Deputy Pringle was in possession.
Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I will pick up from where I finished the last day. There is no clarity in this legislation as to how oversight and accountability are to be achieved in practice, despite the fact that one of its aims is to simplify accountability structures. Among some of these new bodies, the Bill provides for the establishment of a board. I believe this is a backward step, and not only for the duplication and accountability reasons I have outlined. The board will not be as independent or as transparent as it should be, and it will conduct its activities in private, which is very wrong. Although it is important that internal governance structures are strong, we still need to ensure external, independent input into and oversight of these key matters of governance. Police governance and accountability should be transparent, and agendas and reports should be published.
We know, following numerous scandals, that key oversight and governance functions were moved from the Minister to the Policing Authority to depoliticise policing in Ireland, which is very necessary. However, the legislation looks to move these to a board that will be internal to An Garda Síochána, with a number of powers being returned to the Minister. This is even less independent than before these scandals and it reflects the Government’s intention to repoliticise policing. In my own county of Donegal, in particular, where a number of investigations took place, the only concern of the State and the relevant bodies was to ensure that the perception was that it was in Donegal only and that these things only happened up there, when we knew they were happening across the board throughout country. It was not only Garda management that wanted to do that; the Department of Justice also wanted to make sure of that.
I believe this is rowing back from that, which is wrong. These things will happen again. That is not in doubt. It is as certain as night follows day that these things will happen again and this legislation strengthens the cover-up that will take place.
Instead of establishing a board, we should look at strengthening the power of the authority, which has actually done a good job of depoliticising policing in this country, and assigning more of a budget to it. The authority should also continue with its role in appointing the Garda Commissioner and deputy Garda Commissioner. The legislation will make these government appointments again, with the authority and board merely consulted, which is a backwards step. The Group of States against Corruption, GRECO, has recommended the independent appointment of the chief of law enforcement agencies as political appointments can be a corruption risk. Imagine that. Imagine political appointments being a corruption risk. That would never happen in Ireland. This is a serious concern of mine. Even if the Minister did appoint someone who is independent, that person would have an inclination, even if subconscious, to please the Minister in his or her work.
It is also problematic that the Minister is the only person who can dismiss the Commissioner and that inquiries into the performance of the Commissioner’s functions will be under the control of the Government. This again feeds into the fact that the Commissioner will then feel the need, either consciously or subconsciously, to please the Minister or risk the possibility of losing his or her job. It could very easily become the case that the Commissioner would see himself or herself as accountable only to the Minister and the Government. We have seen cases even in the recent past where An Garda Síochána informed a Minister of certain actions by a Member of this House. The Minister was then able to use that information to his own ends, which is wrong and should never happen. We should put in place structures to ensure it does not happen rather than facilitating it happening again in the future, which is what we are doing here. We should also be removing these powers and rights from the Minister and the Department of Justice because they undermine policing right across the board in this State.
I again call for these powers to remain with the authority and for the authority’s remit to be expanded. The authority, as the oversight body, has the greatest perspective on how the Commissioner is performing his or her functions. The authority should also continue its role in overseeing the delivery of the service plan, a role it has had since it was established. I note this legislation seeks to bring the form and manner of the service plan back within the control of the Minister.
I also find the Minister’s role in determining whether a particular matter is one of policing and security, as outlined in this legislation, deeply problematic. This distinction should not be politicised and it should not be for the Minister to determine whether a matter is one of policing or security. This demonstrates a further attempt to repoliticise policing and it should be taken out of the legislation as soon as possible.
I am also very disappointed that the Bill retains the power of An Garda Síochána to investigate and conduct prosecutions. This is direct contravention of the recommendation of the commission. Gardaí should no longer prosecute offences. It is a complete waste of resources, particularly when resources are as much of a topical issue as they are at present. Gardaí are not appropriately trained or qualified for this role and forcing gardaí to do additional functions undermines policing as a profession. It also completely blurs roles and the separation of powers to have those who investigate crimes prosecute them as well.
This legislation missed a great opportunity to provide for a trauma-informed approach within policing. A trauma-informed approach would lead to a greater understanding of the needs of those interacting with An Garda Síochána, more effective interventions and greater confidence in policing. The Bill also missed the opportunity to ensure a more diverse Policing Authority. Consideration should be given to broader diversity in the membership of the authority. At the minute, only gender is considered.
