I think I had just finished speaking to the amendment. Therefore, I will hand over to Minister for a response, if that is okay. If she needs me to go back over any of the notes as a reminder, I am happy to do that.
Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages
SECTION 72
Debate resumed on amendment No. 50:
In page 71, to delete lines 5 and 6.
(-Senator Lynn Ruane)
I will give everyone a moment to settle in.
As the amendments are grouped, I have a more general response.
Amendment No. 50 relates to section 72. It sets out the standard terms under which the Commissioner is required to appear before the committees.
Amendment No. 51 is similar and sets out the terms under which the Commissioner is required to appear before a committee other than the public accounts committee.
Amendment No. 66 relates to the director of the national office before the Oireachtas committees as well.
Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 relate to the accountability for accounts of authority under section 140, in particular the attendance of chief executive of the authority before the Oireachtas committees.
Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 concern section 187 of the Bill and relate to accountability for accounts for the police ombudsman and attendance of the police ombudsman before the Oireachtas committees.
While all of the amendments concern different offices, they all have the same effect overall. Each of the sections concerned currently contains a provision that ensures the relevant officeholders shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government, a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies. That is, not allowing them to get into not just the policy itself but the detail of it and the potential implications of that policy on any individual or any potential cases. In the first instance, there are standard provisions across the Statute Book appearing in various enactments, mainly in section 15 of the compellability of witnesses Act 1997.
Second, some of the officeholders in question, the Commissioner and police ombudsman in particular, have specific functions with regard to their organisations. It is the Minister and the Government as whole who are responsible on any matter of policy, not the individual officeholder. Therefore, it is appropriate that these officials would not have any ability to speak about such policies before an Oireachtas committee.
Finally, the provision helps ensure that appearances before the Committee of Public Accounts or any other committee of Government are focused upon the subject matter in hand, with those present providing the most professional and helpful response possible to the committee in each case, which I know all of us try to do.
It is for this reason that I cannot support these amendments. The standards set out already in the Statute Book make sure that those coming before the committee, in particular the Commissioner and ombudsman, cannot get into levels of detail around policy and individuals. That in itself means that they cannot comment on specific cases, interfere in cases or seek to direct any particular case that might be ongoing about any individual or any specific case relating to policy. It is for that reason I will not be accepting these amendments.
How stands amendment No. 50?
I will press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 72 agreed to.
SECTION 73
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 72, to delete lines 1 and 2.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 73 agreed to.
Section 74 agreed to.
SECTION 75
Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are related and may be discussed by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 52:
In page 73, line 15, after “on” to insert “governance and”.
This amendment concerns section 75 of Bill, which sets out the functions of the audit committee of the proposed new Garda board. Its purpose is to align the provisions in subsections (1)(c) and (2)(b) with those in subsection (1)(a) with regard to what matters the audit committee will provide advice on. As currently drafted, the committee will advise the Garda Commissioner on governance and financial matters but only advise the board on financial matters. This amendment simply ensures that the audit committee will also advise the board on governance matters and therefore proposes that the word “governance” is added to subsection (1)(c) and subsection (2)(b). This is considered appropriate because a committee of the board should advise the board on all of its findings, whether they be financial, governance-based or otherwise.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 53:
In page 73, line 24, after “to” to insert “governance and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 75, as amended, agreed to.
Section 76 agreed to.
SECTION 77
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 75, line 5, after “concerning” to insert “the number and nature of”.
These amendments concern section 77. Section 77 of the Bill provides for the collection, compilation and storage of statistical information by the Garda Commissioner. The section as drafted provides that the "... Commissioner shall ensure that ... statistical information [in relation to] offences, criminal proceedings and the state of crime in this State [in general terms are] compiled and stored". This is not an adequate provision as statistics are of limited use if they do not provide insights into the nuances of criminal behaviour. Simply counting the number of crimes committed does not provide any useful insight into the drivers of crime and, therefore, how to prevent it. It is difficult to understand or to prove inequality in the justice process because of the failure to collect disaggregated statistics. Lack of adequate data collection is a problem across the board in public life. There was a scenario in November in which parliamentary questions were tabled by Deputies Hourigan and Ó Ríordáin in the Dáil in respect of the extent of the use of stop and search powers by An Garda Síochána. The data could not be provided by the Minister within the timeframe for a response to the parliamentary question. These parliamentary questions were tabled by the Deputies as the relevant statistical data had not been published since 2014. We know stop and search powers are regularly invoked and, occasionally, abused on the suspicion that an individual may be carrying drugs on their person either for consumption or sale. We know too that Garda personnel are reluctant to let these powers go and that this is a major stumbling block in decriminalising the drug user.
Both of these amendments aim to expand the types of data collected, compiled and stored by the commissioner. Amendment No. 54 seeks to insert an explicit reference to the number and nature of offences committed in the State. Amendment No. 55 seeks to insert a reference to data concerning the use of search powers by An Garda Síochána. There was a separate amendment which was unfortunately ruled out of order so I will speak to the section as a whole. I am still figuring out if I will oppose the section entirely. Amendment No. 56 was ruled out of order. I will not speak directly about it now but it was disappointing not to see set down in primary legislation an obligation for appropriate collection of equality data broken down by key categories including race, disability, geographic location and income. It is crucial that our statistics capture racial, gender and socioeconomic variations and patterns of crime. The section as drafted only specifies that statistical information concerning offences, criminal proceedings and the state of crime in the State should be compiled and stored. This is not an adequate provision for statistics, which are of limited use if they do not provide insights into criminal behaviour, as I said about the previous amendment.
I have spoken a lot over the years about the connections between criminality and criminal behaviour and socioeconomic disadvantage and poverty. When I speak about collecting data about race and income, etc., it is not to blame criminality on them. However, common shared aspects are often poverty, disadvantage, not being able to gain decent employment, low levels of educational attainment and living on the fringes of society, etc. Those are not the drivers but there is often commonality between those categories as the core drivers of violence in society. It is a shame to have a policing Bill that does not gather that data to act as a preventative tool and not in any way blame or highlight particular communities. It is to create preventative measures and not just look at policing because safer communities also rely heavily on prevention. We have to know what it is we are preventing, why and what types of groups are most susceptible to becoming involved in crime at any level. Pockets of research hint at what we already know - criminal behaviour is largely driven by deprivation, as I said. The Irish Penal Reform Trust has called for a significant improvement in data recording and ethnic equality monitoring. The amendment I submitted is based on one proposed by the ICCL, which has called for similar improvements. I urge the Minister to potentially bring forward her own amendments. I do not think we can because they are all being taken together. We do not have the opportunity to table amendments on the next Stage, which is unfortunate. Will the Minister comment?
I thank the Senator. I do not accept amendment No. 54 because the number and nature of something is inherent to statistics and statistical information. I do not want to duplicate what is already encompassed within the term in this Bill. It is the case that the number and nature of offences will be taken on board and captured. On amendment No. 55, the general terms used in this provision are appropriate to make sure all necessary statistics can be collected. The commissioner is not prevented from collecting further statistics including those referred to in the amendment. On stop and search, the general scheme of the An Garda Síochána Bill, which has been published, includes a new requirement to make a written record of stop and search. This will facilitate the collection of data necessary to assess the effectiveness and use of the relevant powers by Garda management and oversight bodies. It also provides for associated codes of practice to prescribe the procedures relating to the disclosure, retention and destruction of records. That has been published. Work is still under way but I hope to bring it forward later this year. While we are not discussing the other amendment, I will highlight that the criminal justice sectoral strategy 2022 to 2024 contains an action to explore options to provide for the recording and monitoring of ethnicity across the criminal justice system. Work is also being done by the Policing Authority engaging with An Garda Síochána on the collection of ethnic identifiers. There is also the policing Bill, which specifically looks at the collection of data concerning search powers. Separate to this, work is under way specifically looking at what the Senator spoke about. Once that research is done on how to best include that type of information, we will be able to move on it. There is nothing in this section that prevents the Garda Commissioner from collecting other types of statistics, such as those the Senator referred to.
How stands amendment No. 54?
I will press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 75, line 5, after “concerning” to insert “the use of search powers,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 56 was ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 56 not moved.
Section 77 agreed to.
SECTION 78
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 75, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(c) consequences for members of garda personnel for breaching the code of ethics.”.
You would think we would be used to doing that.
You and me both.
Amendment No. 57 seeks to clarify that when issuing the code of ethics, the authority shall have regard to consequences for members who breach the code of ethics. Like many others, I am deeply concerned by inappropriate conduct by members being left to a code of ethics which is largely toothless. I raised these concerns in my contribution to the body cameras legislation as well, as the Minister will recall. I attempted to insert specific offences for misuse of that technology. I was reassured then that the code of conduct or the code of ethics would govern such matters. I cannot be reassured by this unless breaches of this code of ethics can result in material consequences for members. Otherwise, what on earth is the deterrent? There is a lack of clarity around how the code of ethics will be in any way binding other than through the solemn declaration made by members. I urge the Minister to include some concrete provisions in primary legislation around how disciplinary procedures or other material consequences for members will be linked to the code of ethics.
I thank the Senator for outlining the proposed amendment. The objective is to expand the code of conduct - to not just look at the code of conduct but at what happens if somebody breaches it. I understand the reasoning behind it. However, it would be better for it to be taken into consideration as part of the regulations specific to what happens next. Section 257 provides for the making of regulations by the Minister concerning the procedures to apply to address misconduct by members of An Garda Síochána.
These procedures will be separate from the code of conduct. It would be best to have them done by regulation rather than having them in primary legislation as well. Misconduct is defined as a breach of the standards of professional behaviour to be prescribed under section 258. In prescribing the standard of professional behaviour under section 258 the Minister is to have regard to the code of ethics. This will be very much linked with the code of ethics. It will set out what will happen where somebody breaches, fails to comply with or goes outside the code of ethics. It is standard practice not to have this in primary legislation and to deal with at a later date.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 78 agreed to.
Sections 79 to 84, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 85
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 82, line 34, after “shall” to insert “,in a timely and efficient manner”.
Section 85 sets out the powers of an appointed person in the context of an inquiry relating to the administration, operation, practice or procedure of An Garda Síochána or the conduct of Garda personnel. The investigation of disciplinary matters tends to be an incredibly legalised process, prone to extensive delays in decision-making and appeals against process and outcomes. We are of the view that this is not to the benefit of the organisation as a whole or the individual members concerned and stress the need for inquiries to be conducted and resolved in an expedient fashion. The amendment simply seeks to insert a qualifier that a person directed to co-operate with an inquiry will do so in a timely and efficient manner.
I agree with what the Senator is trying to achieve here but it is covered in what we already have. Subsection (3) provides for actions by the appointed person, that is, the person who has been appointed to undertake the special inquiry. Where there has been an inexcusable delay or some sort of delay on the part of the person who is supposed to comply with the direction, the appointed person can take action. For example, where a delay specific to a member of An Garda Síochána, the person carrying out the inquiry may report this fact to the Garda Commissioner and highlight that the garda in question is not engaging or has not responded in a timely manner.
Subsection (4) provides that a failure to comply with a direction could be the subject of action, in accordance with the conduct regulations we have just spoken about in the case of members, or the conduct code in the case of members of Garda staff. It is the case that, under subsection (3), if somebody is not complying in a timely manner, that person can be reported to the Garda Commissioner and the conduct regulations can be applied. The regulations on the code of conduct can then be enforced as well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 85 agreed to.
Sections 86 to 100, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 101
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 93, line 25, after “State” to insert “in the fulfilment of their professional functions”.
Section 101 sets out the circumstances in which members of An Garda Síochána and the Garda Commissioner will be held liable for certain acts. The section, as drafted, provides that where a garda commits an actionable wrong, the Commissioner can be held liable for certain damages. Subsection (5) includes a qualifier that the liability does not extend to wrongs committed by the use of mechanically propelled vehicles which belong to the State. This simple amendment seeks to change the wording of the relevant subsection, such that wrongs committed by the use of Garda vehicles, where these vehicles are not being utilised by a garda in the fulfilment of his or her functions, would be liable under the Bill. There are various circumstances where a garda might, in the line of duty, be compelled to operate a Garda vehicle in a way he or she would not do ordinarily. I am thinking of emergency scenarios where the Garda might drive dangerously, for example, in pursuit of an individual or en route to a call out or the scene of a crime. Members will recall a number of occasions where significant property damage and even the tragic loss of life have occurred. In contexts such as these, while we recognise there are certain scenarios where gardaí are required to operate a Garda vehicle in a manner that might ordinarily be perceived as dangerous, our fear is that if the section proceeds unamended, the unlawful use of Garda vehicles outside of emergency-type contexts will not be covered by the Bill.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where a Garda vehicle is operated unlawfully by gardaí, outside of the immediate line of duty, they could be held liable for any damages. In tabling this amendment, I invite the Minister to provide any clarity she can on the laws that govern the use of Garda vehicles both inside and outside the line of duty and also to tease out the distinction between the line of duty and regular non-emergency operation of Garda vehicles.
Section 101 provides that the Garda Commissioner is liable to an action for damages in respect of damage resulting from an actionable wrong committed by a member of An Garda Síochána acting in the course of performing the member's functions. It restates section 48 of the 2005 Act, subject to amendment, to substitute the Garda Commissioner for the State. The section confirms the liability of the Garda Commissioner for any of these actions. The amendment would see subsection (5) expand to clarify that this liability only extends to a wrong committed by the use of a vehicle belonging to the State when the vehicle is being used in fulfilment of professional functions.
