of other forces not only for secondment arrangements, but also for permanent membership. Gardaí would benefit from a measure such as this and I ask the Minister to consider it favourably.

As my colleague rightly said, there was an agreement between the British and Irish Governments to allow members of the Garda Síochána join the new PSNI and a substantial number of existing and new officers have been recruited from this jurisdiction to the new PSNI. That is welcome but Senator Cummins made a useful point on this matter. On the issue of race relations, for instance, it could be argued — rightly, in my view — that much experience could be gained by allowing, either by secondment or direct recruitment, members of police forces in major cities like London, Manchester or Bradford, which has had to deal with the issue of race relations 20 years before we had to deal with it in this jurisdiction, join the Garda Síochána. The same argument could be made in regard to, for example, drug trafficking. We could learn much from what Dutch police officers have learned over a significant period of time.

Given the positive co-operation, good intelligence gathering and sharing of surveillance and intelligence information at EU level, the Garda could gain significantly by recruiting members of forces in other EU jurisdictions or by taking them on secondment. This issue should be addressed. A modern police force requires from time to time the ability to take on people with new ideas and a great deal could be learned from the experiences of police forces in other jurisdictions. Ireland is only now going through many of the problems experienced in large cities and countries over the past 20 years. A great deal could be learned from such recruitment. The amendment may not be useful or acceptable but the proposal needs to be expounded. If the Minister can address the issue through another means, so be it.

I would go some way towards supporting the amendment but whether members of other police forces should become full members of the Garda is another matter. Secondment should be welcomed. The Army has a tradition of participating in command and staff courses in other jurisdictions such as the US and the UK and that has resulted in enhanced expertise and performance. The Garda has similar arrangements with other police forces and co-operation is exercised through international agencies such as Interpol. I question whether members of other forces should become full members of the Garda.

The issue relating to members of the PSNI is dealt with in the Third Schedule, which states a programme shall be introduced to facilitate members of the police force of Northern Ireland being placed in the Garda Síochána and vice versa. However, it is questionable whether the appointment of members of other police forces should be formalised in law. Nevertheless, the thrust of the argument is reasonable and, perhaps, the Minister will consider it.

I have proceeded on the basis that there is international service and service in Northern Ireland and members of the PSNI will be taken in but the possibility of taking in officers from other forces has not been considered. A number of issues need to be considered if we go down that road. Will members of other forces be taken in on different terms from members of the PSNI? Could this be accomplished by the Minister making orders to extend the PSNI regime to other police forces? I would have to think about this proposition carefully.

There are also industrial relations issues. I would not like, without consultation, to impose upon the Garda representative associations the notion that plum jobs could suddenly disappear from under them if people come in from overseas forces. It might make sense to import members of other forces who are from specific ethnic backgrounds or who have expertise in certain areas by way of secondment. I must think about this issue carefully before Report Stage.

Many members of the PSNI would probably make good gardaí but we should be mindful of our recent history. Members of the security forces in Northern Ireland, including the PSNI, engaged in activities that were outside the law and involved loyalist paramilitaries. The Minister must take account of this issue in establishing the new structures. I have alluded to this issue in the past. The State also needs to be protected. While the peace process is in place, we should not be totally forgetful of what happened in the recent past.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 13.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 4, after "appoint" to insert ", subject to and in accordance with the regulations,".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Amendment No. 31 is related to amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20 and all may be discussed together by agreement.

These amendments cover a variety of issues and contain our best ideas.

The Senator is unduly modest. Surely, he has better ideas.

Can the amendments be taken separately? They cover different issues.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 15, before section 14, to insert the following new section:

"14.—(1) In making provision for any Garda recruitment process, the Commissioner shall set a target percentage of the minimum level of recruits who shall be ordinarily resident in an area designated as a RAPID area.

(2) In recruiting members of the Garda Síochána, the Garda Commissioner shall ensure that at least the minimum target level set under subsection (1) is achieved.

(3) In the Annual Report, the Commissioner shall provide details of the numbers recruited pursuant to subsection (2).”.

I feel strongly about this issue and I hope to persuade the Minister to do something about it between Committee and Report Stages. The unconventional amendment I have tabled may be tweaked or changed but I ask the Minister to subscribe to the general principle underpinning it. I represent a large swathe of west Dublin in which there is an attitude problem between the community and the police and vice versa and something must be done about it. The amendment attempts to do so.

I refer to the issue of recruitment. The Minister may have noticed a series of parliamentary questions tabled in the other House on my behalf by Deputy Richard Bruton. I was trying to find out the number of Garda recruits from RAPID areas. While one may hate the name of the scheme, areas are designated as disadvantaged under it and their problems are highlighted through a range of economic and social factors. I suspect few recruits come from these areas. While the situation in Northern Ireland is totally different, a substantial cohort of people, for whatever reason, have a bad attitude to the police and vice versa. The only way to get to the root of this problem and to prevent other political parties with vigilante tendencies — I refer the Minister to his remarks prior to the local elections — is to do something specific.

The Garda should recruit young men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds. I am not a great believer in setting percentage targets but the legislation should provide for a specific policy under which the Garda Commissioner and his colleagues recruit young men and women from communities in which there is a disengagement with the police. The best way to prevent vigilantism and to improve attitudes among police and such communities is to recruit young people from them. The Patten report referred to the disengagement between the Roman Catholic community and the RUC and it made a proposal to radically increase the number of young recruits from that community.

The same scenario does not apply in this jurisdiction but it is analogous. A deliberate policy of recruitment of young men and women from disadvantaged communities should be introduced. It may not be appropriate to provide for such a policy in the legislation and the Minister has not said much on recruitment in the Bill. I ask him to seriously examine this issue.

I am flabbergasted by some of the attitudes to gardaí in parts of west Dublin. Some people have an ignorant attitude, try to provoke gardaí and argue that they do not have a legitimate function. The best way to change this attitude is to generate young recruits from these communities. I passionately believe in this. I urge the Minister to look at the RAPID model which has created designated communities because of social deprivation. We know these communities and must do something significant for them. I have put the case and am interested in the Minister's reply. As a matter of principle, we need to include a provision in the Bill with regard to recruiting young people from this kind of background and community.

I support the idea behind this amendment, although it is too particular in identifying an area. I support the idea that recruitment should be as broad as possible and that the force should be representative. Recently the Minister proposed an amendment with regard to the recruitment age, which I welcome. He could have gone even further. I do not see why people cannot apply at an even later age. It would be a good idea to have more people from different or disadvantaged communities in the force.

Senator Brian Hayes mentioned the attitude of people to gardaí. There is a RAPID area in my constituency also, but the main attitude there is that there should be more gardaí and that they should have more resources. Much good work is done. For example, in my constituency gardaí and the community try to work together on different issues through a safety forum, which is positive. It would be good for communities if some of their members were recruited by the Garda Síochána. I am sure there are already some, but anything that can be done to improve the numbers would be beneficial.

This is a good opportunity to mention Garda resources. The Minister is aware of a case reported recently in the newspapers of a young Garda who was killed four years ago in an accident involving his Garda car. It was involved in a car chase and ran into an electricity pole. The second garda in the car was from Lucan. More needs to be done with regard to providing gardaí with better equipment to do their jobs. What is the Minister doing in that regard? This is particularly important when we expect young gardaí to look after people's lives. It is unsatisfactory that Garda equipment often does not provide them with the best security and safety.

I have some sympathy for the sentiments expressed by Senator Brian Hayes. Whether this is the mechanism to achieve his proposal, it is important that all social strata are represented within the Garda Síochána. This enhances the activity and acceptability of the force, which is important.

There may be a better way of achieving this aim without referring specifically to RAPID, under which only some areas receive a designation. However, if young people could be recruited from certain areas in all towns, even though they might not serve in the locality the fact they were gardaí would create an acceptance in the community that one of their own had become a garda.