It is vitally important that unions are involved in consultation when legislation has the potential to affect their members so I would like to echo Fórsa’s concerns about the definition of Garda personnel and the removal of the separate titles "Garda member" and "Garda staff", which will change staff from civil servants to public servants without any consultation with the union.
Section 9 should include community safety as a function of An Garda Síochána, in line with the commission’s report. I note that, despite the fact that the term "community safety" is used throughout the Bill, including in the Title, there is no definition of "community safety" in the legislation. It is as if it is just something that everybody should understand. This is problematic given that it is such a fundamental concept to so much of this Bill. Will different bodies have to decide for themselves what comes under community safety? What if these bodies have differing opinions? How can they work to this concept when they are potentially working off different definitions? I find it amazing that this has not been thought of and I urge the Government to reconsider this before disputes and complications arise as a result.
The Bill has a lot of good elements but provisions on security and oversight need to be strengthened. There are many examples of the repoliticisation of policing in this legislation and I take this opportunity to voice my strong opposition to this. Politicising policing is not the way forward. That is not the way we should be doing things in this day and age. We should be making sure the Policing Authority is independent, acts independently and has upholding the law and the Irish Constitution at heart rather than upholding the political will of the Government or aiding members of Government who happen to be in control of the authority in their political aspirations. Allowing that would be a retrograde step. This legislation will give the Minister many new powers including, but not limited to, powers related to policing plans, strategic plans and senior appointments. This reflects a backwards step for policing in this country and it is extremely disappointing that many opportunities for significant policing reform have been missed. We will come to regret missing those opportunities in the future if this legislation goes through. We will see a repeat of what happened in Donegal and all around the country and we will have more investigations. That is just wrong and this is an opportunity that is going to be missed.
I followed this debate online and on TV when it was on previously so I am delighted to have some time to contribute to it myself. The importance of this Bill cannot be underestimated or understated. It sets in motion the conditions for a modern framework for policing with a view to improving performance and accountability within An Garda Síochána. It is the outworking of the report of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland, a report which followed wide consultation across the State. I attended a meeting in Thomond Park in January 2018 as part of that consultation. Of course, there were, and continue to be, some concerns about the Bill but, on the whole, it is a welcome introduction and should aid in modernising our local police force.
The establishment of a new framework for governance and oversight is extremely welcome. The Bill establishes a recognisable structure, which will allow for better accountability in respect of policing in this State. I welcome this proposal contained within the Bill and also acknowledge as a positive step the creation of a CEO-type position for the Garda Commissioner, allowing whoever is selected for that role to drive reform within An Garda Síochána in respect of workforce planning, human resources, industrial relations and finance. These powers are accompanied by better governance and accountability through the establishment of the board of An Garda Síochána.
External oversight will be added to by the creation of the policing and community safety authority and, of course, an ombudsman. The policing and community safety authority is particularly welcome as it will streamline and merge the various functions of the Policing Authority and the Garda Inspectorate. While it will not have responsibility for executive functions, it will streamline the oversight bodies and maintain a function of oversight over the performance of gardaí. I hope it will work well. The replacement of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, with an ombudsman-deputy ombudsman model will be met with some hesitation by the public but ultimately may serve as a better model. I hope and believe it will because many people do not have much confidence in GSOC's ability to resolve the issues they have brought to it. I hope a named person will make the service more publicly identifiable and that it will also have a larger remit with regard to the types of alleged wrongdoing it will have the power to investigate.
The recognition of community safety as a key tenet of the modernised police force is an additional positive step and recognises that a great deal of the work of gardaí involves dealing with those in our society who are particularly vulnerable and who may not necessarily be involved in criminal activity. I will highlight a recently announced initiative of An Garda Síochána in my constituency of Limerick City. Gardaí will work to support those found using crack cocaine through the adoption of a more holistic approach, referring them, with their permission, to the Ana Liffey team with the hope of helping them to deal with their addiction issues. I understand the law engagement and assisted recovery project has been quite successful in Dublin since its inception in 2014 and I welcome its extension to Limerick. One of the most notable and problematic developments in Limerick during the years of the Covid pandemic was the rise in the use of crack cocaine. I have raised my concerns about this issue in this Chamber on many occasions over recent years. The type of work An Garda Síochána does through projects such as the law engagement and assisted recovery, LEAR, project is often unseen and unreported but this type of work that gardaí do matters a great deal and is to the betterment of our society. The recognition that this type of policing is not just the responsibility of An Garda Síochána alone is very important.