I do not support the amendment because I do not believe it is required. Liability under subsection (1) only exists with regard to the member concerned where he or she is performing his or her functions under the Act. Therefore, the proposed clarification is not required. Where a vehicle is being used for a purpose other than a professional function, the member concerned would not be performing a function under the Act and, as such, subsection (1) would not apply. For this reason, I cannot support the amendment. As I said, it is not required because if a vehicle was being used for a purpose other than a professional function, it would not come under the Act.
I accept that with respect to something that occurs in the line of duty. If somebody was not on call and has access to a Garda vehicle, the use of that vehicle would not be within his or her professional remit. If my house is burgled while nobody is at home and I come home and ring the Garda station, the driver of a Garda car who is involved in an accident on the way from station would not be held liable because it is not an emergency. Professional functions still have to have some gradient that differentiates between responding to a live incident or chasing a car and ordinary professional duties. A garda on duty and on the way to a call who drives a Garda car in a way that could hurt someone else would be exempt under the current wording.
If someone is on the way from a station to respond to a burglary, that occurs in the course of his or her duties or as part of the Garda function. That is not the case where the garda is not working or on the roster and takes a Garda car and something happens. Where it is within the remit of An Garda Síochána, the Garda Commissioner has a role. However, if a member heads off somewhere and something happens, the member is liable. That distinction is created in the Bill. If something happens on the way to deal with a burglary, the member is working and it is part of the overall Garda function, so that scenario would be included in this.
Subsection (5) contains the qualifier that the liability does not extend to wrongs committed by the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle which belongs to the State.
That is only where the member is not working. If a member is in a Garda car but not working, the liability lies with the individual member, but if the garda is working and in a Garda car, whether driving to an event-----
Is that regardless of what type of offence a garda is responding to while using the car?
Yes, absolutely. The liability falls under the Commissioner.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 101 agreed to.
Section 102 agreed to.
SECTION 103
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 95, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(i) a local drug and alcohol taskforce,".
We have had some brief discussion on this issue previously. The amendment seeks to add local drug and alcohol task forces to the definition of what constitutes a public service body under the Bill. As drafted, the Bill includes references to a vast range of public service bodies, including education and training boards, but omits local drug and alcohol task forces. The Bill provides that public service bodies are charged with a duty and responsibility to take steps to improve community safety, including through the prevention of harm to individuals. The Bill also sets out the regulations for the establishment of community safety partnerships and the proposed replacement of joint policing committees, provision for the representation of public service bodies in the membership of the partnerships and the terms of the co-operation between the partnerships and the public service bodies.
I have observed previously that those who are closest to a problem are often closest to its solution. On many occasions in this Chamber over the years, we have spoken about how local drug and alcohol task forces are at the coalface of the delivery of the national drugs strategy, providing bespoke local solutions to problem drug use and addiction in their relevant areas, including issues like street dealing and street use. The task forces comprise partnerships between the statutory, voluntary and community sectors. They are uniquely placed in terms of their expertise and their relationship with and standing in communities. Given the role they play in harm reduction and the promotion of community safety and quality of life in local areas, it seems worthwhile to designate them as public service bodies for the purposes of the Bill. Doing so would, critically, facilitate their representation on community safety partnerships, which are likely to spends lots of time developing strategies to curtail problem drug use. Within many task force structures, there are representatives of the youth sector, the community development sector and the addiction sector. Everybody is represented in that space. I have just retired after three years as chair of a local drug and alcohol task force. Our agenda includes a running item on community safety and a running update from the joint policing forum. A member of the task force sits on the joint policing forum and feeds into the task force, and vice versa.
Local drug and alcohol task forces have existed for a long time, focusing on community safety and ensuring they have representatives sitting in different community safety spaces. Not to have them named in the Bill, when they have played a crucial role in community safety for so long, would be an oversight on the Department's behalf.
I support the amendment. There have been drug and alcohol task forces in operation for almost 26 years in the communities most badly affected by serious addiction issues. The task force model is based on drawing in people from the community to come up with solutions for the community. Not including them in the list of bodies to be represented on the new community safety partnerships is a real oversight in the legislation. Their record in the communities in which they operate has been really powerful. The key feature of the community safety partnerships must be that they are about the community. The Labour Party supports the concept of the partnerships but we must get their composition right. It would be very disappointing if the voice of drug and alcohol task forces is not included.
The experience in the north-east inner city is relevant. We have a relatively new north-east inner city task force and a drug and alcohol task force. The experience and wealth of knowledge in the drug and alcohol task force must be incorporated into the community safety partnership, not ignored or sidelined, which it seems some, particularly in the Department of Health, are attempting to do at this time. I am very supportive of Senator Ruane's amendment and I ask the Minister to consider accepting it.
This section is very much connected with the following sections in which provision is made for the membership and overall role of the community safety partnerships. The purpose of this section is to set out what is meant by public service bodies. They include An Garda Síochána, local authorities, the Probation Service, the HSE and Tusla. There is nothing in the later sections to prevent that definition from being expanded. In the context of the specific purposes of this section, which does not impact on the membership of the local community safety partnerships, it should be noted that all of the listed bodies are represented on the local drug and alcohol task forces.
As all Senators have done, I acknowledge the huge amount of work the task forces do. The role they have, the key work they have done and their impact on communities are all extremely significant. For this specific section, however, I am concerned not to, in effect, put a forum on a forum. Many members of the task forces are already represented in the bodies listed in the section. For the setting out of the membership of the local community safety partnerships, while specific bodies that must be represented will be specified in the regulations, there will also be open roles for community organisations and representative bodies, which may include drug and alcohol task forces. The membership of the entire task force would not be included but there is scope for including one member. As well as the fact that the vast majority of the people on the task force are also members of the local authority, the HSE, Tusla, the Probation Service or the Garda, there will also be an opportunity for the community safety partnership to include another, specified member of the drug and alcohol task force. There are probably a few groups that could potentially have nearly all their members participating in the community safety partnership in some way, shape or form.
This is not at all about excluding the drug and alcohol task forces. They are very much represented but, for the purpose of this particular section, which deals with public service bodies, the representative bodies that have always been included are listed. At a later stage, as we will discuss presently, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the drug and alcohol task forces being separately represented, by way of an individual member, on the community safety partnerships. There might be somebody who has relevant experience, but is not a member, for instance, of the HSE or An Garda Síochána, who contributes hugely to a task force. Such persons will be able to have membership of the new partnerships. There is nothing to preclude them in any way, shape or form and this section is not trying to exclude them. They are already strongly represented on the bodies listed.
I disagree with the Minister on that point. The make-up of the task forces is basically six, six and six, comprising the statutory, voluntary and community sectors. The bodies listed in this section are all statutory bodies and all have a particular function within that statutory role. I am not saying the members of those bodies do not choose to be there; they commit to the engagement and keep it going. However, the community and voluntary organisations are often the ones working in the services at the coalface and on the front line, whereas the statutory bodies bring a different layer of expertise into those spaces. The local authority is hugely important when it comes to safety, as is An Garda Síochána, but the people involved are all a particular type of representative. The task forces also include community representatives. I cannot imagine a scenario where the whole membership of a task force would be on a community partnership.
I am proposing that task forces would nominate a particular individual from among their membership to be on the community safety partnership. Is the Minister saying that another section within this legislation will provide for the naming of the task forces as public service bodies? Would that require her to bring forward an amendment when the Bill goes back to the Dáil for consideration of amendments passed in this House?
While the regulations are not finalised, what is being worked through at the moment is a proposal that there would be 30 members of each community safety partnership, 20 of whom would be from specific designated bodies, including elected members of the local authority, the HSE, Tusla, An Garda Síochána and the local authorities themselves. There will also be a representative from the community, who could be a member of the local drug and alcohol task force and, in addition, an education representative and a youth representative. There will also be a separate space for four more community representatives, including minority group representatives, which gives another opportunity for a member from the local drug and alcohol task force.
Then there are a whole other number of members where it is not specified. There are a number of times when there could be a member of the local drug and alcohol task force on the community safety partnership. There is not necessarily a drug and alcohol task force everywhere. The public service bodies are the statutory bodies that have been named here, not specifically drug and alcohol task forces, which would be stood up or stood down or are not necessarily there all the time in every county or every area. The focus in this section is on the statutory bodies that are there and that have to be there and that will be part of this. As regards the community safety partnerships, there will be multiple roles in which a member of the task force can fill that position and contribute. The whole point of the partnerships is that they are flexible. What one county might need might be completely different from what another might need. There might be a massive drug and alcohol problem in a particular area of a county and it is decided at the outset that there must be a member of the drug and alcohol task force represented on the committee. There is nothing to stop that from happening. The whole purpose of this is that it is flexible and adaptable to the environment, the population of the county at hand or the requirements of the particular population setting up the partnership and the plan.
I take that on board and understand it. The Minister is correct that there are not task forces in every area. It will be very specific. It is not always drugs and alcohol. It often has a much wider remit than only responding to drug and alcohol use because these exist within community infrastructure in general relating to many other issues within the community. Drug-related intimidation is spoken about so much. What if we do not name these task forces in the guidelines as bodies from which representatives can be drawn? In some communities, someone may have to be pulled from the family resource centre if they do not have a task force or whatever it may be. Within task forces, specifically in Dublin and in some of the more regional task forces, there is an institutional knowledge that exists such that if we were not to write them in from the offset, because they have been working on community safety for so long, we could do ourselves a disservice because we are not capturing that community-based knowledge. Many communities feel that way, and community safety groups or other forms of groups are put in and are very structural and very authoritarian. They are the authority. They are the institutions. We should ensure that community organisations, whether task forces, community development organisations or family resource centres, are somehow mentioned specifically within the guidelines because that is the gap between the people we say we want to keep safe at a community level in order that it does not seem like a top-down approach. We have to write into the guidelines the bottom-up approach with the same strength and vigour we write in the bottom-down approach as regards local authorities or Tusla. We can imagine the relationship many communities have with some of those bodies. From the outset, it is creating a gap that can be bridged very easily by explicitly acknowledging within the guidelines or the legislation the roles that those other community representatives and organisations, including voluntary organisations, play within communities. To have them written in with the same parity with which we are writing in the statutory organisations would give it more power and more credence with local communities.
I could propose that I come back on this. I know I cannot come back specific to today, but this will relate to the regulations. There is nothing in the next section, section 104, to prevent me from adding this to the list of public service bodies for the purpose of section 3 in setting out the regulations. While the intention is not specifically to name drug and alcohol task forces as one of the mandatory groups, I have given a commitment to this House that I will engage with Senators and the various representative groups before the regulations are signed off on. As I said, not everywhere has a drug and alcohol task force. At the same time, if an area does not have one, membership can be filled in another way or it can be one of the undesignated memberships that can be filled in a different way. I take on board what the Senator said. It is something that can be done at a later date.
I am open to the Minister coming back and examining this and the regulations. I would love a timeline as to when she will look at the regulations as regards what they look like. Why are statutory organisations the only mandatory bodies? Let us forget about even drug and alcohol task forces for the moment. As regards community representatives, why is community in some framework not captured in the mandatory bodies?
It will be.
It will be. Can-----
It will be but it will not be specific because every county has different organisations and different groups. We could not list them and say, "X organisation must be on all them." There might not be such an organisation in every county. It is a membership of 30 and at least five of those will be designated for community alone, so-----
But in this section, where it names the statutory organisations-----
It is for the purpose of this section only and just to name the statutory organisations. We refer to partnerships in the next section.
It names community in the next ones but not in the statutory ones.
None of it is named in this because it is all in regulations, so for the membership of the partnership-----
Why are the statutory ones named in regulation?
Because they are the statutory organisations, that is, the statutory bodies: the HSE, Tusla, An Garda Síochána and the Probation Service. A task force is not designated as a statutory organisation.
Yes, but I refer to giving the same importance to the role that any community organisation plays, without naming a specific organisation. I understand this is spread across the country. We are naming the statutory bodies and then naming community organisations. I know that seems quite vague because it is wide open, but it places the same importance on it as on these. I do not understand why it is okay for us to name statutory organisations as playing such an important role in community safety. They play an important role, and community organisations are not on that same footing. They will be in guidelines. The power imbalance there is stark because then those statutory organisations get to name who is in and who is out. It does not seem to give any power to some of the community organisations, whether they be voluntary or community reps. They nearly have to advocate their way or wait for someone to appoint them. They are not named as umbrella bodies somehow with the other statutory organisations.
This section is simply a definition of certain words and terms under this Part. There are lots of different elements of the Bill that relate specifically to community groups and community representation. Because community groups as a whole are not a statutory body or a statutory organisation, they are not listed specifically in this section. They are later on as part of the partnerships. There is a very clear, carved out position for community organisations that will be made in the regulations for the partnerships. Looking at just the three pilot programmes in Longford, Waterford and Dublin, the task forces are on all three of them. They are already represented because they were identified as a significant need. They have played a huge role in the development of the overall plans and the three plans themselves, so they are already represented on the three pilots. I anticipate and assume that they will be represented on the vast majority of the other partnerships, but it is just specific to this section, where it is about defining words and terms. Community groups as a whole would not fit into this, but I reassure the Senator that they are very much part of the most important element of it, and that is the actual partnerships themselves.
How stands the amendment?
I will press it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 103 agreed to.
Sections 104 and 105 agreed to.