Yes, that is the argument.

Community acceptance is important to functioning effectively. Perhaps the Garda community liaison officer system, which does much valuable work, could be a mechanism for targeting and encouraging young people in such areas to become involved. While I am unsure that this should become part of the Bill, it is desirable as a modus operandi.

The second point I wish to make may be a little irrelevant to the Bill, but it is a factor in getting community support. In the past, gardaí tended to live in the local villages and towns, be it Ballycullane, Duncannon, Campile, New Ross or whatever. Now, however, gardaí commute from Waterford to work in New Ross. They are not known and do not know the people. There is a price to be paid for this with regard to effective policing. There may be industrial relations difficulties with regard to this, but to function well, a garda should live in the area for which he has responsibility. Even if he is only out for a pint at night, he will garner information which may assist him. Living miles away is like a politician who hopes to be elected for a constituency living ten, 15 or 25 miles away from it. Such a politician would not be as effective nor would his or her seat be as safe. This area should be examined. Such matters, which may be peripheral to the Bill, are important for getting community support and effective policing, which is what the Bill is about.

I believe we are pushing an open door with the Minister because I heard him recently talking about what the Garda Síochána should be and how inclusive it should be, etc. Therefore, I hope he takes these remarks on board.

The amendment may be too confining by mentioning only RAPID areas. There are many disadvantaged areas in my city that are not included under RAPID. While we may be a little too specific, the message we want to get across is that a large section of Garda recruits should come from areas deemed disadvantaged. "Disadvantaged" is not a word I like to use but it is a fact of life with regard to some areas of Dublin and throughout the country.

The idea of the amendment is similar to the argument made in the Patten report in Northern Ireland in respect of increasing the number of Roman Catholics in the police force in order to have representatives from all sections of the community. I accept the point made by Senator Jim Walsh that having a garda in an area, or commissioning a garda from an area, gives some respect to the position. It would get people talking and improve respect for the police force in many areas.

It is sad that in many areas respect for gardaí has gone. Anything we can do to raise the profile of gardaí and improve their significance in such areas is of paramount importance and will help restore a sense of community to the 99% of law-abiding people in estates. It is usually the 1% who give a bad name to many of these areas and recruiting gardaí from such areas would help the situation.

The objective of the amendment is good, but it is stating the obvious to remark that gardaí must derive from the community they serve. Any police force must be formed in this manner if it is to be effective. The point has been conceded with regard to RAPID areas. I would not favour restriction to such areas as it is too narrow a base. In any event as the RAPID programme will eventually be replaced, the provision would become redundant.

I am not keen on the use of target percentages. The commissioner should have a general objective which could be spelled out, rather than specifying targets.

I accept that.

There are obvious advantages to the point made regarding local policing and the need for gardaí to be located in their working area. Such gardaí would have intelligence on the local gurriers. Unfortunately, modern society has moved to the point where gardaí must almost constitute a rapid response force. They must be mobile and cannot be located in every village in the country as they were in the past. Modern living has moved the force into a different mode of operation and this may be removing gardaí from the community. Something can be done to reduce the impact of that development but it will not eliminate it completely. I suspect the target percentage and the reference to RAPID might need to be changed but the general objective is a reasonable one that should be taken on board by legislation or otherwise.

I welcome the Minister and his officials to the House.

Although the underlying idea is a good one, I do not consider it would be practical for the Commissioner to set requirements as to the areas from where recruits would come. Would recruits also need to be drawn from various immigrant groups now that there are so many people from abroad living and working here?

That is what the Minister has advocated, and rightly so.

Senator Leyden should be allowed to speak without interruption.

I have no doubt that will be the case in time in regard to recruits taken on by the Civil Service Commission. The standard is very high, which I am sure will continue to be the case. There is no barrier to anyone's application, provided he or she fulfils the requirements of the Garda Síochána. It is a matter for people who come from RAPID or CLÁR areas to apply.

I live in a rural Leader area which is fortunate to have two members of the Garda Síochána resident. This is most helpful and has made this one of the safest areas of the country. The gardaí are part of the community and do not erect barriers between themselves and others. They socialise and mix with everybody in the area and they know what is happening there, which works very well.

Roscommon town, which has a Garda headquarters, is reputed to be one of the safest small towns in the country. It has been a great benefit to the town to have so many members of the Garda Síochána based there.

The proposal contained in the amendment is worthwhile and I am sure the Minister will take it into consideration, but it may not be practical to implement.

I sympathise with the underlying sentiment in the amendment, which is that if the Garda Síochána, in the words of its first Commissioner, Michael Staines, is to govern effectively with the consent of the people based on the people's respect, it must be seen to be a force which is drawn from the people and representative of the people as a whole. There cannot be an underclass in society who feel it is beneath the recruitment criteria for the Garda Síochána, which is not to say that people of bad character may not exclude themselves.

However, in terms of socio-economic groupings, one cannot have a situation where there are people in society who feel themselves to be beneath the recruitment catchment area of the Garda Síochána. That is a very important issue and it is the reason for the particular reference to the RAPID programme. I accept that we must ensure that every section of our community, the haves and the have-nots, equally identify with the Garda Síochána.

The second point is the question of geographical spread. It is the case, and one would need to be Einstein to solve it, that one cannot require members of the Garda Síochána to live in the house beside the station or wherever else, as a condition of service in the force, nor can one go back to the days of John McGahern where the sergeant and gardaí were all required to live in an RIC barracks and, therefore, be physically located at all times within their community. We clearly live in a different world in which people who have chosen a career in the Garda Síochána live in places where family, economic circumstances and opportunity dictate. One cannot insist that members of the Garda Síochána must live close to their station, if only for the reason that they are liable to be shifted from A to B and the cost of moving house would be quite significant in any of these circumstances.

What are we to do about all of that? In section 20, the Bill provides for a three-year strategy statement to be prepared by the Commissioner. If the Commissioner does not voluntarily draw up recruitment criteria, and I have every confidence he or she would, the Minister of the day would, in consultation with the Commissioner under section 20, set as one of the strategic objectives of the Garda Síochána that the force should be recruited in a way which would make it broadly representative of Irish society.

I accept that it is possibly a little disorderly to look forward to the next section which relates to a Garda reserve, which Members may wish to discuss, but in this context it is important to say that when I put forward that idea I was very conscious that critics would immediately say, " Aha, what is going on here is he will not pay for the recruitment of additional Garda but he will produce yellow pack reservists to stanch the wound so he can say the numbers are such and such and that everything is okay."

At a policy level, in conjunction with the Government, I have concentrated on getting on with our commitments to expand the size of the Garda force. I will not repeat at too great length what has happened. Roughly speaking, the size of the force has gone from 10,800 in 1987 to 12,200 last month. The second phase of what was promised is that it would expand by another 2,000. Over the next three years, enhanced recruitment at the rate of 1,100 members per year is planned so that, allowing for predicted retirements, the total number of members of the Garda Síochána will rise fairly rapidly to over 14,000 members. Taking those in training and those fully attested into account will lead to a total of more than 14,000 gardaí as early as 2006. The training process in Ireland, of which Members of the House are aware, is slightly longer than in other states. It is two years here while in some areas in Britain, for instance, it is six months. The core strength of the force, fully trained and attested, will reach 14,000 approximately 18 months after that.

With an expanding population in Ireland and increased urbanisation, that rapid expansion of the force should have the effect of providing some of the resources that are needed for the increasingly complex role of the police force. If it were not to happen, I have no doubt looking at the pattern of events I have seen in the two and a half years I have been Minister, there would inevitably be pressure on the Commissioner, who now handles the de facto day-to-day deployment of the force, to take people away from rural communities — to which Senator Leyden referred — and to move them to the new conurbations where villages have been transformed in the course of two or three years into sizeable towns which still have a Garda station in their centre.