Another prime example of how effective joint operations can be is the launch in March 2021 of Operation Copóg in Limerick, which involves collaboration between Limerick City and County Council and An Garda Síochána. The operation ended on 4 September 2020 and made a significant dent in the operation of a drugs gang in the St. Mary's Park area of our city of Limerick.
While all the problems have not been resolved, good progress has been made. This joint initiative between Limerick City and County Council and the Garda was established as a response to feedback from stakeholders, me and, most important, residents of St. Mary's Park who have had enough of the ongoing drug dealing in their area for years. The operation had many successes. Derelict sites that had been used to store illegal drugs were boarded up and, where necessary, demolished and the Garda conducted operations that dealt a financial blow to the drug gangs in the area. During the term of the operation, millions of euro in illegal drugs and cash were seized, with €2.8 million seized in the first seven months alone. In addition, 61 people were arrested on suspicion of the sale and supply of illegal drugs in the first year and 49 vehicles were seized in the same period.
While the operation officially ended on 4 September, the pressure has been kept up in the area. It culminated this week in the shuttering of what was colloquially referred to as a drug supermarket in the area. It was great to see it closed down this week.
I record my appreciation to the Limerick local authority and An Garda Síochána for their work on Operation Copóg. I also acknowledge the engagement the Garda undertook with me, local residents and others so that the residents of the area could be kept abreast of the operation's progress. This type of policing, reacting to the concerns of residents, is most welcome and long overdue. Long may it continue.
Unfortunately, there remain many issues in the area. I hope we will see more of the positive interventions needed to support the local community and the ongoing regeneration programme in the area. While it has been delayed, I hope we will soon see the Garda, in conjunction with paramedics and the HSE, operate a 24-7 de-escalation unit in support of those with mental health challenges in my constituency. These are the types of initiatives that may not grab the headlines but they are crucial life-saving measures in which we can be proud to have our police force involved. From my discussions with the local joint policing committee, Garda management seems fully committed to supporting this new unit and local gardaí are being trained in how best to support those with whom the de-escalation team will deal.
The creation of a policing and community safety authority that includes an inspection function and powers that include the ability to conduct unannounced visits to Garda premises will be a positive development ensuring greater oversight and accountability within An Garda Síochána. These, in the main, are the positive steps. I look forward to the implementation and establishment of the new bodies.
It is my hope that these changes will come with a renewed emphasis on community policing. In Limerick, we are seeing a dramatic reduction in the numbers of community gardaí. As a result, some local communities lack a Garda presence. This problem needs to be addressed. We are failing on that issue, which must be addressed as soon as possible. The lack of community trust and of a visible Garda presence has allowed drug dealers and their gangs to proliferate and thrive in some of our areas. The preventative work the community gardaí can do is immeasurable and the lack of such a presence in communities has allowed some to be lured by the temptation of drug dealing and its accompanied wealth.
In the round, Sinn Féin very much welcomes this Bill.
I very much welcome this Bill. It is hugely significant legislation and one of the longest Bills that has come before us. Yesterday, we were dealing with one of the shortest Bills to come before us, which was to get rid of charges in hospital. This one has 268 pages, ten Parts, 293 sections and seven Schedules. The explanatory memorandum alone is 58 pages long. I welcome the Bill and acknowledge the huge work that has gone into its preparation.
I acknowledge that there was pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill as I often condemn when it is not done, so well done on that. As usual, I thank the Library and Research Service for its work. I thank the committee that published a report, on which Deputy Pringle served as the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach.
The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, have welcomed the Bill. The Garda Ombudsman described it as a "significant step forward in addressing a clearly-defined, and long-signalled, gap in Ireland's policing accountability infrastructure". That is a delicate way of putting it. In particular, it welcomes provisions in the Bill that strengthen the independence and both expand and clarify the remit of the office of the police ombudsman. All of that is positive. However, GSOC has ongoing serious concerns. The Bill misses the opportunity to embed institutional independence in the new body, as envisaged in the report of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland, which was published in 2018, and as set out in the Council of Europe's Venice principles. Full institutional independence should, in GSOC's view, be the fundamental foundation upon which any proper oversight body is built and its absence is likely to diminish the status of the office. These are concerns that should be taken on board. They have also been expressed by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.
I welcome that the Bill requires the office of the police ombudsman to perform its functions in a timely and effective manner. It is a good obligation but there is no quid pro quo here. The Bill does not impose a corresponding obligation on other key actors, not least An Garda Síochána in its dealings with the police ombudsman.