SECTION 106
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 97, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
“(i) promoting and supporting the role city and county councillors play within their communities, including but not limited to the duties they had undertaken on joint policing committees before the passing of this Act, the role they play in devising and implementing local strategies relevant to community safety and their involvement within the new safety partnerships, and any national strategy may include a list of recommendations as to how councillors and members of local government can become more involved in issues relating to community safety.”.
I warmly welcome the Minister to the House. I will try to keep my contribution focused. To set the scene, earlier on the Order of Business, there was a proposal by Members on this side of the House that we would deal only with Committee Stage.
That would have allowed us and the Minister an opportunity to respond but, unfortunately, that has been taken from us. I want to be clear that this is not the Minister’s fault. The Order of Business is decided by the Members of this House. The record will show, and I will circulate it more widely outside this House, that it was opposed. It is important to put that on the record of the House. Today, the Minister is faced with a decision of this House and its elected Members who have decided that Committee and Final Stages take place today and should conclude within four hours. Hopefully, we will be able to do our business within four hours. It is a somewhat different mood here since the Christmas recess and break. The Minister will have noticed how there was a lot of clarification, which is the prerogative of the Members, but that delayed the process. That is politics and that is the stage we are on.
Earlier, we debated the legislation on the Limerick mayor and subsidiarity. We talked about allowing the citizens to make decisions. In due course, we will be looking at a directly elected mayor for Dublin. Again, we touched on policing there. That is really important. I received some correspondence from Councillor Gail Dunne, president of the Association of Irish Local Government and a press release he issued that is headlined, “European Body Issues Damning Report on Irish Local Government”, which touches on the issue of subsidiarity and resourcing local government. I am not going to rehearse all that. I want to acknowledge Councillor Dunne and the AILG for their advocacy on this particular issue. What is at stake is a county safety partnership. I fully support all that and all the Minister’s endeavours in her portfolio as a valued and respected Minister for Justice. I note the great store she has placed in the regulations. It is very difficult to talk about regulations when we do not have them in front of us yet. I acknowledge what the Minister is saying about having flexibility. She has repeated the word "flexibility" many times today, which I understand. She makes a very valid case about horses for courses, different locations, needs and responses and that policing varies, and there may be different courses of action or appropriate responses depending on where we are geographically. I fully respect that. There is this proposal of having 30 people on it.
Over Christmas, I undertook to do an indexed spreadsheet of every member of every joint policing committee, JPC, that is in place. It was very interesting. I was not able to get it so I decided to do it myself. I wrote to everyone of them. Let me qualify that; I wrote to all the councillors who were on them. I wrote to them, from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and I was quite amazed by the number of them. I did not realise there were so many of them. I got an overwhelming response, which I am more than happy to share subject to their consent. They are very much of the view that they want to stay on the JPCs. They have lobbied hard. They have engaged with Senators and they expect us to advocate for them. They are after all, the electorate for most of us Senators, but ultimately that is a matter for us. This is a public forum. It is a great place. We can do our business. There is a record of how we do our business.
Let us consider the JPCs. I do not want to look in retrospect because the Minister is clearly going to change them, but what are these councillors used to? The aim of JPCs was to develop greater consultation, co-operation and synergy with policing and crime issues between An Garda Síochána, local authorities and elected representatives. They also facilitate the participation of community and voluntary sectors, which Senator Ruane mentioned. The JPCs are the model they would like. I do not care what the name is. We know it will be the policing partnership. We have the chairperson of the local authorities representatives, garda officers nominated by the Commissioner, local authority members and, indeed, Members of the Oireachtas as well as community and voluntary sector representatives. We know what the functions are: serving as a forum for consultation and recommendations on policing and crime and dealing with issues within each local administrative area and the challenges around policing which are also important. As the Minister outlined, they will continue to review levels and patterns of crime and related underlying factors impacting on crime and safety of people in our communities; establish a co-ordinated response, to enale community forum engagement and meet the community stakeholders. I accept all of that. We know what is envisaged.
The section relates to the national strategy for improving community safety. There are a lot of details about the strategy, which the Minister has discussed in great detail. I endeavour to promote and support the role of city and county councillors play in their communities, including but not limited to the duties they had undertaken on JPCs before the passage of the Bill, the role they play in devising and implementing local strategies relevant to communities safety and their involvement in the new strategy and partnerships that the Minister envisages in her legislation and any new national strategy may include her list of recommendations. That is really important.
I had significant engagement from all parties. It was not a party issue. The bottom line was the councillors said they wanted to be involved and be recognised. They did not want any more lip service about devolved government and subsidiarity. They want to play their role. They are members of the Minister’s party and of others. They value the Minister and they see the benefits of what she is doing but they do not want further erosion of their input or local knowledge in community policing. Essentially, they are asking that city and county councils be equal in number in the appointment to safety partnerships as was the case on the JPCs. They want for the numbers involved on the committees to be replicated. I get that sense that she values them genuinely. They want that these members, the valued elected city and county councillors, be accommodated and facilitated in equal measure in the new safety partnership, which I support and which the Minister has set out in the legislation. That is the essence of it. We either value our city and county councillors or we do not. We see a role for them.
It has got to this Stage and let us be honest. This Bill was passed in the Dáil and, therefore, I can understand the Minister’s sense of frustration at times coming into this House. The Bill, with all the concerns it generates, was passed in the Dáil but some people took it upon themselves to raise expectations that they would advocate for and promote change and that, as someone said, they would stymie and block the Minister for Justice and they would get their way for their people out in their cities and counties. This is the day, the time and the hour where we have to do it. I am strongly in favour of it. I say this before I hear the Minister’s response. I will be forced to call a vote on this because the Members of this House chose to complete this business today so we will not have the opportunity to table further amendments. That is somewhat disappointing. It is the Minister’s call, and I will always respect the call of the Minister, but I am strongly advocating now, as I had committed to our councillors up and down the country over the past few weeks, a strong case for their retention in equal measure as the JPCs in the new policing arrangements the Minister has in this Bill. That is bearing in mind flexibility and the various challenges of policing around the country, which are different everywhere. I know the Minister values the committees. I appeal genuinely. We all value our city and county councillors and acknowledge the importance of their role. Clearly, that has been conveyed to many of our councillors from all parties and none. This is the day and the hour we stand in solidarity with our city and county councillors and support them.
I hope the Minister can see the logic and bring herself to support what is a very reasonable amendment. There are one or two other amendments coming. I would like that we could go out of here really genuinely committed and show our solidarity with our elected city and county councillors.
I echo everything Senator Boyhan said. The representatives from the AILG and LAMA have been very firm about having their representation on these new policing committees. Before Christmas, the Independent Group Members - Senators Boyhan, Craughwell and I - tabled a motion. Part of that motion was that we undo the attacks on the powers of local councillors and ensure the members of local authorities will have equivalent powers and representations on the new safety partnerships, as they currently have on the joint policing committees.
All the Senators agreed with that motion and it passed unanimously in this House. I do not have to tell the Minister the role of the local council when it comes to community policing. She knows that. She knows the value each and every one of the councillors brings to local policing within their communities. Having them sit at the table when it comes to policing and community matters, particularly in policing matters, is really important. To leave them out would be detrimental to serving justice in our country and in particular to local policing. I absolutely support this amendment.
I will table amendments later on where it clearly states that I would like that each chair of a local administration would have to be from the local municipal area. We will not get to those amendments later on but that is really important because these are the people who know what is happening in their communities when it comes to criminality, policing matters and antisocial behaviour. There is no one closer to what is happening on the ground than local representatives. They are the ones who will drive change as well whether it be CCTV or community alerts in their areas. The Minister will have seen that. She recently attended a community alert meeting in Skreen that was instigated by one of her local councillors there. We know what is happening in our areas and we are on top of what is happening in communities. It is community representatives and it is the county councillors throughout the country so I implore the Minister and the Government Members to make sure county councillors are included going forward in these new policing administrations. I will leave it with the Minister. It is in her hands and only she can make it happen.
I will speak to amendment No. 62 in a moment but first I will lend my voice to Senator Boyhan's amendment. I meditated for approximately an hour before I came here today because I was getting ready for the furore and the strength with which we would see people advocating for local representatives and I hope that is still to come. When I think of local representatives in those spaces, for me it is beyond them just being elected representatives at that local level. When we look at communities, often people who run for local politics are the people who actually live in the community. They most identify with the community; they live and work there. People may have started out working in local organisations or sports clubs. People volunteer for the local soccer clubs or boxing clubs and they are the people we see getting involved with local politics. They are the people we see parties target in terms of them being identified as role models within their communities and would it not be great if they got involved in local politics. It is for that reason. My local shopkeeper is a councillor. For me, it is beyond the fact they are just local councillors it is that "who" becomes a local councillor. How close are we to the ground when we include local councillors? Forget for a moment they are elected representatives and ask what they are the other half of the week, whether that be the sports coach, the shopkeeper, or all of those things. They are the ones who have a much more rounded view of what is happening in communities in terms of community safety. I join in asking the Minister to seriously consider the important and vital role played by local representatives beyond the fact they are just local representatives as they actually are local community members.
As for the amendments I have tabled, amendment No. 62 is a simple amendment that seeks to ensure the Minister shall consult with the Policing Authority and other persons representing community interests when preparing the national strategy for improving community safety. As drafted, the section provides that the Minister shall consult with the authority and the relevant stakeholders prior to the preparation of the strategy. The amendment seeks to replace the term "prior to" with "in" to reflect the need for continued and meaningful engagement between the Minister, the authority, and the relevant stakeholders in the process of developing or revising the national strategy. While I am sure the section, as drafted, aims to ensure this consultation takes place, accepting the subtle rewording would make it explicitly clear in semantic terms that this consultation is a mutual and meaningful process. The national strategy will be an important guiding document in respect of the improvement of local community safety and a greater number of advices and perspectives should be regularly consulted in its development. I do not anticipate the Minister will accept the amendment but I stress the fact that this consultation ought to be more than a tick-box exercise and much more of a partnership.
Before I was appointed to the Seanad I was a city councillor. I was chair of a joint policing committee in Dublin Central and a founding director of the Cabra Community Policing Forum. I understand the importance of having good structures in place to deal with issues that arise in our communities around policing. I know the Minister shares the ambition we all have for safer communities. I believe safer communities can be delivered where there are proper structures in place that are properly resourced and that are engaged with, not just the statutory organisations but the community as well, and that have buy-in from the community. That is where they are always successful.
I thank the Minister for the engagement she has had with the Fianna Fáil group on this legislation generally but specifically on the issue around the community safety partnerships and the membership of them. As a former city councillor, I found the joint policing committees to be one of the most effective forums where there are the statutory agencies meeting on a quarterly basis in a public forum but in a structured way and there are the elected representatives. It is not just the city and county councillors but also those Members of the Oireachtas who took an interest. Not all of them did for various reasons. That is their business but there was a real opportunity to both review what was going on in our area and to examine the root causes and agree specific actions that could be taken by either statutory agencies on their own or in partnership with the community.
The councillors have a real role to play in it because oftentimes when we talk about our communities being safer, we talk about the public domain. We talk about our parks, streets and roads. Councillors have a direct impact there as because they get to set the annual budget for the local authority, they get to determine where the funds are prioritised. They can, at a local level, direct resources to support the statutory agencies and to support the Garda to make our communities safer. The requirement, from our perspective, was to ensure the councillors' role is continued in the community safety partnerships and that Oireachtas Members also can participate in the community safety partnerships. I believe that the chair is a really important role and that the local authority members are best positioned to fill that role.
Earlier, the Minister mentioned that there can be variations from one jurisdiction to another, and from one local authority area to another. The community safety partnership itself should determine who is the best positioned to act as chair. Most importantly, community safety partnerships need to be accountable to the community. The way to do that is by having community membership and holding meetings in public on a regular basis of four times a year.
I genuinely appreciate the Minister for engaging with us. I understand that she will bring forward regulations. The best place to do this is in regulations because that allows for regulations to be amended in the future, if and when circumstances change. When the Minister responds, I would appreciate it if she spoke about, thereby helping the Seanad to understand, the timeline around which the regulations will be brought forward because there is significant interest in the timeline.
Finally, Cabra Community Policing Forum might be the only remaining community policing forum in this country. I would appreciate if the Minister talked about a timeline for how the forum will operate within an expanded community safety partnership.
Senator Shane Cassells: I welcome the constructive discussion here this afternoon. The one thing that has been pressed by all people as pertaining to this section is to ensure the best outcome for communities. Senator Boyhan said that he wrote to all the councillors who were members of joint policing committees and talked about their positive engagement with this Bill. The Oireachtas Members play a very important role on JPCs as well. I always make sure that I attend the meetings of the policing committees in County Meath. It is great that we have the Minister for Justice, as a representative of a Meath constituency, who is herself a regular attendee at our meetings. Indeed, she engaged outside of those meetings with the business community and An Garda Síochána when issues pertaining to crime and antisocial behaviour were prominent last year in our major towns. I cannot say that for all of the Oireachtas Members in County Meath. Quite a few of them go on about crime ad nauseam. They stick pictures of themselves on lampposts about crime but, by God, when they have the opportunity to meet the chief superintendent or the Minister for Justice, they are absent and missing. You would nearly have to ring the guards who work in the missing persons section to find them.
Now that is funny.
