The debate around accountability in An Garda Síochána has at times been dogged by a simplistic notion that all Northern Ireland policing oversight models are good, and all other models are bad, writes Noel Whelan
When the Garda Ombudsman Commission was first proposed a range of opposition politicians, NGOs and northern commentators argued that because Northern Ireland had one police ombudsman, it would be wrong for us to have a three-person body.
The Minister for Justice, ultimately persuaded of the value of a figurehead to personify the function in the public mind as Nuala O'Loan had done in Northern Ireland, agreed that one of the three ombudsman commission members should be designated the chairperson. As it happens, in the preparatory stage at least, it has actually been Conor Brady, rather than chairman Mr Justice Haugh, who has been the most high profile member of the ombudsman commission - an understandable division of labour given Brady's media background.
Quibbling over the name was followed by an assertion that our Ombudsman Commission has fewer powers than its Northern Ireland equivalent. In fact, it has been given similar and, in some respects, even greater powers.
Now it is being suggested that since Northern Ireland has a policing board the Republic must have one too. This view is advanced with no regard to the almost unique circumstances which gave rise to the policing board model in Northern Ireland, or the particular factors which have rendered it so successful.
Occasionally the phrase police authority is substituted for policing board as if they were interchangeable, despite the fact that the models are entirely different in composition and function.
In Northern Ireland the policing board is made up of 19 members who are appointed by the Secretary of State.
Currently, eight of those members are politicians nominated by the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the remaining 11 are independent members selected by an open competition.
There are many reasons why a similar model would be unsuitable in the Republic.
If replicated here Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael would dominate the political section of the policing board, Labour would get a small number of seats and the combined Dáil representation of PDs, Greens, Sinn Féin and independents would be lucky to have even one member. The remaining members would be nominated, presumably by Michael McDowell which, even after an open application process, is unlikely to be acceptable to those who argue for more accountability.
One of the reasons the Northern Ireland Policing Board has been so prominent and effective is because much of its existence has coincide with a period when there has been no working parliamentary Assembly.
Even when the Assembly was sitting, it had no powers over policing issues and direct political responsibility for policing policy was held, and still is held, by London-appointed ministers. If the Northern Ireland Assembly is ever fully operational again and one or two local ministers are responsible for policing, it will be fascinating to watch whether the Police Board retains its current profile and relevance.
By comparison, in the Republic the Minister for Justice is responsible for most of the functions which might be given over to a policing board or authority.
For these he is directly answerable to a functioning parliament. He must reply to Dáil questions, appear before the Justice committee and participate in regular Dáil and Senate debates on policing and crime. In addition, the Garda Commissioner can be called before Oireachtas committees to account for matters of general management of the force and for its budget.
There have been few attempts to tease out how precisely a policing authority or board would operate in the Republic. In June, the Labour Party's Brendan Howlin published a set of proposals for what in practice would actually be a distorted and watered down version of the models used in both Northern Ireland and Britain. His proposed police authority would not include any politicians.
It would instead be made up entirely of representatives of "civic society". All the members would be appointed by the Government, albeit after a Dáil committee had reviewed the nominations. This authority would then operate within what would appear from Howlin's document to be a very complex and confused web of oversight stretched across the policing authority, a Dáil committee and the Minister.
The Opposition's enthusiasm for a police authority contrasts sharply with their criticism of the blurring of ministerial accountability for other public services.
The Opposition has regularly complained that since the Health Service Executive has been established, the Tánaiste no longer takes parliamentary questions on specific health enquiries but confines herself solely to policy issues.
Only last week John Gormley bemoaned the Tánaiste's failure to respond to his press release about a HSE computer contract and instead his media exchanges were with a senior health service official. No doubt there would be similar complaints if Opposition concerns about a digital radio system for the gardaí were dealt with by the police authority rather than the Minister for Justice.
We already have a police authority in the Republic. It has 166 members and is called Dáil Éireann. They have all been appointed in a very open and transparent process called an election and they directly represent all of "civic society".
Whether it is the particular perspective which Tony Gregory can bring to the inner city drugs problem or the insight into rural crime which country deputies get at their clinics, the Dáil has considerable experience and skills to apply to police accountability.
The urgent task of overhauling An Garda Síochána is a responsibility which should lie with the Minister for Justice and with the Dáil. Neither of them should be allowed to duck it or pass it over to some appointed body.