If the new police ombudsman is to succeed in fulfilling its expanded remit, it will require a significant amount of resources. That is important because GSOC, in its annual reports, has repeatedly highlighted the lack of resources. As mentioned, this was identified as necessary by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. The target date for the implementation of the commission's recommendations was last year. We are now behind schedule but they are going through this year.
The Bill will repeal the Garda Síochána Act 2005, which, at the time, was significant reforming legislation. The Act provided for the establishment of GSOC and the Garda Inspectorate. What forced that change? It was made on foot of the Morris tribunal. The last time I looked, the cost of the tribunal was €70 million and rising. That is what it cost for this institution to draw the conclusion that the level of corruption and the significant problems identified were confined to Donegal. We failed to learn from that.
I have said previously that the Garda Síochána Complaints Board was ineffective. That was set up as a result of the Kerry babies tribunal. The Bill comes on foot of almost four decades of serious Garda controversies and reactive efforts at reform in response to different crises. These have always been reactive and never proactive. This is the first time we will pass proactive legislation, albeit with significant problems in terms of accountability.
We had the Kerry babies tribunal 39 years ago. I invite everyone to read A Woman to Blame by Nell McCafferty, which has stood the test of time. A tribunal set up to investigate the police ended up investigating an innocent woman and holding her to account, which was not the purpose at the time. It was a shocking indictment of the system. The tribunal - the judge, solicitors, barristers and Garda inspectors and superintendents - was all male, with not a woman in sight, as it held an innocent woman to account. It led to the establishment of the complaints board, which was subsequently found to be totally inadequate.
The Bill, under three headings, provides for a new governance and oversight framework for policing, the establishment of the office of the police ombudsman to replace GSOC with an expanded remit, the establishment of a new policing and community safety authority, which will merge the existing Garda Inspectorate and the Policing Authority, and a section on security. For the first time, we will have an office of the independent examiner of security legislation to strengthen the national security remit, which I welcome. I am no expert but I take the expertise of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and GSOC, both of which have highlighted gaps in this area. We are looking at community and a whole-of-government responsibility. I welcome that but I tremble when I see it because when we make something a whole-of-government response, as with housing and climate change, we end up not meeting targets. While a whole-of-government response is welcome, how do we ensure it is operational on the ground?
The Bill also places an obligation on Departments and other public bodies to co-operate and communicate.
I am not sure if I will have enough time to do so but I will briefly look at 39 years of Garda controversies and the reactive efforts that have led us here today. As I mentioned, we had the Kerry babies tribunal, which led to the establishment of the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, which was not effective to put it mildly. In the 1990s and 2000s we had the Morris tribunal. Let me refer to what Justice Charleton has said about the Morris tribunal, and he is still ongoing in his disclosures. I am reading from the third interim report of the tribunal of inquiry into protected disclosures. He says:
This tribunal has been about calling that police force to account. The Morris Tribunal was about the same thing. The commission of investigation conducted by Mr Justice Kevin O’Higgins, [which was my first introduction to the Dáil in 2016]... was about the same thing. Central to these inquiries has been the truth.
He goes on to state: "The gardaí offered no criticism of themselves." I admit that I am picking and choosing comments and I will balance it by saying that Mr. Justice Charleton also acknowledges that: "Our police force is a resource of brilliant men and women." However, he also sets out that management and certain elements of the Garda utterly failed to reflect on themselves or change. He said: "How dispiriting it must be for [these good men and women]... what is detailed in this report... They are crying out for leadership." He goes on to state: "A cultural shift requiring respect for the truth is needed." He continues:
Central to those issues is a mentality problem. Where a problem occurs, strongly self-identifying organisations can have a self-protective tendency. That, regrettably, also describes An Garda Síochána. It is beyond a pity that it took independent inquiries to identify obvious problems with what Maurice McCabe was reporting.
Considering the service Maurice McCabe has done to this country, we cannot mention his name often enough. Mr. Justice Charleton goes on to talk about the difficulty of extracting the truth and it is worth quoting what he says about that. He states: "In relation to the matters at issue in these reports, it has been a dreadful struggle to attempt to uncover what may have gone on behind closed doors." I admit again that I am selectively choosing from this but the report is worth reading. He says:
Public relations speak as a substitute for plain speaking is an affront to the duty of our police force to be accountable. The correct approach for an organisation is to enable those who are expert on a subject to speak on its behalf.