As echoed by Senator Fitzpatrick, however, you have that in every county. Those policing committees are currently made up of a range of local community representatives. Senator Ruane is right in respect of those leadership figures who are not just elected representatives. They are some of the best attendees and strongest voices at these meetings. I know from the policing committee meetings in my own county that local councillors are extremely diligent in their duties not just when it comes to these meeting but regarding the very important work of the various subcommittees, such as the drugs task force, the community policing elements and traffic safety subcommittees. Local councillors are leading change. In our instance, Chief Superintendent John Dollard brings his entire senior leadership team to these meetings. As a result of that kind of leadership, we have proper engagement with An Garda Síochána in the Meath division. That synergy between local representatives, An Garda Síochána, the executive of our councils and Oireachtas Members produces results and that comes down to individuals. No legislation can ensure that.
I am sure that there are other counties where they say things are not as effective because like anything, be it a Minister, a county manager or a chief superintendent, it comes down to the quality of the individual who leads the charge. I can only speak about our own representatives and we have a very good working one. Anything that we can do beyond that to enhance the process and Senator Ruane has suggested bringing in more figures who are required to make sure we are getting a proper representation from across society, which is welcome. Equally, it is only right and proper in respect of local representative, who are our councillors, that this point was pressed with the Minister. We advocated for that, the Minister has listened and is addressing this matter as part of the regulations on the community safety partnerships. I thank the AILG for its interaction with us, and with our Leader, Senator Chambers, and our group. We will ensure that the issues we have raised will be addressed and considered by the Minister as part of these regulations to ensure that we get the desired outcome, that we get the working policing bodies across this island. Perhaps those Oireachtas Members who come into this House or into the Lower House and guffaw ad nauseam about policing might turn up and help them as well.
Do any other Senators want to contribute? No.
While we are specifically speaking to amendments Nos. 61 to 63, inclusive, I will respond to some of the comments more broadly.
I, too, am an advocate for councillors and absolutely support the work of councillors. Not only that, I champion the work they do. I personally think we have some of the finest councillors in County Meath, and I am sure that everybody here will say that they have the finest councillors in their own county. I wish to acknowledge that the work done by councillors cannot be overstated. I also acknowledge the work that councillors do not just on joint policing committees but more broadly on a day-to-day basis. It is not the intention, nor has it ever been the intention, to exclude councillors from any new role, position or body and nor it is the intention to diminish anybody's role compared with what he or she currently has.
What are we talking about more broadly? At the moment we have joint policing committees, which have served us extremely well but they are limited to an extent in the scope and variety in which they can look at community safety. The Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland rightly pointed out that community safety should not just be a role for An Garda Síochána. Absolutely, the force has a vital role but for us to be able to really focus on community safety, there is a responsibility on the part of our State agencies, communities as a whole and our elected representatives working with organisations to come together and make sure it is a priority for absolutely everybody. That is really what we are trying to achieve with the community safety partnership. It is building on the work that is done whereby councillors will able to engage with State agencies. We are talking about two State agencies, namely, An Garda Síochána and the local authority. We will expand that out even further.
The objective is that in each partnership, we will have 30 members. As part of that you will have a set number of membership that will be set out, and they will have to be on the committee. That will include a chair and at least seven members from the local authority. That figure was chosen simply because that is the number we have on many of the other committees. There will be a member from the local authority, the HSE, Tusla and An Garda Síochána. There will be a representative of a youth organisation and one from education. There will be five representatives from community groups, including minority groups. As we have discussed before, that can include the drug and alcohol task force. Finally, there will be ten members who are not allocated. Thus there is the potential for up to 17 of 30 members to be local authority members, if that is wished by the community organisation or by the partnership or there may be fewer. I am not aware of any JPC with 17 councillors on it at the moment but obviously, there is flexibility within partnerships to make sure that anybody who is currently on a joint policing committee can be on the community safety partnership. It is about making sure that there is flexibility. So if somebody wants to be in the partnership, if community groups want to be represented on it and if there is a specific need in a specific area, then, yes, we have the main statutory bodies that we have to hold to account and we must make sure they are committed to from the educational, health and well-being perspectives. In addition, there is the opportunity for many others to be represented on the community safety partnership. It is not in primary legislation because nothing like this would be set out in primary legislation. The joint policing committees have not been set out in primary legislation. This will all be worked through in the regulations. As I committed to before Christmas and said all along, I will engage with all Senators here, my own colleagues in the Dáil and with representative groups that have an interest in this before the regulations are completed and set in place.
On the specific amendments, section 106 specifically talks about a national strategy to improve community safety. Consequently, the reason that I cannot accept amendment No. 61 is that this is about community safety and the plan for community safety.
The amendment speaks about a specific role for councillors as part of community safety. We are not going to be doing that for any other membership, but it is very clear when we look at other elements of the Bill that the role of the councillor is included. It is clear and it is defined. There are at least seven members and that can go up to 17. The role of the councillor is actually enhanced because we now have an opportunity for councillors, through the partnerships, not just to engage with the Garda on a regular basis but to hold to account the HSE, Tusla, and education providers in their area, as well as many other organisations. That opportunity is not currently available in that format, specifically focused on community safety.
In terms of timelines, the regulations will not be put in place so the partnerships will not be fully stood up until the Bill has commenced. We do not have a set timeline for that but it will be later on in the year. All of this will be worked through. It will actively be the case that there will not be a gap, so it will not be the case that joint policing committees will not be stood up by the local authorities. If there is a delay in any setting up of a partnership the joint policing committee can continue so that there is absolutely no gap and no situation where local elected representatives cannot engage with the structure that was there prior to the new structure being put in place.
From listening to everybody here, I think they support what we are trying to achieve, so that safety in our community is not just a role for the Garda or local councillors but that everybody should have a role in keeping people safe. There will be a statutory obligation on all of those involved here to engage and to be part of this.
I have a separate fund that was established, the community safety innovation fund, which takes money directly from the proceeds of crime and invests it back into communities. This will be available to the community partnerships also. That fund stands at €3.75 million. It has increased year on year. It is only in place two years so I anticipate that every year that money will be larger and that it will be available to the community safety partnerships. We are bringing through legislation on the CAB and its role, which will shorten the length of time - from seven years to two years - whereby we can have access to proceeds of crime. I hope that pot will continue to get bigger and that, through the partnerships, communities will benefit from that in many ways.
I appreciate everybody's comments. I will engage further once the regulations are being developed. Specifically in response to amendment No. 61, this is very much about the strategy of community safety itself, not any individual members on it, and it is for that reason that I am not accepting it.
On the second amendment to which Senator Ruane spoke, amendment No. 62, I think it is necessary for the Minister to consult with the Policing Authority or any person or group representing community interests prior to preparing and revising the strategy. Obviously the way it should be done is to prepare the strategy after having done the necessary consultation, but it is ultimately the Minister who is responsible for presenting this to the Government for publication. The amendment would change that and I do not intend to change it because I think it should be the role of the Minister to present this strategy, having obviously consulted all of the relevant people, many of whom have been mentioned here already.
Did Senator Dolan indicate?
Yes, it was only just to acknowledged the community safety innovation fund initiative, which will ensure more than €3 million will come back into communities. That is phenomenal. I have spoken before on that fund, which is coming from CAB out of the proceeds of crime and coming back into towns and villages.
I again want to highlight the cross-departmental agency and in particular bringing in the Department of Health, especially for addiction centres. That is really where we want to see the impact of the fund. Perhaps not now, but when the Minister has time she could outline how the fund would be used and could she explain what other elements will be involved. We are looking at the community safety partnerships having a broad remit. Could the fund also be looked at in terms of how we can implement safety measures in local communities across broader areas of the scheme.
First, I thank the Minister. I do not doubt her commitment to local policing and community partnerships. As I said from the very outset, I engaged with many members who responded to my little survey on JPCs. I also engaged with members of LAMA, which involves the executive and the AILG. I again acknowledge them.
This is legislation and I am calling a vote on the amendment because I have to show my displeasure. I could have taken away what the Minister said, reflected on it, and come back on the final Stage, but that has been denied. That is no fault of the Minister's. It is just so we are clear and there is no ambiguity here. The majority of Members of this House decided this matter should be wrapped up within four hours. It is very important to state that because we need to have a record of what people are saying. I am almost conscious when I stand up here that I put my best foot forward. I have given a commitment and I am going to honour it.
This amendment is not based on my words or my wisdom. It was drawn up in consultation with many others. Let us tease it out. It refers to promoting and supporting the role of city and county councillors to play their roles in the communities, but not to limit their duties in respect of joint policing committee. It is about implementing local strategies. I see no conflict in any of the wording. It was greatly considered and greatly thought out and framed. It is not in conflict with the Minister and her exceptional work and commitment as a Minister. Therefore, I believe it is right that we should accept it.
We have not come to section 114, but I have listened to the Minister's response, and I note there is an opportunity to come back in again on regulations concerning the safety partnerships. I have another set of proposals for the Minister there, not in amendment form, but in my general contribution under that section, so I will have another opportunity to engage with her. I have heard what the Minister had to say. I want to honour my word and commitment. Therefore, I am pressing this amendment. I would like a vote taken on it.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Chambers, Lisa.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Victor Boyhan and Gerard P. Craughwell; Níl, Senators Paul Daly and Regina Doherty.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 97, line 13, to delete “prior to” and substitute “in”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 have been ruled out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.
Section 106 agreed to.
SECTION 107
Amendment No. 67 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 65 not moved.
Section 107 agreed to.
Sections 108 and 109 agreed to.
SECTION 110
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 103, to delete lines 3 to 7 and substitute the following:
“(9) In carrying out duties under this section, the Director shall not provide information that might facilitate the commission of an offence, prejudice a criminal investigation or prosecution or jeopardise the safety of any person.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 110 agreed to.
Section 111 agreed to.
SECTION 112
Government amendment No. 67:
In page 103, line 22, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 112 agreed to.
Section 113 agreed to.
SECTION 114
Amendments Nos. 68 to 84, inclusive, and 86 to 88, inclusive, are related.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 104, line 27, after “Ministers” to insert “and with any local authority association (within the meaning of section 225 of the Local Government Act 2001)”.
Is the grouping agreed as well?
Agreed.
I am sorry. Amendment No. 69 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 68, amendments Nos. 81, 82, and 82a are physical alternatives to amendment No. 83, and amendments Nos. 68 to 84, inclusive, and 86 to 88, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed. I apologise, Senator Sherlock.
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I will say at the outset that the dissolution of the joint policing committees, JPC, and creation of the community safety partnerships, CPC, is arguably a major shift in that interface between public representation and policing. We very much support the theory of community safety partnerships because safety cannot just be about policing. We cannot police our way to safer communities. It has to be much broader than that in terms of the education, environment and health pieces and all the other factors. We very much support the concept of broadening it out, but there is a key issue as to how the new community safety partnerships are actually anchored.
I will speak to our amendments Nos. 68, 71, 73 and 77. These are very much about ensuring that the partnerships are in the first instance anchored within the local authorities and with regard to amendment No. 73 to section 114, rather than the safety partnerships being set up by ministerial regulation by the Minister, that they are actually established by the local authorities themselves.
Second, with regard to the consultation the Minister has set out in section 114 to consult with other relevant Ministers, we need to see an insertion there to consult with local authority associations, that is, the representative groups that represent local authority members in this country, namely, the Local Authority Members Association, LAMA, and the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG. Again, if we are to see a successful roll-out of the CSPs then we have to have some understanding of those who have already been serving on the JPCs and, as I said, to have it anchored within local authorities.
The other key issues with regard-----
I am sorry; I must interrupt the Senator for one second. I acknowledge in the Public Gallery the family and friends of the leader of the Social Democrats, Deputy Cairns. They are all very welcome. I hope they have a very pleasant visit to Leinster House. I thank them for being here. I thank Senator Sherlock.
I welcome my fellow Cork people today. The other key thing is with regard to the composition of the new community safety partnerships. In our amendments Nos. 77 and 81, we set down that 25% of the membership of the CSP has to be with local authority members and then the chair has to come from a member of the local authority. Furthermore, it is a bit strange to us when we read section 114 that there is no mandatory attendance on the community safety partnerships by An Garda Síochána. Again, we seek that one fifth of the membership of the community safety partnerships would be from An Garda Síochána.
We heard what the Minister had to say with regard to the regulations. That does constitute some progress, but the question has to be asked here. If it is good enough for regulation, why is it not good enough to be hardwired into the legislation in terms of the composition and membership of the new community safety partnerships and, in particular, setting out that the leadership within the community safety partnerships should come from local authority members who are elected within their communities?
Senator Ruane spoke really eloquently earlier about those who are elected to represent their communities and that they should come from their communities. Again, this is about community safety. Therefore, we need some sort of guarantee that the person chairing the new partnership will come from the community and that it will not just be one of the members of the statutory agencies representing their organisations on the community safety partnerships. We in the Labour Party have a fundamental problem that the composition of the community safety partnerships is being relegated to a regulation, the timing of which we do not have clarity on.
If it is good enough for regulation, why can we not see the detail now set out in writing and, indeed, have the assurances that when this legislation is commenced that it is there for all to see? In that way there can be ownership across the House. God knows we have had many hours of people talking about how great the JPCs used to be and how important it is that we have local authority members, yet it stops short of commitment to local authority members by not hardwiring it into the legislation. I believe there is a major gap.