I have no doubt there would be significant pressure to reallocate the force in a way which would strip some areas of their current level of policing and concentrate it in other areas. That is why the increased size of the force is not some flamboyant electoral gesture; it is vital to keep the force adequately strong across the country without diminishing the level of service in those areas which are currently least populous.

Broadly speaking, it is important that, in every area, some members of the Garda Síochána should live in the community, as pointed out by Senator Leyden. This gives communities a sense of identification with the Garda Síochána, which is one thing, and it also gives a sense that the force is deeply rooted in these areas. From that point of view, the phenomenon of commuting gardaí, to which Senator Jim Walsh referred, is a reality. It would be naive for us to think that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or anyone else could wave a magic wand and provide accommodation all over the country for families as geography might dictate; it simply will not happen. This is why a volunteer reserve is a good idea and is more vital in the case of the Garda Síochána than that of the Defence Forces. The presence of FCA units around the country identifies the Defence Forces to the people. There are people in every community who have been involved with the Defence Forces, who understand that way of life and who are ambassadors of goodwill for the forces within their communities.

The reaction to such proposals is strange but understandable. Special constables, as they were known in Britain, had a particular meaning on the island of Ireland. In Nationalist Ireland the term "special constable" had a pejorative meaning, to put it mildly. Therefore, I can see why reservists have traditionally not even been contemplated in Ireland because there is a clear legacy of history which runs contrary to that notion and one would be naive to think otherwise. Nonetheless, it is a strange fact that Ireland is, to my knowledge, the only common law country in the world which does not have any police reserve or special constabulary to back up the permanent police force.

Whereas section 14 makes skeletal provision for the establishment of such a force — in that it neither mandates nor requires it, since it is only provided for in enabling form — the interests of the Garda Síochána, its members and the representative associations would be enhanced rather than diminished by the presence of a volunteer reserve. I can imagine the very skilled professionals in the representative bodies thinking that the provision of reservists will diminish the opportunity for overtime or will take pressure off the Government to provide extra resources. It is a valid point which I do not deny. However, the obverse side of that coin is that policing activity requires roots in the community and, in the broader sense, it is in the interests of serving members of the Garda Síochána that they should have such strong allies and roots.

I am sure it is not the case but, even if all the gardaí from Donnybrook Garda station lived outside Dublin 4, it is in the interests of policing and serving members that allies of the police should live there, whether they are members of the force or people interested in upholding the force and committed to it on a voluntary basis, in other words, men and women who would serve as voluntary reservists.

The same applies to the talent which is lost when people retire at the age of 50 or 53, as will be the case in the fullness of time. Many people who leave the force do not want any further connection with it; they want to get on with the rest of their lives and regard themselves as having done their 30 year stint, with which point of view I fully sympathise. However, there are also people who are sufficiently expert in particular or broad areas of expertise such as community relations who, as reservists, could discharge functions of a supplementary nature relating to, for example, school liaison and community Garda activities. It is as plain as a pikestaff that such a resource should be available to the Garda Síochána.

The question of what reservists can do that full-time gardaí cannot is similar to that which applies to the FCA and the PDF, the answer to which is obvious. For example, gardaí in Kerry might have to preserve a scene, police a race meeting and search a mountainside at the same time or an illness such as influenza might deplete the force suddenly in a station such as Kenmare. In such cases, it is always useful to have available locally-based people as an alternative resource to help out with policing functions on an emergency basis.

I accept that the intent of Senator Brian Hayes's amendment and his comments are correct. It is important that the Garda Síochána has roots in the community. No community should regard itself as an area from which policemen are not recruited. We should have a recruitment policy which ensures that people in such communities do not feel their young men and women would never join the Garda Síochána. With a combination of decent recruiting policies and the potential use of a reserve, the gap — which is widening in front of our eyes — can be closed again to some extent, if not completely, although that may be idealistic.

In terms of recruitment ensuring the diverse ethnic, socio-economic and geographic representation of the entire community, the power to make a strategy statement which involves targeting this area, married with section 14 which, when we have 14,000 gardaí in the fullness of time, will enable us examine the concept of a reserve, will go a good distance towards addressing the yawning gap and its social and policing consequences, to which Senator Brian Hayes has drawn the House's attention.

I strongly support the Minister in his proposals for a volunteer force. For all the reasons he has set out, it is very important. One of the reasons the Patten commission was so keen to have a part-time reserve for the Police Service of Northern Ireland was precisely to enable it to recruit people fairly quickly from areas from which police recruits had not come previously. There are many people who want to give a public service and they should be allowed to do so. It is of enormous help for the police to have local roots. Nearly all the professionals, such as teachers, social workers and police, who service inner city areas in particular live outside these areas, although some nuns and priests remain. It is important that there is some of the connection to which the Minister referred. He may have to be careful in terms of regulations so that the people do the jobs for which their training suits them. However, I support the general line being taken by the Minister.

I will not address the issue of recruits as it is the subject of another amendment. I welcome the Minister's remarks on my own comments. The issue I have is how we will achieve our objectives. There are 7,000 houses in close proximity in my constituency. I suspect not one recruit of the force has come from that area in the past 20 years. The issue for this House and specifically for the Commissioner is what will he do about that.

My crude amendment was a fairly botched attempt to achieve the objective. If the Minister is stating that in his strategy statement he could do something to highlight the issue of recruitment to the Garda Commissioner to develop good strategies to get good young men and women from those communities into the force, then I am with him on that. In ten years' time, however, I want to stand up and say to the Minister who, I suspect, may be in another job——

Living in Roscommon.

——that he has achieved his objectives. It is an absolute scandal. No other medium to large-sized town in the country would have a situation like that in my constituency. It perpetuates this awful attitude of the community and police to each other because there are no recruits in the constituency.

The Minister must be an interventionist. To take the argument of the Senator opposite about acceptance, the police will be accepted only when one, two or three of them lives in our midst. The argument put up on countless occasions in some parts of my constituency is that the police do not live among the people, do not care about the people and run through the estates in their cars, that they are not engaging and are not part of the community.

I fully agree with the Minister's comments that they must be rooted in the community and I have tabled an amendment on the issue of housing. We must be much more novel in the way in which we provide housing options for young members of the force who cannot afford to buy a house — I refer to the typical couple, a teacher and a garda. We must be much more novel about how we encourage people to live in all parts of society.

I leave the Minister with one case, that of a woman in my constituency whose son joined the force. She had to leave her house because of the bullying and intimidation she faced because he had joined the police. Lunatics and thugs attacked her house on a constant basis. It was so unreal for a member of that community to attempt to join the force that she was hassled and bullied on a continuous basis, so much so that she had to leave the community. My community would not accept that. There must be the same kind of revulsion within her community and the only way that can be achieved is through a general policy of recruitment.

I ask the Minister to look at this issue. Perhaps it could be dealt with in section 20 which deals with the strategy statement to which he referred. If the Minister could be more explicit, if he is giving the House a commitment that when he sets objectives for the Commissioner when this Bill is enacted he will tell him that this is an issue about which the House feels strongly and about which the Houses would ask him to be imaginative, that he would establish new recruitment policies in schools in those areas in particular to ensure we improve the number of recruits from these areas, if he gives me the assurance that he will make that a key priority for the Commissioner or he can do something in terms of tweaking section 20, then I will withdraw my amendment which was a rather crude attempt. The point is crucial. The only way to achieve acceptance is to improve the recruitment rates in these communities.

The Minister outlined in detail section 14. Is it in order to refer to the section as such? The Minister has spoken about the section in general on the recruitment of——

It is another amendment.

We are on amendmentNo. 17.

The Minister has outlined——

He was on a roll.

We are on amendmentNo. 17.

I give Senator Brian Hayes the assurance that I will draw attention to the view of this House that there should be representation in recruitment. I certainly will make that a priority as far as I am concerned. I am sure the Commissioner does not need persuasion on this issue. He is a highly intelligent, highly-motivated individual and he probably senses this as strongly, if not more strongly, than most Members of this House.