There is a lesson in that for all of us, and certainly for the Government, about public relations. Charleton helpfully goes on to tell us about the obligations on gardaí. He says:
The first obligation of gardaí is to take pride in their work and in their uniform... The second obligation of gardaí [can you imagine] is to always be honest.
He goes on to say that the third, fourth and fifth obligations, respectively are "to be visible", "to be polite" and "to serve the people of Ireland". That applies to all us as public servants. It applies to the local authorities, in particular, and the management of local authorities have forgotten that as they have taken on the corporate mantle that they are there to serve. However, this situation also applies to the Garda. Charleton continues:
The sixth obligation of gardaí is cast on the organisation as a whole. The organisation must treat their obligation to the public as superior to any false sense that individual policemen and policewomen should stick up for each other.
Does the Minister of State remember all of that going on with Sergeant McCabe? Charleton continues: "The seventh obligation of gardaí is self-analysis. It should not be necessary to have a Morris Tribunal... [or] an O’Higgins Commission... [or] a Disclosures Tribunal...to have self-analysis, self-reflection and discovery." He continues: "What has been missing in the past is the command structure of An Garda Síochána calling itself to account." That is from the third interim report of the disclosures tribunal and that is only one of the interim reports from that tribunal.
Does the Minister of State remember former Garda Commissioner Callinan's accounts before the Committee of Public Accounts in that space between the Coffee Dock and going downstairs? I will not repeat the comments he made about an innocent man, which were whispered into the ear of the Comptroller and Auditor General and which subsequently became public at the tribunal when the Comptroller and Auditor General attended. We had the Cooke report about the bugging of the GSOC offices. No evidence of bugging was found but it found that there was a poor working relationship between the Garda and GSOC. We had the Fennelly Commission and so on. Then we had the revelations in 2017 of the falsification by gardaí of breath test figures, which resulted in possibly 2 million bogus breath tests being counted, although the true figure may never be known. In the same year there were 146,000 incidents of people being wrongly summoned to courts to answer fixed charges and so on. Then we had the establishment of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland, led by Kathleen O'Toole, who came up with some good recommendations and analysis, and this Bill, belatedly, is one of those recommendations.
Just in case anyone believes this is historic, in 2022 we had the publication of the independent review, commissioned by the Policing Authority, into the cancellation of over 200,000 emergency calls, 3,000 of which related to domestic violence. That is some of the background that has led us to this mammoth Bill to bring about openness and accountability. I have praised the Government for bringing forward this Bill but the Committee Stage amendments are important if the Government is seriously committed to acting on all of these tribunals and making the police force open and accountable.
GSOC has repeatedly pointed out in its annual report, year after year, including in 2007, 2013, 2014 and 2017, that it does not have enough resources. I have heard various Deputies in here criticise GSOC, wrongly in my opinion, because if they read its annual reports they would see that it has cried out for resources, over and over, and has been utterly ignored to a certain extent. The 2018 annual report of GSOC mentioned that some additional staff were finally sanctioned. What did GSOC identify as a strategic risk? It identified a lack of resourcing and it continued to do that. In case the Minister of State thinks I am going back too far, the 2021 annual report of GSOC is the most recent one available. In it GSOC identifies that resourcing is a perennial factor. I have a whole paragraph on that in front of me but time does not allow me to go into it.
That is where we are so what do we have in this Bill? I mention the concerns about a number of sections, including sections 179, 180 and 181. The office of the Garda Ombudsman said it should lay its strategy and annual report before the Dáil rather than involving a Minister who will then lay it before the Dáil. That is in keeping with good practice and it is in keeping with the practice of other agencies. On making complaints, section 192 inserts a provision for a review by a Minister and that Minister will then decide whether this is necessary at all. No later than three years after the coming into operation of this section, where all complaints made to a member of the Garda go on to the Ombudsman, the Minister will review this and decide if some complaints do not need to go forward. What is pointed out here? It goes against the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. Does the Minister of State remember why that was set up? It recommended that all complaints about the police should be put through the Ombudsman's office to determine what actions need to be taken. If this section is left as is it will interfere with the independence of the Ombudsman, the very thing the Government is supposed to be strengthening.