With regard to the three pilots that were established, we were told they would be in place for two years before the roll-out throughout the country and that there would be learnings and lessons from the three pilots to inform the establishment of the local community safety partnership, LCSP. From the north inner city LCSP, which I know best, there are very real issues in regard to who attends those meetings. There was correspondence before Christmas about the fact there were very few councillors. All councillors in the north inner city are entitled to turn up but most of the councillors from the Government parties do not bother to turn up to the north inner city LCSP. In fact, it is mainly other councillors who bother to turn up.
It relates to resourcing. A fabulous report was published last August about all the things that need to happen in the north inner city. Not a single euro was put behind it. If we do not get the resourcing right, we will not be at the races in terms of the vision and potential of a LCSP.
On the point about leadership and who is going to drive the LCSP, I do not want to see it as a talking shop, which it could so easily become, particularly if statutory agencies sit around the table and it becomes a reporting mechanism. I do not have as much experience as Senator Fitzpatrick, but I sat on the Cabra-Glasnevin JPC and it is very useful. There are times, however, where there is frustration about bringing issues repeatedly and the question is: "Are they being acted upon?" It needs real leadership. That is why it is so important that we have a councillor being specified as the chair of the LCSP.
We urge the Minister to take these amendments on board. We heard what she had to say. We are not hopeful that she will take them on board but we believe that, in accordance with all the fine speeches that have been made on the need to have local authority members at the heart of the new LCSPs, our amendments are in line with that.
I welcome the engagement of the Minister on this particular section. I am speaking to the Government amendment No. 84 and also the Fianna Fáil amendments Nos. 76a, 82a and 83a.
We have well hashed out the issues relating to this section and I thank the Minister and her Department for the extensive engagement that we had over the past number of months. We had several meetings on this particular section. When we first started out when the Bill came to Seanad, because it had passed through the Dáil, this section had gone unnoticed. There were many questions around the disbandment of the JPCs and their replacement by the LCSPs. In the absence of having the reports back on the pilots that were running, there were questions we could not answer because we did not have that information and in the absence of draft regulations, we were working blind. That led us to have several meetings and to ask pertinent and important questions because we were seeking clarification on a number of matters. The key areas that we sought clarification on were the number of meetings that would be held. Currently, the JPCs meet quarterly so we needed an assurance that this would be maintained. We received that assurance from the Minister. There may well be additional meetings on top of that. It was good to get that clarification.
The make-up of the LCSP was of particular concern because there was a fear and a view that there would not be space for all the local authority members and elected members to have a space on the new LCSP and that the numbers from the JPC would be maintained. I welcome the fact that the Minister has given absolute clarification that not only will there be at least six or seven members but the number could go up to 17. That means that every member who wants to be on it, can be. Nothing in the legislation precludes that. We needed clarification on that and we got it. In particular, I acknowledge amendment No. 84 from the Government and I thank the Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, who raised this at Cabinet, to make sure that nothing in the regulation would preclude a councillor from chairing the LCSP. In my view and that of my party, the councillor is best placed to chair that partnership. It will be a matter for decision locally, within the LCSP, as to who chairs that local group. I hope to see councillors putting themselves forward for that role. I have no doubt they will do that. That amendment was sought by us, as Fianna Fáil Senators, and was secured. I will go as far as to say it is the only significant amendment in that section that has actually been delivered. It has been delivered by the Fianna Fáil Senators with the assistance of the Minister and the Tánaiste as well.
In regard to the regulations, I fully accept the flexibility needed to run new organisations such as this and that the JPC is not set down in full detail in primary legislation. We get all of that, which is why the questions flowed as to how it will be made up, how it will run and how many meetings there would be. I welcome the clarification from the Minister, she made this point before Christmas. I spoke this morning, as we have done on several occasions, with representatives of the AILG, and we have also engaged with LAMA. The message from the AILG this morning is that it is happy with the amendment that we have secured. It looks forward to engaging with the Minister on the regulations and welcomes that commitment and clarification. I am glad she put it on the record today that she has no difficulty, and of course she would not, in meeting with Oireachtas Members and other stakeholders, including councillors, in the preparation of those regulations and that they do what we all want them to do and make the LCSPs work effectively. We are not against change. We are not against progress or against doing things differently but maintaining the role of the local elected member was vitally important for our members and we have ensured that will be case.
I am happy with the work we have done on this. We have fulfilled our mandate, engaged with those who elected us to be here. Importantly, to reiterate the point others have made, sometimes people can scoff at Senators coming in to defend the role of the local councillor. Local democracy is vitally important. Those elected by their local communities have a mandate to serve their communities well and they do it with distinction. I make no apology for defending their right to continue to do their job in the excellent manner in which they do it. I am proud of what we Fianna Fáil Senators have achieved in bringing about those clarifications on the number of meetings, the make-up of the LCSPs and that the number of councillors will be maintained - it could be more or less, a decision will be taken locally - and also that a councillor can chair that partnership. That was not the case before Fianna Fáil Senators engaged on this. That is an important point that we would like to make from this side of the House. I can see others are egging to get in, but I do not think I have repeated myself on this occasion. It may have happened previously.
We on this side are entitled to make our views known as well and to do our jobs and raise our issues. We respect the right of other Members to do the same. We listen attentively when others make their points. I look forward to engaging with the Minister on the regulations. I believe there may be a role as well for the Joint Committee on Justice to look further into this. It would have been desirable to have the pilots concluded and to be able to read a full evaluation in advance of this. It would have been preferable to have access to the regulations in advance. However, the fact that we can engage with the Minister on the preparation of those regulations means that we have input into this. The councillors, other stakeholders and community groups will have input into this. The points have been well made. Amendment No. 84 is important. It does exactly what we needed it to do. It protects the role of the local elected member in becoming the chair of that LCSP. When they are up and running, I wish them the very best. We want those partnerships to work. We want community policing to be effective, to build stronger and safer communities, as a Government priority. We all want to see that happen. Every community is different. Every part of the country has different issues that they have to address. What works in Dublin city centre is different from what works in Castlebar, County Mayo where I live. The fact that each LCSP will have input from local community groups and elected members locally should mean that they will work effectively and raise issues that are of local interest to local people living in that community. Again I thank the Minister for her engagement. I appreciate it was probably a frustrating process at times but we all appreciated we have a job to do to represent the people we are here to represent, namely our communities and elected members of local authorities.
I wish to speak in support of amendments Nos. 68 to 84, inclusive, from Senator Boyhan in this grouping.
I sincerely thank Senator Boyhan for bringing forward these amendments. It is vital that the participation of councillors on local policing boards is protected in the Bill. I understand the desire of the Government to broaden the scope of who is involved in these bodies, and I support that. However, we need to centre the individuals who have a democratic mandate to represent and serve the communities which are being policed.
The Bill is designed to strengthen the principles of community policing and policing by consent. That is very welcome. These principles will be undermined if the role of councillors is usurped. I understand the councillors' representative bodies, in particular the AILG and LAMA, have been very vocal about this. They have my total support.
I have enjoyed sitting on the Seanad Public Consultation Committee, which is currently examining the future of local democracy in Ireland. I am learning a lot from the dedication and passion of councillors who work hard to represent their communities in incredibly challenging and frustrating circumstances. In a submission to the committee, LAMA, which is the councillors' representative body, notes that there is a certain irony in an Oireachtas committee discussing strengthening local democracy when successive Governments continue to weaken local authorities and councillors by stripping them of their duties and powers. That is very worrying.
The Bill is a prime example of this. It came up during the Higher Education Authority Bill debates. Senators, especially those representing the parties of Government, must reflect on the hypocrisy of this position and stand for councillors who we are supposed to represent in this House. I hope the Minister will listen to councillors and their representative bodies and accept Senator Boyhan's amendments.
I welcome to the Gallery Councillor Uruemu Adejinmi, who is a guest of the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. You are very welcome. Thank you for being here. I hope you have a good visit to Leinster House.
I will be brief. I will speak to the section and amendment No. 84. I echo everything that has been said by Senator Chambers. I thank the Minister for her engagement. There has been a lot of discussion about councillor representative bodies. I was on a conference call this morning with the president of the AILG and received an email from its office afterwards which warmly welcomed the situation as it stands at the moment, with one caveat. I heard the Minister refer to it earlier, but I wish to put it on the record, namely, that the Minister would commit to consulting councillor representative bodies when developing the regulations. The AILG was quite happy with the representation of the number of councillors that could possibly be on a community policing partnership. It warmly welcomed the fact that councillors would not be barred from being the chair of community safety partnerships. That was its only ask. That is all I have to say.
I have a long list of Members who wish to speak. I am taking them in the order that has been presented to me.
I second the amendments, if that is in order. I welcome the Minister to the House today. This is an important conversation. I spent 11 years on Kildare County Council and attended joint policing committees, JPCs. It is important that we ensure local authority members continue to be represented on JPCs or community safety partnerships as they are now.
Our amendments have been tabled to ensure that a local authority member will be the chair of community safety partnerships. We have heard that this may be the case, but we seek clarity on that. Senator Chambers has said with absolute clarity that is the case. I have heard no absolute clarification. I ask the Minister to clarify what has been said in the Chamber. We all want clarification on this. As far as I am concerned, JPCs have done a wonderful job.
It has been mentioned that local authority members are on the ground and have local knowledge. We must ensure that is taken into account because without it community safety does not happen. People elected to that position are those who are contacted about issues seven days a week. We have all received phone calls on a Saturday and Sunday night from people who are looking for us to engage with local gardaí to ensure their communities are safe. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, those people are their elected representatives. That link should never be broken. That is what we are all saying today.
The amendments we have put forward would ensure that a local authority member would be the chair and that 20% of the membership of the community safety partnership would be from the local authority. The Minister has indicated that there could be ten additional members and there is no barrier to that. The Minister might tease that out a bit more when she speaks about regulations. How would the ten members be elected? Do they have to nominate themselves against community members who may come forward? There could potentially be 17 members. The Minister has indicated there will be seven. How will that process work in reality? The Minister may say she has to wait for regulations. When local authority members are listening today they are the questions they will ask. They are also asking for the absolute clarification that was mentioned today.
We welcome that there has been discussion on this and in the other House. We are all trying to ensure local authority members continue to be the cornerstone of community safety, which they have always been.
In respect of municipal district meetings, having a friendly and cordial association with local community gardaí is essential for all local authority members and the work they do. It is also essential for communities and community safety. We have been told that there will be clarification on this. In her reply we hope the Minister clarifies the situation and ensures local authority members listening to the debate are reassured. They should chair community safety partnerships. I also ask the Minister to confirm how the additional ten members could be local authority members.
I do not think anybody in the Chamber or outside of it doubts the interests of local authority members in community safety or working closely with gardaí. Senator Boyhan, in rather Churchillian tones, spoke about how he will have engaged with them on their work at a local level. As the Minister outlined, public safety is about a lot more than just sitting on a committee. It is essential that, on a year-round basis, councillors and elected and community representatives co-operate with the Garda to ensure public safety in our communities. It is also critical that representatives at a national level lead by example and ensure they support gardaí and speak out strongly when gardaí are dealing with public safety issues.
Senators Chambers and Daly have acknowledged that this was a big issue in Fianna Fáil. We had very serious concerns about the role of councillors. It led to a lot of debate and discussion in the party. We are very happy with how the Minister responded and her willingness to engage. In response to Senator Wall's query, in her response the Minister can reflect on the engagement she had and the commitment given to the AILG and LIMA. That would be important.
That level of engagement, rather than simply talking about the issue, is critical. We are now seeing a very clear understanding that we can ensure the chair is an elected representative and that local representatives, as well as others, take part in these new fora.
I, like others, thank the Minister for engaging with Fianna Fáil Senators and local authority representative organisations on this issue. That spirit of partnership should continue because it is not just about the setting up of these bodies or getting the members around the table; it is about what they are able to do in their communities. There are plenty of examples of local authority subcommittees that are completely ineffectual, whereas we have seen over the years that joint policing committees are effective. I have no doubt, because the committees in question have a broader remit, that they can work well.
We thank the Minister. In her response, she will allay quite a number of the concerns, as she has already done with respect to those of our Seanad group and the local authority associations.
I will speak on amendment No. 80, in my name and that of Senator Craughwell. It requires that the chairperson of every safety partnership in each administrative area in each local authority shall be an elected member of a local authority. It seems that Fianna Fáil, with its late amendments, which I absolutely welcome, is playing catch-up. I am glad it tabled them but I would really like the language to be a little stronger.
It is getting results.
I really do welcome that but the wording should state chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of the safety partnerships "shall be" members of a local authority. That would cement it for the Minister today and our members throughout the country.
There was much talk earlier about the community safety innovation fund. I welcome the €3 million from the Criminal Assets Bureau, but the suggestion in this regard was made by an independent county councillor in County Louth, Paddy McQuillan. Indeed, a number of independent county councillors throughout the country sent the motion in question to the Department of Justice. The money stemmed from the suggestion. I am glad it did but just pointing out that the role the county councillor plays is not just about the small local issues but also about the suggestions councillors can make to affect national issues. The community safety innovation fund has been very welcome in the Minister's Department. It will probably be rolled out every single year as a result of the money the Department will be getting in through the Criminal Assets Bureau.
Similar to previous amendments, this one would ensure the chairperson of the safety partnership is a councillor. The draft report of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe found Ireland has one of the weakest systems of local government in the world. Accepting this amendment to empower local representatives and helping them to return them to power is really important.