I scarcely dare to mention that it may be necessary in some cases, in respect of recruitment criteria, to take the view that minor infringements of the law should not mean total disqualification and that an absolutely clean record may not be reasonable.

Absolutely.

If the Minister is looking at a strategy in this area, expectations must be a big factor. If he were to compare the Defence Forces to the Garda, I am sure he would find a different level of representation in different types of community. One must ask why that is so. It is similar in the case of a college. It is a kind of quota that Senator Brian Hayes is suggesting and I can see why a quota might be helpful. Generally I am not one to push for quotas. The Minister needs to improve the overall level. It is a little like the circumstances in college. It has to do with overall expectation and making sure that everybody from different types of communities has the same right to expect to go to college, to be a member of the Garda or whatever. How the Minister goes about achieving that would be the issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 14.

If the House wishes, we are prepared to take amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 together.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 15, subsection (1), line 12, to delete "as volunteer" and substitute "to divisional panels of reserve".

This amendment refers to the issue of a volunteer force. I oppose this section because elsewhere this system has been tried and has failed. The PSNI is disbanding its reserve at present.

Such people need to be qualified and experienced gardaí, not, as the Minister described them, yellow pack gardaí, which is the last thing we need. I do not think we could be in favour of the model proposed by the Minister.

On a point of information, I did not describe anybody as "yellow pack gardaí". I stated we all wanted to avoid the notion of yellow pack.

To be more accurate, the Minister mentioned the term "yellow pack gardaí". My party is not in favour of a reserve model as proposed by the Minister. People with Garda powers must be properly trained and must have the appropriate experience. It cannot be a half-way house, as the Minister proposes. He should focus his efforts on his recruitment drive of which he has spoken on many occasions.

We favour the establishment of panels of retired members of the Garda so that they be available on a needs and divisional basis. To take a simple example, a garda on maternity leave cannot be replaced. If there were a panel type approach such as we propose, this problem would not arise.

If there is to be any credibility in a reserve force, it should comprise former members of the Garda or police forces and they should be appointed after a rigorous selection process.

We are not suggesting in any way that it would be a cushy number for retired gardaí. That is not a charge which we would like to have made against us. We believe there are quite a number of people within the Garda who would retire early who would want, and would consider being on, a reserve panel. We will deal with the amendments on that basis.

I am not sure I would go along with Senator Cummins in dismissing this idea. I see certain merit in it. If one looks at the analogy which the Minister has made with Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil, one will find that people got a training there which gave them an understanding of the Army and they got discipline which stood to them in other aspects of their lives. Many regarded it as good training for young people, apart altogether from the benefits which would accrue nationally by having a trained reserve force within the Army. The same could be applied in the police force as a way of soliciting greater community support for the Garda Síochána and its activities, which is essential to good policing, in my view. The more support given to gardaí on the ground and the more tangible that support is by way of co-operation and information, the better it will be for society.

The Minister has discussed with the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights the possibility of examining best practice in other jurisdictions. Those operating in a functioning capacity will require to be trained effectively and there will probably need to be a limit put on their range of activities in that they may not be given the full range of responsibilities and activities of the Garda Síochána.

This proposal could be an enhancement of the community contribution to the Garda Síochána. It should be rolled out on a pilot basis and tweaked in order to make it effective. The proposal should not be dismissed out of hand. Section 14(3) states: "While on duty, a volunteer member has the powers, immunities, privileges ad duties as a person appointed under section 13 to the rank of garda.” I disagree with amendment No. 20 which proposes that the volunteer members would not have the same powers. They must be given the same powers as the Garda Síochána, otherwise they would be neutered and ineffective.

Another point was raised in an earlier debate about recruiting people from areas which historically may not have been recruiting areas for the Garda Síochána. Some such communities may be home to criminals involved in the drugs trade. It is important to ensure that the people recruited would be given all the protection afforded a member of the Garda Síochána so that they are not isolated within those communities.

I see merit in this proposal as it relates to traffic control. The N4 is a three-lane carriageway in each direction with a speed limit zone of 40 mph. I am appalled to see gardaí trying to catch people speeding on that road. I travelled 160 or 170 miles one day and that was the only location where I saw gardaí——

Does the Senator mean distance or speed?

No, it was not speed, it was distance.

The Senator has privilege so it is all right.

When I travel to Dublin on the N11, the most likely place for me to see gardaí is on the Kilmacanogue bypass where the speed limit on the dual carriageway is 40 mph. This brings the whole system and the speed limits into disrepute. The use of a volunteer force would allow for greater visibility. It is counter-productive to see gardaí hiding behind corners at the roadside. The police are visible in the United States but it is too late when one sees them. This means that every road user is mindful that speed checks take place. I suggest a common sense approach. I commend the Minister for this innovative proposal which is worthy of examination in an unbiased manner. It could be shaped into a proposal which would be of advantage to methods of policing.

I strongly support the idea of a reserve force. Senator Cummins's idea of having pools of retired gardaí is a very interesting one and it could be extremely useful. I do not think other people should be excluded from the reserve force.

To clarify a point about the position in Northern Ireland, the Patten commission recommended that the full-time reserve be stood down. It seemed to us that a full-time reserve force is a contradiction in terms; a full-time person is a policeman. Some of these people had been on their sixth or seventh three-year contract and they were being disgracefully treated in regard to terms and conditions of employment. The commission was very keen on the notion of a part-time reserve force, which, for instance, gives the force a foothold in the community. I have seen reservists doing wonderful work. They bring different skills from their varied backgrounds.

The Garda Síochána is a country-wide force and people naturally move in and out of a district. Very often, the one continuity provided on a local patch comes from the reservists. They become the old heads in the place and they pass on the wisdom learned from dealing with the public. They are also the kind of people who are generally quite content to do foot patrols and go out in the evening. This is a very important aspect of policing. It provides reassurance to the elderly and to mothers. I oppose the amendment.

I do not have a problem with the idea behind this proposal but I have some concerns about the wording. The Minister mentioned the Army reserve force but that is a very different type of organisation. I am concerned about the use of the word "volunteer" because it might be restrictive in this section.

Senator Jim Walsh referred to the need to examine best practice in other jurisdictions. The proposal needs to be worked through and its ramifications need to be examined. The section allows for the provision to come into play very quickly. Subsection (4) states:

The power to appoint persons under subsection (1) may be exercised not earlier than 12 months after the commencement of this section and then only if—

(a) the Garda Commissioner has submitted proposals to the Minister for the training of persons to be so appointed, and

(b) regulations have been made concerning their recruitment and training and prescribing the terms and conditions of their position.

Much greater consideration needs to be given to this. The Garda Síochána needs to be on board because there are issues to be dealt with about how members would relate to these volunteers. For example, section 14(3) states: "While on duty, a volunteer member has the powers, immunities, privileges and duties as a person appointed under section 13 to the rank of garda.” The volunteers will have a very different role. I have concerns about the section but I do not oppose the provision of a reserve force in itself. The Minister may need to flesh out the proposal. Will the regulations be published?

I am in favour of the proposal for a volunteer force and that it should have exactly the same powers, responsibilities and immunities as the Garda Síochána. A second class force could bring the whole system into disrepute. The point has been well made about the need to root the Garda Síochána in the community and to have its members living in the community. The volunteers would be ideally suited in this regard. They can be the eyes and ears of the members in the patrol cars. The volunteers are the people on the ground who know what is going on and they can fulfil a valuable function.

The point was made about An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil. Those of us who were members of the force, such as the Minister and I, know that the training alone was of great benefit, apart from anything we did. We learned to handle firearms, discipline and even square-bashing. It could be mischievously said that the reason people in boarding schools joined was to acquire a greatcoat that could be put on the bed at night to keep them warm but that is a separate issue.