Section 203 concerns the "Investigation of matters relating to Garda Commissioner by Police Ombudsman", and will require Ministerial approval. Good Lord. This is not in keeping with the recommendation of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. Section 207 concerns: "Search of Garda Síochána premises". The section states that a warrant must be obtained, which is welcome, but it states that the search must be approved by the Garda Commissioner prior to the application to ensure there are no State security issues. Subsection 14 mentions: "Where the Garda Commissioner objects to a search of a Garda Síochána premises for..." reasons of State security, which is a broad and nebulous concept that can be used as elastically as we want. That is a huge problem for me but more importantly it is a huge problem for GSOC and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL. Subsection 15(b) mentions "the death of, or serious harm to a person" and GSOC is concerned that this provision is limited so narrowly to "death...or serious harm" and does not cover criminal activity by the Garda, such as corruption.
Section 221 concerns: "Review by Police Ombudsman" of its decisions and states that this review should be carried out by a person who is independent of the decision.
I have mentioned already that the Bill rightly requires the office of the police ombudsman to conduct investigations in a timely manner, but there is no corresponding obligation on other agencies, especially An Garda Síochána.
I understand the pre-legislative report recommended that the term "incidents of concern" be more clearly defined. Section 189 defines an incident of concern as where a garda:
may have—
(I) committed an offence, or
(II) behaved in a manner that constitutes notifiable misconduct;
GSOC and the ICCL have concerns that the remit of the office of the police ombudsman is limited with regard to incidents of concern. According to GSOC - and I fully agree - some incidents may be of relevance to public confidence. That is absolutely the case. Confidence and public perception are hugely important in policing but would not be notifiable or constitute misconduct. They say that all incidents of concern should be notifiable. The Garda Commissioner is not required to notify the police ombudsman under section 200(6) if it would be "prejudicial to the security of the State" to do so. That is far too broad.
In my opening remarks I forgot to pay tribute to Vicky Conway. I note that Vicky Conway and Eddie Molloy opposed the creation of the board that is being set up. I mention her in particular for all her work, including her work on the Policing Authority. She was a breath of fresh air and a voice for human rights, for proportionality and for equality. She absolutely deserves our praise.
The first board will be entirely made up of ministerial appointees. Many question marks come with that. The new Bill reduces the role of oversight bodies in the appointment of the Commissioner.
I have a lot of concern about the proficiency or lack of it in the Irish language of the gardaí atá ag obair nó a bheidh ag obair sna ceantair Ghaeltachta. Under section 33(3), "The Garda Commissioner shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that members of garda personnel" are "sufficiently competent in the Irish language". We know from the Coimisinéir Teanga's indictment of the failure to deal with Irish speakers in Donegal that the phrase "to the extent practicable" has not helped to date. It took him ten years and in desperation and frustration that coimisinéir, who is now gone or is about to go, had to lay the report before the Dáil to bring it to our attention. We are now enshrining something that has utterly failed in the past.
There is a change in the status of civilian staff. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about this, but I note the serious concerns of the union and staff - and especially of Fórsa - about this aspect of the Bill, which I ask the Minister of State to consider. There are some concerns about the independent examiner of security legislation. The powers of prosecution were to go from An Garda Síochána but that has not happened in this Bill. It is a missed opportunity. Perhaps the legislation is too big and it could not be included but certainly I would like a deadline to be set for when that necessary legislation will come before us.
I will finish with human rights. The ICCL recommends that the Garda code of ethics should include a reference to the human rights standards that are expected of Garda members and staff. It also recommends that it be made into a disciplinary code. Again, that is not included in the Bill.
Ní bheidh mé ag tógáil an ama go léir. Tá áthas orm labhairt ar an mBille seo inniu.
All of us will have received the assessment of the Bill's strengths and weaknesses from GSOC. I hope the analysis will inform the debate and the Government's approach to any amendments that may be made to this important Bill. GSOC has stated that its primary concern is that the draft legislation has not fully embraced the principle of institutional independence that should underpin an ombudsman's office. GSOC is further concerned that this Bill still imposes a degree of ministerial and occasionally Garda involvement in the governance and operations of the police ombudsman. That is not consistent with the independence envisaged in the report of the Commission on the Future of Policing. That is a key issue. I accept there must be some interaction and involvement between the Department of Justice, the Government and GSOC but if we are to have an office of ombudsman or civilian oversight of An Garda Síochána, let us have one that can do its job in the most effective way possible.