I will also speak on amendment No. 82, in the name of Senator Boyhan, because it also relates to the section. It is quite similar to the new amendments of the Fianna Fáil Party, which are welcome. It also ensures city and county councillors can elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson of a safety partnership. There can be more than one safety partnership in an administrative area. Today, members of our group are bringing forward motions on the diminishing powers of members and local government. Accepting the amendment would be a step in the right direction. It would help city and county councillors to have more local policing and safety powers.
I hope the Minister will accept our amendments. I would have liked the language of the Fianna Fáil amendments to have been a little stronger because it does not offer a guarantee. If the word "shall" had been included, it would have been better. I will support the amendments anyway because that is our only hope of getting this through for our county councillors. I will be pushing my own amendments also but will be supporting Fianna Fáil because that is the only chance we have of giving any power to county councillors to be chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of local administrative policing committees.
I thank AILG and LAMA for their interaction with us on these issues. I also thank my colleagues, Senators Boyhan and Keogan, for leading out and bringing Fianna Fáil to the table to understand the needs of county councillors. It is rather sick that people are claiming their party or another party did what was required, because all of us are responding to local authority members. In fairness, the Minister has responded. I ask the Minister to accept amendment No. 80, which actually underpins the wording by requiring that the chairpersons and vice-chairpersons "shall" be elected from members of the local authority.
A very senior member of the Government, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has recently been saying in the media that he will meet every council in the country and reassure it and whatever else he is going to do. However, the truth of the matter, about which we have to be honest, is that we have stripped local authorities of power year after year since I came into this place. I have been here for nine years, coming up on ten. The Minister for Justice now has an opportunity to give back power to local authority members. Our amendment, No. 80, is one way of doing that.
Nobody here can say they twisted the Minister's arm. At the end of the day, Deputy McEntee is a Minister. She is a very efficient one and I believe she examined the situation herself and came up with her own view on it. Therefore, I am not going to congratulate Fianna Fáil or anybody else. My colleagues, Victor Boyhan and Sharon Keogan, have worked very well with our group to introduce our amendments. I fully support amendment No. 80.
I have a few amendments in this grouping. On the last day we were here before Christmas, the Leader of the House stated the Government was within its rights to use time in the way it wanted. I take issue with this because it has come in here today to guillotine, which interferes with our time and right to speak on something.
Hear, hear.
Before Christmas, Fianna Fáil took up the space completely in terms of dialogue-----
Hear, hear.
-----and then removed our ability to engage. Senator Malcolm Byrne referred to engagement at the level in question rather than just talking. I am glad Fianna Fáil took the space to engage because, right now, I stand here with amendments I withdrew earlier on so-called Committee Stage on the basis that I could resubmit them on Report Stage, during which the Minister and I were to engage. Now I cannot do that. I do not have that privilege right now. It is wrong for a party in government to make out as if it had to fight for power or to be at the table. It is in government with the Minister. Our opportunity to have engagement at the same level is between Committee and Report Stages. If the Members opposite were a bit more mindful of what they are saying, they would realise it is quite insulting to other Members of the House who are trying to engage but whose engagement has been made that bit more difficult through decisions of the powers that be. The Minister knows we agreed to discuss amendments because there were amendments that she was considering accepting. I withdrew them in good faith and with the intention of resubmitting them on Report Stage after giving the Minister time to figure out whether they were appropriate. I cannot do that now. Therefore, I take issue with the comments made. They really dismiss the work of the other House.
I have over 100 amendments. They do not all relate to local councillors but relate to many varying sections of the Bill. The Bill's scope is much wider than the issue that has taken up the majority of the time and energy in the Chamber.
I just wanted to put that on the record.
Amendment No. 69 seeks to amend section 114(1) by inserting a requirement that prior to making regulations concerning the establishment and operation of local community safety partnerships, a review of the effectiveness and resourcing of the local community safety partnerships would have to take place. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that legislation does not pre-empt the outcome and evaluation of the piloting of the local community safety partnership model. The piloting of this model in the north inner city is currently under way. It seems that despite people welcoming the model of the CSPs, there are a number of issues with the implementation of the overall design. From talking to councillors in the area, it is clear that the partnership is poorly resourced. In the north inner city, NIC, there are only two staff members. It is next to impossible for such a small team to make progress on the difficult and diverse issues impacting safety in the area without clear support of other State and community organisations.
The partnership model cannot succeed without buy-in from State agencies and the community, including their representative organisations and, most importantly, the Garda. It is hard to see why State agencies would invest resources when there is no obligation on them to do so and there are few outcomes visible from this forum. This is a major barrier in the north inner city, as is the lack of engagement from the Garda. Ideally, this would be a forum for the community policing model to come to the fore and for the community gardaí to attend and work with the community. However, that is not how it currently works and it seems quite clear that the Garda does not support this model.
Finally, community will not buy in while there is no evidence of progress and it remains purely another talking shop. The NIC LCSP was part of a two-year pilot project. The evaluation of the pilot has not yet been published or concluded, so it is pre-emptive to roll this out further at this point.
Regarding community gardaí involvement and Garda diversion, let us keep in mind the following. Outside the NIC model, some communities, especially in the west of Tallaght, are being progressive and proactive in how they engage with young men in the communities on the streets in terms of detached street work. To the best of my knowledge, the local garda involved in the Garda diversion projects said he does not believe in the model of street work. Whether people are actually on board with the models we are implementing needs to be taken into account when looking at community policing and safety. I do not know why gardaí would not believe in the model of street working and engaging with young men where they are within their communities. That is just a side note to the previous point I was making on the NIC.
Amendment No. 70 is an alternative to amendment No. 69 which would give the Minister discretion to not make regulations, thus allowing for more time to evaluate the result of the pilot project.
Amendment No. 74 seeks to ensure that regulations made by the Minister may provide for the memberships of the CSPs to include a diversity of interests and perspectives under section 114(2)(c). The reason for this amendment is to ensure that CSPs are a multi-stakeholder forum based on the idea of community engagement and empowerment and are not solely law-and-order type forums dominated by the same voices. If we truly want a new approach, we need to ensure that the membership of the CSPs are diverse and representative.
I may come back with an amendment on Report Stage. As Members can see, my notes were prepared for the last session, in which we did not get to these. I will not have the privilege of coming back on Report Stage. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that because there are parts of the Bill we have discussed that the Minister could, if she wanted, bring amendments to in the Dáil. The Government has introduced amendments here, so the Bill will go back to the Dáil.
Amendment No. 76 will insert a new paragraph into subsection (2)(c)(iii)(I) which would require the appointment of members of the relevant local community to the safety partnerships. If we are to move community safety policy to a participation model, we need to make it absolutely clear that ordinary members of the local community should be entitled to be members of the safety partnerships. To not include this provision would indicate an unwillingness to move away from a top-down approach to community safety.
Amendment No. 78 seeks to clarify that elected members of the relevant local authority will be able to serve as members of the safety partnerships. I am happy to listen to the Minister’s response on this. Can she clarify that “member” is construed as an elected member and not the staff or chief executive of a local authority?
Amendment No. 79 seeks to insert a new paragraph into subsection (2)(c)(iii) which would provide that representatives of other local committees, partnerships and task forces, including local drugs and alcohol task forces and any other local structures working to enhance the lived experience within their communities, would be appointed to the CSPs. If we want the safety partnership model to work, it is vital that committees, task forces and groups that work daily to improve the lived experience of their communities have a dedicated place in this process.
Amendment No. 86 is similar to amendment No. 85, which was ruled out of order. Amendment No. 86 provides for the same as amendment No. 85. Amendment No. 85 sought to address the issue I raised around buy-in to the CSP model but it was ruled out of order. It proposed to insert a new subsection (3) into section 114 which would oblige relevant public authorities to engage with and provide resources to the safety partnerships. Amendment No. 86 was not ruled out of order. It has the same intention but does not contain an obligation to provide resources. The reasoning for the difference is simply to ensure that the issue would be raised.
Amendment No. 87 would insert a new subsection requiring that within one year of the passing of this Act, the Minister would lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas detailing a review of the safety partnership model, particularly looking at the issues of community engagement, resourcing, engagement of public bodies with safety partnerships and the overall effectiveness of the model in respect of empowering and strengthening local communities and furthering public safety.
Amendment No. 88 would insert a new subsection providing that the Minister shall not commence this section prior to the completion of an evaluation of the north inner city safety partnership pilot. This is another alternative amendment I urge the Minister to accept because it would ensure that we are not pre-empting any sort of evaluation of the pilot.
I will speak to my amendments, namely, amendments Nos. 75 and 82. They are both in this section. I wish to record the fact that these are two amendments I will speak to but I will comment on other contributions.
I do not want to single out Senators because we do business and we are pragmatic. I will not name individuals, but the record of the House will speak for itself. There was a reference to the Tánaiste. The Tánaiste is not the Minister for Justice. This is a tripartite coalition. I respect Cabinet confidentiality and what might discussed at Cabinet or indeed what might be discovered in the carparks of these buildings with various Ministers. I will not ask the Minister too much, other than for her to assure the House.
There was a reference by another Member of the opposite side of the House to a correspondence from the AILG. I too received correspondence but I do not know if it is quite the same. They thanked me for these amendments that I collaborated with them on. There may be mixed messages. I texted the AILG now to ask if there are mixed messages coming from the association and what the communication is. I was told that they welcome the proposed amendment by the Tánaiste. The Tánaiste is not a Member of Seanad Éireann. The Tánaiste had his opportunity, as did all of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. To be fair to Fine Gael, it has been consistent it is supporting the Government, and I understand that. The Green Party Members are not here so I will not say too much about them because they cannot respond.
We understand how Government works and that this is a tripartite coalition Government. You do not win everything or get everything the way you want it, but when you do, you do and you stick by it, and there is collegiality in what you do. I fully endorse what Senator Ruane spoke about with regard to the amount of time that was wasted. But look, we are where we are. Clearly, Christmas was a break. However, word was going all around the place that someone was going to put manners on the Minister, someone was going to talk to the Tánaiste or somebody else was going to sort it all out. However, the reality is that Fianna Fáil in Dáil Éireann voted for this legislation.
I commend the local councillor representative bodies, AILG and LAMA, because they turned up the spook, got acting and got mobilised, as all politicians can do, including ourselves. They realised the people who said they were representing them were not representing them. They realised people had overpromised.
Hear, hear.
They realised they are our electorate. They realised there is a local election on 7 June and that there may be a general election after the budget or at some time within the next 12 months. They have woken up and realised they have the power in their hands to vote us into or out of office. That is important and that is what has brought on the change.
I took the time to look at the record of engagement, votes and amendments in Dáil Éireann. We are a revising Chamber. Let us be honest: up to last week, we did not have any amendments in from Fianna Fáil on this. Suddenly they are all exercised because they have to hedge their bets. I am confused as to whether they are running for Europe, for conventions or for the Dáil but somehow many people who come in here suddenly want out of here to another office. If it is not a junior Minister, it is a Taoiseach or President. People are not content to do the job in hand. I say that having considered the matter, because that is where we are.
I say to the councillors listening in via video parliament and other mechanisms that the reality is the AILG made contact with Senators. They certainly made contact with me and I have the correspondence in front of me. They asked us to work hard on this situation. The amendments I have put my name to and spoken on have been done with their support. It is interesting people are responding now, but better late than never. I take grave exception to any suggestion the Tánaiste was pulling the Minister aside because we are under pressure.
Hear, hear.
The Minister has the seal of office and is the Minister for Justice. I respect what she has to do. Needless to say, she did not find she could support the amendment. I fully respect that but I have a job to do like she does. I have an electorate like she does. I gave a commitment to my electorate, which is the sitting county councillors, Independents and party. I am glad to say I have support across structured parties too. I said I would make a strong case. That is all I can do. The Opposition is very small, through no fault of our own. That is just the numbers and it is a numbers game, to a certain extent.
Let us be clear. Did the Tánaiste put pressure on the Minister or indicate in any way that she was to ease off, back off or dress it up as regulations? The Minister knows – and I am around a while too - that it is all in the “regumalations”, as they say – the big joke – and it never happens. No one can hold anyone to account because of course we are all out of here. The nature of politics is we move onto the next battle but tonight we are making a case as we were asked and mandated to do. I take exception to the suggestion the Tánaiste was involved.
Can I speak to section 114? Is that appropriate to this point? I will take the Acting Chair's guidance on that point. It deals with this.
While we are on section 114, I received this correspondence:
[I am] aware that the Government Senators are under immense pressure today to finalise the remaining stages of the bill and may be under a government whip to do so. In this event, as part of your debate[...] could you suggest the following points to the Minister for her agreement.
I might not be fully in agreement but I gave a commitment I would convey this; therefore, I am doing it. The person will be listening in and will hear me and will be able to say that at least I did it. The suggestion is:
Section 114 of the bill provides that the Minister shall make regulations concerning the establishment and operation of local community safety partnerships. Prior to any regulations being made for the setting up and roll-out of the community safety partnerships across all local authorities, the evaluation of the current three pilot partnerships should be conducted and reviewed as to their operation over the last 24 months.
Then it says councillor representative bodies should be consulted. They are familiar words. The second part is:
That under section 114, a provision would also be made to consult with [the representative bodies of councillors, of which I am a member] prior to the preparation of these regulations concerning the establishment and operation of local community safety partnerships.