I agree with the point made about retired members of the Garda Síochána who have a great talent and knowledge. A local garda of my acquaintance was very expert in the drugs area and had visited all the local schools and was well known to the young people. When he retired all that expertise was lost and it was not really replaced. I made approaches to the local authority to find some way of incorporating him into the local authority system in order to retain his expertise. A vehicle should be available for harnessing the knowledge such people acquire over a lifetime in the event that they wish to continue to be active and involved, as opposed to confining their time to fishing and so on.

I am a little confused regarding Senator Cummins's views on training given that section 14(2) states: "A person is not eligible to be appointed as a volunteer member unless he or she has completed the prescribed training." As such, training appears to be covered.

My point relates to the nature of the prescribed training.

On Second Stage I pointed out that it does not seem sensible that when renewing my gun licence I must visit a local Garda station because a member of the Garda must be involved in the administration of such renewals. This could be done by a volunteer or competent secretary. While I realise that guns must be controlled and tracked, the licence renewal procedure should be reviewed.

In the past, gardaí were involved in noxious weed control and came out to check whether one had cut ragwort. I recall from my youth that the local garda cycled out to take the annual census of livestock. Thankfully, this is no longer the case, although I suspect that Garda responsibility in such matters remains on the Statute Book. There must be a more rational approach to organising some of the activities in which gardaí are involved.

On the question of powers, local models are available. I am a member of an angling club, several of whose members have warrants. As water keepers or bailiffs, they carry a warrant which confers certain powers on them. We must ensure that the volunteer force has the same powers, responsibilities and immunity as the main force.

To follow up Senator Dardis's point regarding noxious weeds, we had much less ragwort than now when the Garda was involved in this area. This created a certain fear among people as regards that noxious weed.

I compliment the Minister on securing an increase in the number of gardaí, about which we hear nothing. Once the Minister obtained Government approval for funding to increase the force to more than 14,000 members by 2007 to meet the commitments in the programme for Government agreed in 2002, newspapers, radio, other media and the Opposition suddenly lost interest. We no longer hear a word spoken about the Minister's great achievement of securing agreement to increase the strength of the Garda to its highest level in the history of the State. As he stated, if he had not achieved this result, gardaí in rural areas would have been transferred to larger urban areas. I congratulate the Minister and his officials on their achievement.

In light of the number of additional gardaí who will be recruited, will it be necessary, on reflection, to recruit an auxiliary force to support the Garda Síochána? The Garda Representative Association made a detailed submission to the Minister in November. I request that he hold discussions with the GRA on the proposal in section 14 to recruit an auxiliary force. The goodwill of the Garda Representative Association and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors will be required to achieve the Minister's objective to recruit a support force. We do not want a two-tier system to develop in which the auxiliary force and the Garda Síochána proper would not co-operate. I understand departmental officials propose to meet the GRA in the next few weeks and the Minister may have further information in this regard on Report Stage.

The Fine Gael Party opposes a volunteer force and seeks instead a divisional panel or reserve. I do not see much difference between its proposal and the Minister's.

It wants to have it both ways.

While it appears to be in favour of a volunteer force, it simply wants to produce a different proposal. Its amendments should be thrown out lock, stock and barrel because they are not relevant. Amendment No. 20, which is part of the group, would make it a toothless force. One might as well not establish an auxiliary force if it would not have the powers of the Garda Síochána.

The Minister is aware that Senator Maurice Hayes and I were nominated to the House by the——

That is irrelevant.

I am declaring an interest. Under standards in public office legislation, I am required to declare a public office.

The Senator is making the declaration with a purpose.

I am declaring that I was nominated by the Irish Conference of Professional and Service Associations, which includes the Garda Representative Association. The GRA has sent me a detailed document which I have studied. On the basis of being supported and nominated by the Irish Conference of Professional and Service Associations, I would appreciate if the Minister or his officials or both would meet the GRA to discuss section 14.

The Minister has made a persuasive argument, particular regarding an emergency which may arise in a particular region at a particular time and would require support for the Garda Síochána. Outbreaks of violence and so forth arise from time to time, even in rural areas.

Members of the Houses are served extremely well by the Garda Síochána. As the premier institution of the State, the Oireachtas is a reflection of the State. The Army is responsible for security in the Houses at night and on weekends, while the Garda is in charge during the day. I would like this position to be maintained, irrespective of what supplementary force is established in the future. It is important to have gardaí in the Houses. They look after Members extremely well and present a great public face of the force.

I thank Senator Leyden for his remarks regarding the recruitment of members of the Garda. I assure the Senator and Senator Cummins that I was conscious from the outset that if I did not deliver 2,000 additional gardaí before promoting the idea of a volunteer reserve, people would put two and two together and would not get 22. They would know exactly what was happening.

The Minister has still not delivered.

I am by no means dismissive of the reservations of the representative associations. I accept that some people might consider it strange that a person who has received less than 24 months' training could exercise exactly the same powers as a garda. I also have a clear picture regarding the points made about resources, overtime earnings and so forth. I am not ignoring these points, nor do I view them as wholly insubstantial.

I make the broader point that, from the point of view of effective policing, the question we must ask is whether, even if I were to treble the numbers of gardaí or expenditure on the Garda, I would have recruits from the communities to which Senator Brian Hayes referred. There are different issues, including the need to have local community roots for the Garda Síochána. We live in a changing society. People commute and lead lifestyles immeasurably different from those which supported policing in the past, when local people were members of the force and acted as its eyes and ears locally. The community naturally had a loyalty to such gardaí because they were neighbours. Without the neighbour principle in policing, we will lose something.

I thank Senator Maurice Hayes for expressing the view that there was not a decision in Northern Ireland to scrap volunteer policing, but to scrap the anomaly of full-time reservists. That is almost a contradiction in terms. There are many good people in the full-time reserve of the PSNI, but that is having things both ways. The state engages members on a full-time basis, but will not give them any of the comforts of being a full-time policeman or policewoman. That is a strange phenomenon.

Senator Dardis said nobody would be eligible to be appointed unless they completed prescribed training. Senator Cummins asked what constitutes prescribed training. Section 14(4) states: "The power to appoint persons under subsection (1) may be exercised not earlier than 12 months after the commencement of this section ...”. There are two ensuing conditions. First, the Garda Commissioner must come to the Minister with the proposal; the Minister does not instruct the Garda Commissioner to create a reserve. This was deliberately included so the proposal would be made in the best interests of the force, not in the financial interests of the Minister. Section 14(4) also provides that regulations must be made concerning the reservists recruitment and training, and prescribing the terms and conditions of their position.

The reservists will not be the same as other members of the Garda Síochána.

No. Senator Cummins tabled amendments which are broadly hostile to the concept. However, we have developed a system of training members of the Garda Síochána which is unique in these islands. It is a two-year process and involves spending time in stations——

The system has stood the test of time.

It is a good system and I am not detracting from it in any way. It might be the appropriate length of time for somebody who will make his or her career out of the force and serve full time. Other police forces allow for far less time. However, it would be nonsense to suggest a reservist should have identical training to a full-time career policeman.

That is the point. We are giving them the same powers.

A reservist and a member of the Garda Síochána both belong to a disciplined force. Volunteer reservists cannot rise through the ranks. They can only be appointed to the rank of a garda. Much of the training at Templemore is designed to create a member who, in principle, could one day be the Garda Commissioner. It may not be necessary in the case of a volunteer reservist. There would an attenuated and limited form of training for a reservist. However, they would be disciplined. Section 14(3) provides that the same powers, immunities, privileges and duties apply to a reservist as a garda. They have an obligation to do as they are told and not do something which is inconsistent with their level of training and expertise. Implicit in the system is the understanding that a reservist would not be used as a fingerprint expert on their first day of the job. Theoretically gardaí are obliged to carry out such functions.