I will focus on the issue of community safety, which is a growing concern for many people. Antisocial behaviour is at all-time record levels. Drug use and intimidation are rampant in some communities. The elderly feel exposed and terrified. Farmers in isolated areas feel threatened by the lack of local gardaí or a strong Garda presence. I welcome the reopening of Garda stations in my constituency such as in Rhode and Daingean, County Offaly. That is positive news, but a stronger Garda presence and an increase in the operational hours of Garda stations must be prioritised in rural towns and villages in my constituency such as Kilcormac, Clonaslee, Mountmellick and Kinnitty where there are growing populations. This issue must be addressed and can only be addressed if An Garda Síochána is given sufficient resources. I am aware it is quite stretched at present when trying to cover rural areas. However, it must happen. It must be looked at. Where we have growing populations, we must see increased operational hours of Garda stations and, as I mentioned earlier, a much stronger Garda presence.
I am aware that section 106 of this Bill deals with a national strategy for improving community safety. Section 106(4) provides:
The Minister shall, [in] the preparation ... of a national strategy ... consult ... with—
(a) the Authority, and
(b) such persons or groups representing community interests as he or she considers appropriate.
I hope this will include the widest degree possible of varying viewpoints which should all be respected. We have seen in recent months how quick the Government has been to demonise groups such as those in East Wall and other protesters who have concerns around safety. We know from the Minister's Department's briefing paper on community safety that local community safety partnership, LCSPs, will bring all services and the community together at local authority level, replacing the existing joint policing committees, to serve as a forum for discussion and decision making on community priorities. As I understand it, it is intended that membership of the LCSPs will include residents; community representatives, including representatives of youth, new communities and the voluntary sector; businesses and education representatives; relevant public services in the area, including the HSE, Tusla and An Garda Síochána; and the local authority and local county councillors. I have some concerns that such a forum might be overly complex and subject to institutional dominance by agencies such as the HSE and An Garda Síochána.
I accept that residents will be central and it is only right that they be there to identify problems and solutions for the their communities. The new partnerships will have a 51%:49% split in favour of local residents and community representatives on the committee. I hope that balance can be maintained and, more importantly, that the views of locals are prioritised and not simply listened to and dismissed. Any forum that is set up must have a meaningful impact on rural communities and constituencies. It must take on board the concerns of those communities and more importantly, it must act on those concerns. Speaking from my experience of my constituency in Laois-Offaly, I know there are many concerns and there is a need for a stronger Garda presence. I hope the policing model which has been referred to many times in this House will be fully implemented. We are not seeing it enacted in full force. I certainly hope that resources will be put in place to allow that community policing model to take effect as I believe it would be effective and helpful in rural constituencies such as my constituency of Laois-Offaly.
I thank the Deputies for their valuable contributions on this important Bill. I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Harris. The Minister and I are determined to make our communities safer through measures and supports to prevent crime and harm, particularly to individuals who are vulnerable and at risk. We are also committed to ensuring robust frameworks for governance, oversight and accountability of An Garda Síochána, as well as effective oversight of national security arrangements in this State.
Turning to some of the issues mentioned in the debate, I will first deal with the respective roles of the proposed new non-executive board of An Garda Síochána and the policy and community safety authority. The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the management and internal governance of An Garda Síochána, which is one of our most critical services with a large budget of more than €2 billion and a large and growing workforce. It is essential that it has effective governance structures. While the board's role is to hold the Garda Commissioner to account, it is also to provide support to the Commissioner and the senior leadership team and shoulder some of the burden of leading a large organisation. The board will not be a substitute for robust external oversight of An Garda Síochána. That will be the job of the new body, the policy and community safety authority. I also note that the board will not cut across the independence of the Garda Commissioner, which is provided for in section 34 of the Bill.
Regarding the proposed new authority, it is important to note that the commission's report does not recommend the abolition of the policing authority or its functions and does not recommend or imply any dilution of oversight or scrutiny of policing. On the contrary, the commission's report explicitly recognises the unique nature of policing and the importance of independent oversight in that context. The commission's report recommended combining and expanding the work of the Policing Authority and the Garda Inspectorate under a single umbrella oversight body, and this is provided for in the Bill. The report is clear that the functions of this body would involve transparent scrutiny of policing, including through public meetings with An Garda Síochána, the opportunities presented by social media and other forms of meaningful engagement.