This seems to be the compromise or deal struck by a side of the Minister’s party, some of whom frustrated the Minister and us in our deliberations here in December. Suddenly they went away and tried to hatch out something and today is our earliest opportunity back here. The same people – most of them – blocked us having this in two Stages, having Committee Stage now and Final Stage next week. They tried to shut us down but we do not need to be shut down because we do not necessarily have to win votes here but we have to demonstrate to the people who elected us and people generally that, on community policing, we are advocates on their behalf. We can do no more than that. We might not succeed now but at least there will be a record of where people stood when we are back knocking on their doors and engaging with them.
I ask the Minister to consider favourably the amendments. Amendment No. 75 was a simple enough one concerning “city and county councillors, an equal number of whom shall be appointed to safety partnerships as were elected to the joint policing committee established by [...] Garda Síochána [...],”. I think it is reasonable. Would it not be great for the Minister to go out of here tonight and say she listened and took this on board, that it made sense and that she will do it? I know there is a process to follow. Accepting an amendment has a knock-on effect.
Amendment No. 82 hinges on what some Senators said earlier about assurances the Tánaiste gave. The Tánaiste is taking such interest. I have reason to believe he is taking more than a little interest in how this matter has been conducted, certainly in December. I cannot speak for now but can certainly say he was aware of what was going on in this House in December and the way proceedings were conducted. I am also aware he had conversations with people and has a keen interest in these matters. He can speak for himself. It is now being suggested the Tánaiste has had a hand, act or part in putting – I will not say pressure but influence - on making this commitment. Is there a commitment? Does the Minister believe there is an understanding from the Tánaiste that the chairs will be elected members? I would welcome that but would not welcome if it came about through undue pressure. The Minister has to do the job and stand over what she does but I ask her to clarify those points. I ask her to consider accepting the amendments. Would it not be great to leave here today saying “Well, look, I listened”? They are reasonable amendments and will not create havoc in the legislation. I know she believes in councillors. She has said it and I have always believed she does. She can show them by accepting some of these amendments that she stands in solidarity with them.
I want to make sure I respond to each individual amendment. We are talking to quite a number of them. As Minister, I have always been happy to engage with every colleague in this House on any legislation. This section has grasped many people’s attention for obvious reasons. I have been happy to engage with all colleagues. I was happy to have the meeting with Fianna Fáil Senators and Green Party Members. I was happy to engage with my own party on numerous occasions and with Independent Members across this House on concerns they raised. There is nothing in this legislation to give rise to many of the concerns that have been raised.
However, I am happy to provide clarification on many of the questions that have come from councillors, which they have also come directly to me about.
Section 114 is set out in the way it is because it is not the practice to stipulate the who or when or that level of detail in primary legislation. It was not done for the JPCs and it would not be right to do it here because there has to be that level of flexibility. These partnerships will work, and this is becoming apparent through the three pilots, on the basis of flexibility, depending on what an individual community's needs are, what the resources are, and what the particular focus is at the time. Even that will change. There might be a particular problem in a county that will be addressed through resourcing and investment and, when it is no longer a problem, the county will move on to the next issue. The dynamic on the partnerships will also change, as will the chairs and membership. It is important that it be that flexible and is not tied down in primary legislation. It has always been the case that this detail will be set out in the regulations. As I said before Christmas, I am very happy to engage with Members in both Houses, and with the representative organisations, before the regulations are put in place and before that is made absolutely clear.
Speaking to some of the amendments, the challenge in respect of amendment No. 68 is that it would require the Minister to consult with local authority associations, in addition to other relevant Ministers, prior to making these regulations. This specific section of the Bill covers high-level consultation. It is required to make sure that other Ministers and their Departments are aware of any regulations that will potentially impact on them and that there is engagement prior to that. It is not going further beyond a Department. It is very specific to how these regulations might impact on the functioning of a Department, including its policy and overall budget. It is a requirement in that regard, which is why I cannot support the amendment. The section does not go beyond that and is very much about a high-level consultation requirement.
Amendment No. 69 seeks to ensure that a review of the effectiveness and resourcing of LCSPs is carried out, prior to the regulations concerning the establishment and operation of partnerships being made. As these regulations provide for the establishment of the partnerships, it would not make sense to provide for a review to happen before they are up and running. It is just a matter of sequencing. Only three pilots exist at present. They have been under constant evaluation. As I said, it was my intention that I would get the completed evaluation before Christmas. That has not happened. One of the pilots was a little delayed in setting out its plan and getting to the same stage as the others. My understanding is I should probably have that evaluation in the next week. I gave a commitment that I would publish it, which I will. That in itself will inform the development and finalising of the regulations and the roll-out of the partnerships.
The engagement I have had with all three partnerships, including the chairs, members of An Garda Síochána and the representatives who have engaged, has all been positive, as has the feedback. There will always be ways in which we can improve it but, in particular, the only concern colleagues in the House have raised is making sure that people come to the table and are there. There certainly have not been any gardaí found wanting in being on these partnerships. They have been very positive. Once the legislation passes and this comes into law, there will be a requirement for the statutory bodies to engage. This is not just a "nice-to-have". There will be a requirement legally for health and educational bodies, An Garda Síochána, local authorities and everybody else to engage. It is very important to state that.
Amendment No. 70 seeks to change the provision from "shall" to "may". To a point that has just been made, we need these regulations to make sure that the partnerships can be established. Changing the wording to "may" casts a little doubt over whether they would be put in place. Use of the word "shall" means the Minister of the day will make sure there are regulations and guidelines so these partnerships can be set up as quickly as possible, and that there is that bit of clarity people are looking for.
Amendment No. 71 seeks to require the regulations to provide that establishment of a partnership would be by a resolution of the local authority concerned. I do not support this as it is the Minister who has legal responsibility for the partnership. It is right that the Minister, who is the responsible person for this, would have responsibility for the operation of the Bill as a whole. The regulations will come to him or her. I cannot accept the amendment for that reason.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 and amendments Nos. 75 to 79, inclusive, all propose to amend section 114(2) in some way to ensure certain persons can be, or are, appointed as members of the new partnership. As I noted, these partnerships will have a broader membership than the current committees. The Bill does not specify the exact composition of the partnerships. This is keeping with learnings from the partnerships to date so we have that flexible approach. Specifically on councillors, they have numbered six to seven on each partnership. It has worked well. There has not been a specific ask for many more. At the same time, I have clearly outlined the intention behind the overall composition of the partnerships. They will have 30 members, 20 of whom will be specified, including seven local authority members and ten others who could be appointed. The way in which they will be allocated has not yet been worked through. As I said, we will engage with colleagues in the House. However, if any particular group, organisation or member of a local authority wants to be part of that group of ten, there will be a process for them to be able to engage. However, we have specific committees that operate within local authorities at present. There is a process and a way in which local authority members are appointed to those. There will be a similar process to appoint the initial seven to the partnership. Beyond that, there will also be a specific process for anybody who would like to be appointed.
Amendment No. 76 references members of the local community. When we talk about this, it is very important to acknowledge that representative groups and community organisations will have a very important role. Whether the partnership is looking at domestic violence, or is representing minority or Traveller communities or many different aspects of our society, it is so important that these groups form a significant part of the LCSPs. Again, it will be up to the partnership itself to decide where those ten spaces go. It is also important that there is that good balance between statutory organisations, elected members and the community itself.
Amendment No. 74 seeks to provide that in addition to a requirement for gender balance and diversity in the partnership, a specific wording, "a diversity of interests and perspectives", would be included. That is overly prescriptive for primary legislation. A diversity of interests and perspectives could mean a multitude of things to different people. Again, it should be left up to the regulations and, most importantly, to the committee and partnership to look at what the interests are in a community, what the local issues are and what the local demographic is. The partnership itself will then be able to decide who it needs on the committee and what its priorities and focus are, and how it develops its local plan based on all of that. For that reason, it is too specific to include "interests and perspectives" in primary legislation. The provision for gender balance and diversity in partnerships covers that.
Amendments Nos. 80 to 82a, inclusive, also seek to amend section 114(2), but this time making it a requirement that a member of a local authority be elected as chairperson and vice chairperson of a partnership. This is the case with the current JPCs. However, I stress these partnerships will not be the same as JPCs. The role of the chairperson, and the composition, work and commitment of the partnerships, will be very different from that of the JPCs. I have been very clear, however, that there is nothing to stop a councillor from being chair. I am very happy to bring forward an amendment to clarify any doubts there might be around that but I am very clear that it will be an open position. It will not specifically go to local authority members but there is nothing to stop them from being chair, if they so wish to put themselves forward. While we do not have a local authority member as a chair in any of the current three pilots, which have worked in different variations, there is nothing to prevent a local authority member from being chair, if he or she wishes to put himself or herself forward. The most important thing is that the best person to carry out the role, and the person who wants to do it, can put himself or herself forward. There will be a process to select a chair. Again, the amendment I brought forward seeks to clarify that there is nothing to prevent somebody from becoming chair.
Amendment No. 83a also seeks to amend section 114(2) by defining the circumstances, frequency, medium and some of the content relating to meetings of partnerships. I cannot support this because, again, it is overly prescriptive. The number of times a partnership meets and the various types of meetings need to be covered by regulations. What I would like to see, similar to what we have in the JPCs, is that out of the minimum four meetings, at least one would be for the public and a second would be for other local elected representatives. Essentially, two meetings would be public.
There is nothing to stop partnerships having more meetings than that, or different types of meetings. Again, it is about not being overly prescriptive in the Bill. As Senator Fitzpatrick pointed out, it is clear that under the legislation there can be separate forums. There will be one local community safety partnership per authority, but that is not to say there cannot be a separate forum within that area. If a partnership within a local authority area believes there is an area with a specific need that requires the establishment of a separate forum to focus specifically on that community, townland or area, there is nothing specified in the legislation to prevent that happening. There is work currently under way in Drogheda, Cherry Orchard and other areas and there is nothing to stop them moving forward with a forum separate from the overall partnership.
For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot accept amendment No. 83a.
Amendment No. 85 is out of order.
Amendment No. 86 seeks to give the Minister power to place obligations upon public authorities. I have touched on this issue. Section 114(2)(o) allows for the Minister to make regulations providing for co-operation between such bodies in the regulation. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment. It will be clear that bodies will have to engage and be part of this.
Amendment No. 87 seeks to provide that the Minister shall lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas detailing a review of the safety partnership model. The amendment specifies a number of issues the report should address. It is important to note that there will be an obligation on the partnerships to prepare and submit to the new national office for community safety, which will be over all the different partnerships, an annual report and any other type of report the national office may request relating to the performance of its functions. It is more appropriate that the office with responsibility would require an update but I also reject the suggestion that a full report should be provided after one year. We need to give these partnerships time to be in operation, to have effect and to see the effect they are having. I have no doubt that in the years ahead there will be a significant amount of engagement between the Minister of the time, the office and locally to see how the partnerships are operating and ensure they are as effective as possible.
As regards amendment No. 88, there are three pilots currently ongoing. As was stated, these are located in Dublin's north inner city, Waterford and Longford. The pilots have been under constant evaluation and the intention is to apply the lessons that have been learned to the development of the regulations and the other partnerships. They are necessary for the establishment and operation of the partnerships. As I stated, however, I will publish the reviews once they are concluded. I expect to have that in the next week. They will feed into the overall regulations and the development of all the other partnerships throughout the country, which I hope to see up and running as soon as possible.
I thank all Senators for their support. There is significant support for the roll-out of community safety partnerships. The overall objective here is community safety and a focus on how we keep people safe. Everybody has a role in that endeavour. What we are doing here is building on the positive work from local authority councillors, working with An Garda Síochána, expanding that further and making sure that even more people are held accountable when it comes to community safety. I again thank colleagues for their contributions. I am always happy to work with every Member of the House.
I thank the Minister for her extensive response and for clarifying how we got to the final positions, as well as the flexibility that will be afforded by the regulations, the composition, the rationale in respect of the various amendments and her clarification regarding the position in respect of the chairs and the membership. That is important in the context of this debate. As has been stated, people are listening to this debate. It is important that they hear this clearly from the Minister in a calm manner. I respect the position of every Member of the House, as parliamentarians, to table amendments to the Bill, challenge the Minister and to probe and have that conversation. However, I utterly reject some of the charges that were made by Senator Boyhan. He is one of the most enlightened and respectful politicians in the Chamber, but I would regard some of his remarks, such as saying that somehow we woke up to the issue because selection conventions and European elections are forthcoming, as simply trash talk towards members of this party. I have been a politician for a long time. This summer, it will be 25 years since I was first elected. I have never looked at what I do in my work as relating to the next seat or the next chamber. My record shows that. I do the job before me here and now.
The Senator knows this well. He was here for the discussion in autumn, before the Bill came to the House, on the future of local democracy, and contributed significantly to it. That issue was thrashed out here on that occasion with members of local government, including members of the AILG and LAMA, and addressed by the Leader, who is sitting in front of me.
References to the Tánaiste were made. This issue was of significance and was discussed with him at Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party meetings, just as it was discussed with the Taoiseach at Fine Gael Parliamentary Party meetings. That is what you do. As the Senator rightly stated, you advocate and you make your position clear and people become involved in discussions and issues. When it boils down to it, we have the clarity afforded to us not from one single debate but from all the debates that were held within parties and the Senator's group and in this Chamber. We have arrived at a position where the Minister - whom I take at her word - explained in response to a previous amendment tabled by Senator Boyhan the situation in respect of membership, how that can go beyond the seven afforded and the provisions relating to the election of the chair of the new body.