This is not something the representative associations should oppose tooth and claw. If they have an overall view on the long-term interests of policing in Ireland, they should reflect on what I say as I reflected on what they said. It is essential we attempt to bridge the geographical and socio-economic gap between the force and the community it serves if we are to create a climate congenial to its members carrying out their functions as a lifetime career. I am trying to bridge the gap partially with a number of measures. However, it is meant in good faith and the beneficiary will not just be a notional clerk in the Department of Finance worried about sums or overtime bills. That is not the purpose of these measures in any way. The community at large wants to know the gap will not widen and become an ever-widening gulf which will distance the force from the people.

We cannot turn back the clock. I was at a Neighbourhood Watch meeting last night in Harrington Street in Dublin and we discussed the society's changing attitude to the simple matter of being law-abiding. There was a time when everybody left their key in the front door, when the bread man could walk into a house, go to the kitchen, put down the bread, sign it into the book and leave. That world will not return. However, one value that was and still is strong in Ireland is total community support for the Garda Síochána generally.

The phenomenon which Senator Brian Hayes speaks of is a worry, and not simply confined to the heart of his constituency. It applies in a reverse sense to my own, in particular to Donnybrook. How can a young garda buy a house there? How can he or she live in that community to serve it? They may be able to share an apartment. We must address the question of how Donnybrook will have Garda roots in the area just the same as we address the issue in a place such as Fettercairn. It is the same phenomenon and not something which comes from the top downwards in society. It applies across the State and to rural communities also. Will gardaí live in those communities or will they police communities where they know nobody and have no innate understanding of the population and must therefore learn very slowly?

Section 14 is carefully balanced legislation. It is not designed to ram some notional "yellow pack" Garda force down the throats of serving members, the Commissioner or the public. It will probably be my successor, rather than myself, who will receive a request from the Commissioner to establish such a force. It is designed to make that possible, rather than have the new constitution for the Garda Síochána render it impossible. That would be the case if section 14 did not exist.

I accept the Minister's bona fides. In theory it may sound like a good idea, but it is not fully thought out. It would not operate as outlined in section 14.

The divisional panels of reservists which we propose are worth taking on board. I could not support section 14 as it is constituted. The Minister has said the representative associations are also opposed to the measure. I am opposed to the section and will press my amendment.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 28.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Browne, Fergal.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Henry, Mary.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Phelan, John.
  • Terry, Sheila.

Níl

  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Cox, Margaret.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Hayes, Maurice.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kett, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Minihan, John.
  • Mooney, Paschal C.
  • Morrissey, Tom.
  • Moylan, Pat.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators U. Burke and Cummins; Níl, Senators Minihan and Moylan.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

We have already indicated that we are opposed to this section.

Question put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 15, before section 15, to insert the following new section:

"15. — (1) The Garda Commissioner may subject to subsection (2) and the regulations, establish a Dublin Metropolitan Police Service.

(2) The power to establish a Dublin Metropolitan Police Service shall be exercised within 12 months after the passing of this Act.".

This amendment deals with the structure within the Garda Síochána in Dublin. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that no regional structure is attached to the Garda which one can argue is one of its strengths. However, as Dublin city expands westwards, northwards and southwards, specific policing problems are also growing. In the future, it may be logical for a regional structure to be put on policing in the capital city. We have given our proposed force the title, the Dublin metropolitan police service. While we are not suggesting this should become immediate policy, it may be useful to insert this in the Bill if a future Government wishes to choose this route.

An advantage to a regional structure in Dublin's policing would be the prioritisation of the best possible use of resources in the area. Divisional status for the Garda in Tallaght was agreed upon in principle eight years ago, but due to the lack of police accommodation in the area to house the chief superintendent it has not been delivered upon. In the future, we may have to broach the issue of a Dublin metropolitan police service for the entire region. This legislation presents the only opportunity over the coming years to deal with root and branch reform of the Garda Síochána. This proposal may be utilised in future years and should be considered for inclusion in the Bill.

I cannot accept this amendment in its present form. A solid case for the re-establishment of a Dublin metropolitan police force would have to be made before I could accept such a radical departure. An Assistant Commissioner with responsibility for the Dublin area exists. Dublin gardaí have distinctive badge numbers on their epaulettes. Would such a proposed force be separate with its own uniform? Are promotional opportunities to be segregated into this force? I would have to consider these and a series of other issues.

Subsection (2) of the amendment makes it mandatory to create this service within 12 months of the passing of the Act. This means it will not be some distant possibility but a mandatory change in the structure of the Garda Síochána. There was a time when there was a separate police force. DMP men wore their helmets while the rest of the Garda did not. When the Garda was made a unified force, the Dublin metropolitan region members still wore their traditional helmets until the 1950s when it was changed. I do not believe there is support in the service or Dublin city for the establishment of a separate force without making a case as to how it would operate.

I do not want to establish a geographical distinction within the Garda Síochána which would have the effect of reducing the Garda Commissioner's capacity to deploy the resources of the force across the State as is necessary. Would DMP men be liable to be sent down to serve on, say, a presidential visit by Mr. Bush to Shannon? Would those gardaí, not in this proposed Dublin metropolitan police force, be liable to serve in the city centre during May Day demonstrations? I do not know the answers to these questions and am not convinced that this is a worthwhile venture.

While the Minister is correct to say this would be a radical departure, there is, as he also points out, an historical precedent if one looks back beyond the turn of the last century. It may well be the case that a future Government will consider this issue. There are particular problems with the organisation of the Garda.

The problem is that the amendment mandates a future as opposed to the current Government to carry this out in 12 months. The Senator may be optimistic about the fall of the Government.

I had that in mind when I was framing the amendment. I gave the Government only another six months. The proposed provision may well become part of the remedy to create a better policing structure in the city and county in the years ahead. The Garda has specific structural problems in Dublin which do not simply involve manpower issues.

Is Fingal a part of the Dublin metropolitan area?

Yes. I alluded in my initial remarks in particular to the accommodation problem the Garda has in the city. We will leave the matter to another day and wait to see what influence the composition of a future Government has on the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 15.

Amendments Nos. 22 to 25, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 15, line 31, after "sincerely" to insert ", promise and".

The amendment seeks to make a small change in the declaration to make it more consistent with the wording of other declarations of this kind such as the judge's declaration in Article 34 of the Constitution.

If the Minister is seeking to provide for a multicultural force, should he not make some provision to allow for affirmation on a basis other than God? I am not making an anti-God remark, but am considering that people have different conceptions of him. Some might find it difficult to solemnly and sincerely declare in the manner set out in the Bill. There should be room for affirmation or attestation.

There was a party which had problems in this area some years ago.

I remember speaking to Senator Norris on one occasion about the widely held view that the Progressive Democrats Party had tried to take God out of the Constitution. It was not true, of course, as the text we proposed contained at least three mentions of God. That is history. Senator Norris said he admired the Progressive Democrats Party because having alienated 90% of the country by proposing to delete references to God, it alienated the remaining 10% by proposing to put them back in again. It was Senator Norris at his best. He said that was political courage.

As Senator Maurice Hayes said, it is legitimate to make provision for a person who wishes to make an affirmation. The appropriate way to do so is in the form of my amendment No. 25 which provides that the words "before God" may be omitted from the declaration at the request of the declarant. It is a fair compromise.

I will consider amendments Nos. 22 to 24, inclusive, between now and Report Stage and ascertain whether they change the sense of the declaration or add to its value. In general, I do not wish to add surplus material which does not change meaning. I do not know whether the inclusion of the words "and to the best of my knowledge and power" and "faithfully" in the context of the discharge of duties would reduce or increase the effect of the declaration. Amendment No. 22 proposes the insertion of the word "promise", but this is a declaration not a promise. We will consider these matters between now and Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 15, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) The words ‘before God' may be omitted from the declaration at the request of the declarant.".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

While other Members focused on the reference to God in the preamble to the declaration, I have some difficulty as an advocate for human rights with its third part. A member of the force will be obliged to declare that he or she will not form, belong or subscribe to any political party. I am not quite as concerned about the reference to "secret society". As an extension of their civic mindedness, gardaí would be interested in participating in the political process. While I am not seeking a response now, I ask the Minister to consider whether rank and file gardaí should be required to make such a declaration. Officers above the rank of inspector perhaps constitute another issue. Involvement in the political process at local level is commendable and I encourage as many people as possible to take part.