Responsibilities will also include an enhancement of the inspection function, a focus on benchmarking professional standards of policing and a role in promoting the inter-agency co-operation central to the transformation of policing in Ireland. The commission report also recommended that the responsibility for appointments, including senior appointments, within An Garda Síochána, should move to being the responsibility of the organisation itself under the leadership of the Commissioner and the scrutiny of the board. Its view was that it is not appropriate for an agency responsible for oversight to also have responsibility for managing appointments. I acknowledge that two of the 11 members of the commission were unable to support these new structures, but the Government has agreed with the recommendation of the commission report in this area. Regarding the new structures proposed in the commission report for the prosecution of offences, the Government accepted the commission's recommendations in principle, subject to further detailed analysis, including the cost to the Exchequer.
The report recommended that all prosecution decisions be given to an expanded State solicitor or national prosecution service. A high-level review group was established in September 2020, tasked specifically with reviewing the role of An Garda Síochána in the public prosecution system. The group is chaired by the former Secretary General to the Government, Mr. Dermot McCarthy, and is comprised of representatives from Government Departments, the Judiciary, An Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecution's office, the State Solicitors Association, the NGO sector, academics and legal practitioners. The Minister has received the report and is currently considering it. He hopes to bring it to the Government in the next few weeks. In the Bill, it was necessary to restate the existing law as set out in section 8 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, pending the report of the group and the Government’s consideration of it.
I acknowledge the concerns of current Garda staff regarding the proposals in this Bill. I reassure existing Garda staff that there will be no changes to their terms and conditions, including their status as civil servants of the Government, when the Bill is commenced. Any such changes can only take place on foot of further detailed engagement with the recognised trade unions concerned, Fórsa and the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants, AHCPS, through the normal industrial relations structures. The Department has already engaged with Fórsa and AHCPS in relation to their members’ concerns and I can confirm that these discussions will continue.
I acknowledge Deputies’ comments regarding the need for both a robust framework of accountability through the new police ombudsman and improved structures for efficient processing of complaints. As recognised by the commission's report, the arrangements for handling complaints and the investigation of allegations of wrongdoing on the part of members of An Garda Síochána are cumbersome and inefficient. This serves no one - neither complainants, members of An Garda Síochána nor GSOC. The Bill overhauls these arrangements to support timely, more transparent and effective resolution. There has been extensive consultation with both the Garda Commissioner and GSOC in devising the proposals contained in the Bill, with the aim of reconciling the concerns of both agencies. This includes the issue of the appropriate level of consultation with the Commissioner and review by the District Court and, where appropriate, the new office of independent examiner when seeking to search Garda premises. These have been carefully devised with assistance from the Attorney General. There will be scope for detailed consideration of the proposals outlined in the Bill in this area on Committee Stage.
I note the contributions of Deputies in relation to the new office of independent examiner for security legislation. The role will be filled by a higher court judge, which will provide guarantees of independence and impartiality. It is worth noting that the existing oversight judges for the purpose of examining the use of interception and surveillance powers are serving High Court judges. The proposed independent examiner will have access to information relating to some of the most sensitive matters relating to national security. This access includes access to documentation, data and personnel, including dedicated interviews and meetings for the purpose of independent review. There are narrow circumstances in which the examiner may be restricted in accessing information. Those restrictions were carefully considered and apply primarily to operational material in the cases of covert human intelligence sources and to safeguard international intelligence sources. The purpose of this is to ensure that the State can safeguard international intelligence sources or conceal the identity of a person, where revealing their identity might endanger their life or safety. In his or her annual reporting, the examiner can comment on any aspect of his or her functions, including the use of such restrictions by information holders.
There were some specific queries from Deputies on certain issues, including vetting for council housing where sexual crimes are an issue and the theft of vehicles. I have asked my officials to prepare detailed replies on these points for the Deputies concerned.
In summing up, I would like to recognise and thank Ms Kathleen O’Toole and her fellow members of the Commission on the Future of Policing, whose 2018 report has formed the basis for the proposals outlined in this Bill. I pay particular tribute to Dr. Vicky Conway, a member of the commission who sadly passed away last year. I also thank the members of the Joint Committee on Justice for their work during the pre-legislative scrutiny process. A number of the committee’s recommendations informed changes in the development of this Bill. I also acknowledge the input of the various policing bodies, interested unions and associations, and other interested persons and groups who took part in the pre-legislative scrutiny process. My overall assessment is that this Bill is well researched, balanced and proportionate. There will be an opportunity to tease out many of the issues discussed in the debate. I thank the Deputies for their contributions and look forward to positive discussion on the detailed provisions of this Bill on Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.