I disagree. The prohibition on Garda membership of political parties has worked well. While gardaí have their own political persuasions, membership of political parties is a different ball game. I concur with the Minister's proposal in the legislation.

This is an occasion on which I will disloyally agree with Senator Cummins and disagree with Senator Jim Walsh. Should a garda be allowed to canvass door to door at election time, seek contributions among the business community or shake a box outside a church on national collection day?

Or attend a Minister's meeting?

Senator Jim Walsh has the happy idea that gardaí would come to swell the ranks at cumann meetings, listen to the minutes, the secretary's report and the correspondence, but I think they have more sense. I would be much more worried about the list of activities I have outlined.

Members of the Garda have many responsible privileges over the rest of us, including the power of arrest. While Garda functions are not judicial, they have far-reaching implications for the community. To take an example which does not involve my party, it would not be fair for a Fine Gael Senator to be breathalysed while driving home by a man he knew was out canvassing against him the previous night. It would be problematic even if all parties were acting above board and the Senator in question had not a drop taken.

That could not possibly happen.

Perception is very important. I am not sure if the Director of Public Prosecutions is prohibited from joining a political party. Perhaps civil servants are not so entitled.

There is no law which states that a judge shall not be a member of a political party but there is clear legal convention that it would be a sacking offence if he or she were to join one. The same applies to gardaí. They are better served by not being able to be members of political parties, which is not to say that they do not have strong political opinions and the same right to vote as the rest of us; that is their entitlement and I would be opposed to changing it. To adopt Senator Cummins's phrase, this has worked well to date and I do not see many members of the Garda Síochána battering down my door or sending their wives or husbands out as proxy members of political parties or whatever. We would be better off to leave it as it is.

I have a son who is intent on joining the Garda after doing his leaving certificate next year but only last week he warned me not to include him on the membership list of Fine Gael because he will be applying to join the Garda. He is ahead of the posse in that regard.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 16, subsection (3), lines 10 to 12, to delete paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and substitute the following paragraphs:
"(b) the Minister for Finance;
(c) the Equality Authority;
(d) the Human Rights Commission;
(e) the Standards in Public Office Commission;
(f) the Ombudsman Commission;”.

This is a fairly straightforward section to delete paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) in section 16 and substitute the following paragraphs: (b) the Minister for Finance; (c) the Equality Authority; (d) the Human Rights Commission, (e) the Standards in Public Office Commission and (f) the Ombudsman Commission. It is to expand the number of people who should be consulted in the context of the process whereby the code of ethics is drafted. Effectively, the Standards in Public Office Commission is being added and paragraph (e), which refers to any other person etc., is being deleted from it.

What particular expertise would the Minister for Finance have brought to a discussion of this sort?

The Minister, Deputy Cowen, is an ethician of huge standing, as the Senator is aware. The idea is that the Department of Finance has——

It is the sponsoring Department for all ethics legislation.

It is, yes, and it has a policy making role in regard to codes of ethics throughout the public service.

As long as it was a draft and not the idea that a financial valuation was being imported into the Bill.

No. Senator Brian Hayes is correct. The Department of Finance is the line Department, to use the phrase it always uses about the rest of us, for ethics and all of that area. It is in that capacity that the Minister is being added.

I was just a little concerned about the reference to the Minister doing something, with the approval of the Department of Finance.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.

Amendment No. 27 is in the name of Senator Cummins. Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 16, subsection (2), line 28, to delete "not" and substitute "may be".

Section 1 of the Garda Síochána Act 1924 allowed representative associations to associate with other bodies. Why is the Minister reversing that position?

Our amendment No. 29 proposes the deletion of section 17(3). The purpose of the amendment is to delete the statutory prohibition on members of the Garda Síochána being members of a trade union. That prohibition is excessively restrictive on the right of freedom of association of members of the Garda Síochána and is not fitting in modern times. I do not understand the reason members of the Garda Síochána cannot be members of a trade union just like members of the Civil Service and so on. I would like the Minister to reconsider including this subsection and accepting our amendment.

The omission of the material contained in subsection (30), which is a ministerial amendment, was done inadvertently. Although people may think it was deliberate, it was an inadvertence pointed out to me by ICTU, which came to the Department. When it was pointed out to us we realised it has simply slipped off the word processor. That is the explanation. There is nothing more sinister to it.

In regard to gardaí joining a trade union, I do not accept that is legitimate. As I said earlier, gardaí have significant powers but I do not accept that we can extend the notion of industrial disputes to the Garda Síochána. It is a disciplined force, just like PDFORRA is a representative body for ranks in the Permanent Defence Force. I do not propose to have a situation where industrial action is taken by the Defence Forces or by the Garda Síochána. It is something I could not contemplate because the Garda is a disciplined force upon which the State relies. Sometimes it has to intervene, tangentially, in industrial relations disputes.

Sometimes gardaí have to cross pickets or arrest picketers or whatever which is not to say that members of the Garda Síochána cannot have as sympathetic a personal view as they like of the whole notion of the trade union movement, which is a valuable part of social partnership in our society. We must remember that if we are to have a sovereign Government, it must be in a position to carry out its wishes and not be inhibited in that respect by industrial relations considerations. That is not to say that there is not a sophisticated scheme of industrial relations relating to Garda conditions which operates day in and day out but it is one that is special, sui generis, and I cannot go down the road of allowing members of the Garda Síochána to join trade unions or become subject to industrial relations law.

On the question of representative associations not being allowed to associate with other bodies, it could be construed that they could not associate with other policing bodies such as EuroCOP and so on. What is the Minister's position on that? I would not think that is what he had in mind but it could be construed that they would not be allowed associate with members of police forces in other associations on the European scene which are of benefit to those associations and the Garda as a body. If that was the case, it should be examined.

The omitted material that fell off the edge of the word processor covers that and would authorise the Minister to authorise membership of such an association.

On amendment No. 29, the Minister spoke about the special role of the gardaí and the Defence Forces but the same logic could be applied to other employees. For example, it would be difficult to do without health professionals but they have the right to join trades unions. I do not understand why the gardaí should not have a similar right to be members of a trade union and, if necessary, take industrial action. A few years ago the Garda engaged in action similar to a strike. It had to be done in a vague, unaccountable way. Would it not be better if everything were above board and gardaí were given the same rights as other workers? Most workers do not strike. The right to strike is the ultimate sanction on the part of employees and it is also a negotiating tool, which enables them to highlight their cause. It is not lightly used by anybody and members of the Garda, similar to health service staff, realise the consequences of going on strike. I presume the Minister's main concern is that the Garda would not strike.

Senator Tuffy is reasonable and is a Member of the highest probity.

She should prepare for the worst.

It would be incongruous if the Garda and the Army were trade unionised in the normal way, including having the right to strike. One could imagine the social consequences of industrial action by them. Members declare an interest when contributing to debates relevant to their nominating bodies. There is an onus, therefore, on Labour Party Members whose party is a significant benefactor of trade unions, which disturbs many trade union members, to make a declaration in this regard. This is a serious issue, which has arisen on other occasions both here and in the Dáil.

What about declarations of socialism?

That is different and one is quite entitled to make them. The Senator is also entitled to her point of view.

The Senator is straying from the amendments.

If a Member is making a case on behalf of business, there should be an onus on him or her to make a declaration of interest. The same should apply in this instance. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The Minister's amendment allays the GRA's fears. The GRA was concerned about external association. The GRA is also associated with EuroCOP and other organisations such as the Irish Conference of Professional and Service Associations and it is important that such associations should continue openly, with the approval of the Minister. Section 13 of the Garda Act 1977 allows the Minister to decide and that is fair. The GRA is happy that the Minister should have such a right. The association is an active member of ICPSA, which nominated both myself and Senator Cummins to the Seanad. A GRA representative is honorary secretary of ICPSA, which is in contact with the other affiliate organisations.

The Minister has no intention of debarring the GRA from membership of such a reputable organisation, which nominates seven Members of the Seanad. If the original Bill were followed to its logical conclusion, the GRA could not directly contact Members.

Does that mean the Senator would no longer contribute to debates?

One is nominated by a professional body and its affiliate organisations have direct contact with its nominees to the House. We are elected by councillors and Oireachtas Members.

The Minister might change his mind.

The Minister's officials will meet the GRA's representatives in January. Will he confirm the meeting will take place? The GRA is happy with the Bill generally but it wishes to raise other issues. I welcome the Minister's amendment, which covers the points raised in the GRA's submission on the legislation. This ensures Senator Cummins and I will not have a difficulty meeting one of our nominating bodies. Senator Cummins will concur totally.

I have not done so yet in this Seanad.

We have not disagreed regarding the ICPSA.

I was elected to the Seanad by Oireachtas Members. However, Senator Walsh has claimed that in tabling my amendment, I should declare my membership of the Labour Party. I do not have a problem with that. If that is his interpretation of the code, Fianna Fáil Members would have to make many more declarations of party membership than would Labour Party Members.

I will not get involved in this argument. A saucer of milk will have to be produced. I welcome Senator Leyden's comments. I have indicated to the representative associations that my officials will meet them between now and Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 16, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) If any question arises whether any body or association is a trade union or association referred to insubsection (3), the question shall be determined by the Minister whose determination shall be final.
(5) The Minister—
(a) may, notwithstanding subsection (2), authorise an association established under this section to be associated with a person or body outside the Garda Síochána in such cases and in such manner and subject to such conditions or restrictions as he or she may specify, and
(b) may vary or withdraw any such authorisation.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 17, before section 19, but in Chapter 2 of the Bill, to insert the following new section:

"19—The Minister shall, in consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government shall devise a plan under which members of the Garda Síochána would be encouraged to live in RAPID areas and other deprived parts of the country.".

I will not bore the pants off Members by airing all the issues discussed earlier. I propose that the Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should provide housing assistance to young Garda recruits after they leave Templemore. It has long been accepted that it is increasingly difficult for young members of the force to afford their own homes. The advantage of such a scheme is that, similar to the practice years ago, housing would be available for young recruits. Imaginative thinking is needed on this issue. The Minister should consider, in consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, a housing scheme.

A weighting applies to public servants in London. They are given an income boost so that they can purchase houses in certain locations. We must examine a similar scheme to provide incentives for officers to live in communities. The advantages of having officers living in all areas of the community leads to greater protection and ensures the community and the force are rooted together. Some scheme should be considered.

We spoke previously about the need for gardaí, particularly young gardaí, to live in council estates and disadvantaged areas because this helps the policing of the area. The Minister has said that people with families live wherever they choose and we do not suggest it should be otherwise. However, there should be co-operation with local authorities to make houses available for young gardaí coming into the community. This would provide a Garda presence in areas where it is needed. The idea is worthwhile and should be considered. It would be useful to disperse a number of officers to various locations throughout the country. The Minister mentioned the same idea with regard to a volunteer force. This amendment proposes another way of doing it. Some monetary incentive must be given to gardaí to live in these areas. The concept of free or reduced rent should be considered.

The St. Paul's parish area of Waterford city, which I represent, is a disadvantaged area that has pushed for a Garda sub-station in the area, encompassing Ballybeg, Lisduggan, Larchfield etc. The proposed amendment would go some way towards fulfilling that need through providing a greater Garda presence in council and other estates. I urge the Minister to liaise with his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to come up with some kind of imaginative scheme to help these communities. Having gardaí in the communities would raise the profile of the force and assist communities that have not had a visible Garda presence for some time.

We have discussed the idea of the geographical presence of gardaí. However, giving cash grants to live in RAPID and deprived areas is not a way to achieve that end.

I did not suggest cash. I was talking about rent.

I mean rental supplements. It would be desirable to have members of the Garda Síochána resident in every neighbourhood, if that were possible. However, it is not that easy. Gardaí are free to choose where they want to live. It is not that easy for somebody in the Phoenix Park or St. Stephen's Green to think up some scheme to encourage them to live where they do not want to live. If we were told by somebody else that we lived in one place rather than another, we might begin to query the right of people to tell us where to live.

The suggestions we had about the reservists and recruitment criteria were probably more apt than providing rent subsidies to live in a particular area. It is an advantage for politicians to live in the area they represent. In my constituency somebody who conspicuously did not do that paid a heavy price.

I am a great believer in practising what I preach and I live in my constituency. The Minister is welcome to come and knock on my door any time he wants.

The issue of financial incentives is important. They are provided throughout the country. A teacher teaching in a Gaeltacht area gets a cash bonus in salary. I have always argued that teachers teaching in deprived communities should also get a cash bonus, because the problems with which they must cope are more difficult than those in an average school.

Does the Senator think they should live in their school's local area?

Yes, that is a worthwhile suggestion if there are schemes provided to encourage that. I suspect the Minister is inundated with requests from politicians for new Garda stations here, there and everywhere. It would be much more cost efficient to give young officers the opportunity to live in an area at a reduced rent for a period. That house would not only become a type of sub-station, but also the place where the garda lives. The Minister pointed out earlier that we used to provide accommodation quarters for members of the force, but most of those are no longer habitable.

More thought should be given to this idea. We could run a pilot scheme. As the Minister knows, young officers could not afford to live in the area in which he lives.

I do not think the answer is to provide a subsidy for them to live where they do not want to live.

I am saying that an opportunity should be provided in order to offer a better dispersal of members of the force.

They could go to Roscommon.

If they were allowed.

Allow Senator Hayes to continue without interruption.

I ask the Minister to discuss the issue with his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Many local authorities would like to take up some kind of scheme along the lines I have proposed. In parts of west Tallaght in my constituency the Garda Síochána already provides advice units in some centres two days a week. Building on that kind of initiative would be useful for the force.

The Minister has not given this proposal the consideration we hoped he would. Communities throughout the country want this. People in the area I represented for many years would love to see gardaí live in the area and to see young recruits allocated local housing. This would be of tremendous benefit to communities. I support my colleague in urging the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to consider this, even on a pilot basis. The idea should not be discarded totally because it could work. I ask the Minister to reconsider. Perhaps he could come back to us on Report Stage after discussing it with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The idea is worthy of consideration because it could solve many of the problems on housing estates throughout the country.

Such a scheme existed in the 1970s throughout the country, although I am only familiar with the one in Roscommon. All the houses in the scheme were sold on to gardaí and are now gone. Those houses were provided by the National Building Agency. The same may apply if the Minister decides to initiate a similar scheme. Senator Cummins has put a good case and in the circumstances I see no reason that the National Building Agency could not provide housing on behalf of the Office of Public Works. However, in time these would be sold to the members of the force. The housing in Roscommon was a great addition to the town because young gardaí were given houses which were sought after.

There was a slight contradiction in the Senator's argument. He did not support the Minister with regard to the reserve force. I have reservations on this also. The reserve force would ——

Senator Leyden is inviting comment again.

Senator Leyden, without interruption.

The reserve force would be part of the community and its members would live in it. The Minister's idea is to recruit the reserve force from within the community. The Minister is reasonable in his approach. The Senator's points are worth considering, particularly with regard to built up areas in cities where it is hard to get accommodation. It would be worth investigating.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
Barr
Roinn