I hope all those listening in or reflecting on the written statements and the record of the House today can respect all those positions. As the Minister rightly stated, this is about making sure that those appointed to this body, whetter they are local authority members, Oireachtas Members or community leaders, do their best to make sure the towns and cities in which we live achieve the cohesiveness that is required and An Garda Síochána listens to all those voices in order that policing, with which we have been so lucky for a century, will be done by consent rather than by force for the next century. That will come down to engagement at that level. That should be the focus of everyone here this evening.
I thank the Minister for setting out her responses to the grouping of amendments. It is clear she is not accepting any of them. It looks like she will not be accepting any amendments other than those she has tabled. Does she call that democracy? Maybe she does. It is lovely to see her smiling. At the end of the day, it is her prerogative. I have always respected that. However, we put forward a strong and robust case based on what we have been asked to do by the representative bodies. I will not get into argy-bargy with individual Senators. I am setting out my stall as I believe it and based the facts that have been presented to me, as well as the emails and memos and with reference to several meetings and the correspondence I received today from the AILG. I am satisfied regarding where people stand on the issue. We do not win everything or get everything our own way
However, everything in this regard seems to come back to the magic wand of the Minister's regulations. She clarified that there is no guarantee in respect of a councillor being the chair. Despite what people are saying, there is no guarantee. The Minister has told us councillors can apply. In fact, anyone can apply to be chair of this committee. It is helpful to know that and there is no misunderstanding. The Minister has told us there is no guarantee. She is not making provision for that. She does not even recommend it. That is to be admired. She has set out her stall without any ambiguity. Her position is that she will come up with a series of regulations. In the context of any legislation, there is nothing preventing her, as Minister, from putting particular issues she considers important into primary legislation.
This is the magic thing about regulations. While there are regulations, the Minister can put key objectives into legislation if she or her advisers so wish. She has taken a particular view. I want to leave today knowing what has been agreed.
I did not have a meeting with the Minister, by the way. I engaged with her but I certainly did not have a meeting with her. I have always found her to be exceptionally accessible and engaging, and if I want to contact her I know how to do so. I want to acknowledge that. There was no meeting with our group as such. Of course, each party is entitled to do its own thing. I take on board Senator Cassells's point about active advocacy and I fully understand that individual Senators from individual political parties and none will bat hard from their perspective. I respect that and have no difficulty with it whatsoever.
The Minister will not accept amendment No. 75 in my name. I flag to those who are around the House that I will be calling votes on it and amendment No. 82. These are really important amendments but the matter is one for the Members to decide. We have very little on the record here as regards voting patterns or support for these amendments. They are key amendments that I did not draw up. I am facilitating in this matter on behalf of individuals and advocates.
I thank the Minister for explaining her position. Most of the issues related to section 114 and city and county councillors are now clear. She can correct me if I am wrong but I understand the Minister envisages or plans to go away, scheme up some suggestions taking on board everything that has been said, put it all into the mix and come back with regulations. I ask her to commit to engage with the AILG and LAMA. That is a simple commitment to give. I am just asking her to engage. The organisations have no veto over it. In fairness, I think the Minister would engage with them and their representative bodies. I ask that she continue to engage with Members. I look forward to the publication of the regulations.
I am almost finished moving most of my amendments. I will be hear until the end for any votes. I presume the final vote on the legislation will take place by the end of the day if we reach all the amendments, as may very well be the case. If not, the Government's wish, supported by some Senators, is to guillotine the Bill. That is disappointing but it is a decision not of the Minister's making and it is not her fault. Therefore, I will not ask her to comment on it. I thank her for the time she has given us and the courtesy she has shown us. That is my position on those two particular amendments.
Having listened to some of the contributions, I will respond to some of the matters raised. The Minister and Department have requested that debate on the Bill finish tonight. I was happy to facilitate that because we have gave it three and a half hours on the previous occasion and provided four hours for it tonight. There has been ample opportunity for Members to have their say and we have had a good airing of one of the key issues. There are lots of other issues to come as well.
In terms of the reference that I made to the Tánaiste, I probably should have been clearer. Senator Boyhan mentioned Cabinet confidentiality. For clarification, I was referring to an article published in the Irish Independent stating that, as part of the policing reforms, there would be changes to part of this Bill after the Tánaiste "intervened at Cabinet." I was specifically referring to a publicised piece of journalism in the Irish Independent. That is where the information came from. As Senator Cassells pointed out, we engaged with our party leader and had a number of parliamentary party meetings because that is how the process works when a Government party and a group of Senators work together to use their mandate to achieve change. The position with this Bill, when it came to us, and we have had engagement with the Minister on this, was that a councillor would not be the chair and there would be an independent chair. That is no longer the case. It was changed specifically because of our interventions and amendment No. 84. That is our achievement in the Bill. We have made sure councillors can chair the local community safety partnerships and I have no doubt that some will put themselves forward for those positions.
On the matter of this side of the House only waking up to this issue, Senator Boyhan and I were on the Seanad Public Consultation Committee when it considered the future of local government. At that time, I alerted the House to this particular issue which had been brought to my attention by a number of councillors. I certainly got the impression on that day that it might have been the first time Senator Boyhan had heard about it. We have been-----
The Senator cannot speak for me. I will come back in.
Please do not interrupt. I said I got the impression. I can speak to my own impression.
The Senator got an impression about the Tánaiste and later corrected it because he put pressure on.
The issue arose many months ago. We have been many months working on this and using every avenue available to us to engage with the Department, the Minister, my party leader and other colleagues. Any suggestion that somehow we have not been working on this is not factually correct. That is borne out in the timelines and our engagement with the councillor representative organisations. As I said, having spoken to the AILG this morning, I know it is very happy to engage with the regulations. The Minister has given a full commitment, on the record, and Senator Boyhan often points out the importance of having things on the record, that she is happy to engage with councillor groups, Senators, Deputies and other stakeholders in putting those regulations together. That gives us ample opportunity to work out the nuts and bolts of how these will work at a community level.
Councillors' positions on the new local community safety partnerships will be maintained and they will have the numbers they need. Having up to 17 potential members of local authorities on them is, I think we can agree, a very welcome development. This is the democratic process. The issue did not get picked up in the Dáil because it was looking at other aspects of the Bill. It is worth acknowledging the Bill is nearly 300 pages long. It is huge and many issues in it are being raised by Members of both Houses. It is not fair to cast aspersions on colleagues in the other House because this did not get picked up there. It got picked up here and has been resolved. That is the important part of this.
I want to say a few words because there has been an awful lot of back and forth on this. I would not want there to be any suggestion that the Fine Gael Senators were not involved in this at its core. I certainly spoke to the Minister.
Ho, ho.
I will get to you in a moment, Sir Humphrey. The reality is that everybody worked together on this. To be honest, we were disappointed and would have liked a different result. We also understand the rationale behind the decision and why, although the Minister has ceded some ground, she stuck by her faith in the community safety partnerships. My colleagues would want me to say that possibly every one of them interacted with the Minister on this issue on one level or another.
Unfortunately, I was listening to Senator Boyhan, or Sir Humphrey as I called him, as he stopped just short of saying how brave the Minister was in his repeating the things that are on the record, repeating that she was not going to accept amendments and then suggesting somehow that that is undemocratic when, in actual fact, it is exactly the way the system works. God knows, the Senator has been here long enough to know that is the case.
What I am hearing from this debate is that people are very pleased with the manner in which the Minister has engaged with every side in this debate. That is not an easy thing to do. As the justice spokesperson for Fine Gael, I know this Minister is better than most as regards accepting amendments. Credit where it is due. This is an issue on which people do not necessarily agree. We can grandstand and of course we all have electorates to look after. That is also important. It is part of political communication. I do not deny anyone that, but let us be clear that we have arrived at a solution that is a halfway point, in many respects, between the two positions. Most important, it will allow local authority members to be the chairs of community safety partnerships. I was the first chair of the joint policing committee in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown when it was established in 2014, after the Local Government Reform Act was passed. I was the first chair of the committee and I am still a member of it. They provide valuable opportunities for elected members and members of the community to interact with gardaí at an organised level, rather than just ranting or arriving down at the station and having a go at the member in charge who happens to be there. In terms of the formal opportunity for the community, be it elected representatives or members of community groups, to put down questions, seek answers and engage with gardaí in a way where the gardaí are answerable to them, policing committees are extremely positive. I welcome the provisions on community partnerships.
I am not going to take a lot of the Minister's time. When she gets to the regulations, I ask that she consider providing that a member of the local authority be the chair. I will leave it at that. There has been enough said today.
I thank the Minister for her engagement. I also thank Senator Ruane who has put huge effort into this Bill. We are only interested in this particular section of the legislation because it has a major effect on us.
My heart is in local government and every councillor in the country knows that. I have to be their voice here today and that is why I am pressing amendment No. 72, which clearly states that at least one elected public representative of a local authority shall be a member of every community safety partnership in each administrative area of each local authority. I will be pressing amendment No. 80 as well, which provides that the chairperson of every community safety partnership in each administrative area in each local authority shall be an elected member of a local authority. These amendments were tabled by me and Senator Craughwell and I know that Senator Boyhan will also support them. I am going to press these amendments today because they cement the role of the councillor within the community safety partnerships. I ask my colleagues to support these two amendments and I know that the House will do the right thing here this afternoon.
I thank the Leader for clarifying the issue in relation to the Tánaiste and the Irish Independent. I look forward to looking at that piece in the Irish Independent and would be grateful if she could send it on to me. I believe in protecting the role of different Ministers and would not think that the Tánaiste would want to, in any way, undermine that. The Leader then went on to talk about success and she referenced amendment No. 84, which is a Government amendment. This is the tripartite Government that I talked about earlier. It is not a Fianna Fáil amendment. Actually, there are no Fianna Fáil amendments to this Bill but there are Government amendments. It is important to stress that point because one of my own group of colleagues suggested that there were Fianna Fáil amendments before us. I am not aware of any Fianna Fáil amendments here. I am aware of Government amendments.
Will the Senator take a question?
Sorry, I am speaking.
I am asking if he will take a question.
No, I will not, particularly in light of Senator Ward's contribution. I will not.
Continue please, Senator.
I just wanted to make that point. Other Senators can come in and I will listen to them.
Let us be clear, all this is saying is that a councillor or any member of the committee can go for the position of chair and that is it. There is nothing more here. There is no magic. There were no great negotiations or peace deals done over the Christmas period. It is simple, plain and clear that any councillor can put himself or herself forward. The outcome will depend on the numbers and the permutations, and there is no guarantee, but they can put themselves forward. There is no guarantee in any of this, in any of the amendments tabled, that a councillor will have an automatic right to chair one of these committees. That is the point I am making.
I again thank the Leader for the clarification and for what was a very important intervention in relation to the Tánaiste.
I am wondering about allowing local authority members to come in. The Minister said that any local authority member who wants to sit in on the committee can do so. Will they have voting rights or will voting rights be restricted to the original number?
All 30 will be equal.
They will have full voting rights.
All 30 will be equal.
I ask the Minister to clarify if that is five men and five women or is it just any ten members?
Obviously, this is to be agreed upon and worked through, but at the moment the intention is that there would be 30 members in total, with one chair, 19 other specified members according to the allocation I outlined, and then the ten others would be any ten others. What is in the legislation is that we would try to have a gender balance and that we would have a diversity of views and interests represented but it does not specify any further and I do not think it should. Obviously, we would like to see a 50:50 split between men and women on the committees. The legislation specifies that there should be a gender balance but in terms of the ten remaining members, it is not specific to them either. There might be 20 women allocated already and a committee might decide to put ten men in the remaining ten places that are open to any type of membership. In terms of voting rights and based on the three pilots, these are committees that will work by consensus. People will work with each other and I cannot imagine there will be much need for votes but obviously, if that is the case, everybody's membership will be equal.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 104, to delete lines 32 and 33 and substitute the following:
“(a) the establishment by resolution of a local authority of one or more safety partnerships in the administrative area of that local authority;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 104, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“(b) at least one elected public representative of a local authority, shall be a member of every safety partnership in each administrative area of each local authority;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Chambers, Lisa.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Ward, Barry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Sharon Keogan and Gerard P. Craughwell; Níl, Senators Paul Daly and Regina Doherty.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 104, line 37, to delete “sector,” and substitute the following:
“sector, provided that at least 20 per cent of such membership shall be members of the Garda Síochána nominated by the Garda Commissioner for that purpose,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Chambers, Lisa.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Ward, Barry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Marie Sherlock and Mark Wall; Níl, Senators Paul Daly and Regina Doherty.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 74 not moved.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 105, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
“(I) city and county councillors, an equal number of whom shall be appointed to safety partnerships as were elected to the joint policing committee established by the Garda Síochána Act 2005,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Chambers, Lisa.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Ward, Barry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Victor Boyhan and Michael McDowell; Níl, Senators Paul Daly and Regina Doherty.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 76 and 76a not moved.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 105, to delete line 2 and substitute the following:
“(I) such members of the local authority, who shall constitute not less than 25 per cent of the membership of a safety partnership, as may be nominated for that purpose by resolution of the local authority,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Chambers, Lisa.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Ward, Barry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Marie Sherlock and Mark Wall; Níl, Senators Paul Daly and Regina Doherty.
Amendment declared lost.
As it is now 7 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Seanad of this day: "That amendments Nos. 83 and 84 are hereby agreed to in committee; section 114, as amended, is agreed to in committee; amendment No. 102 and the Government amendments undisposed of are hereby made to the Bill; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of other than section 165, which is hereby deleted, the section or, as appropriate, the section, as amended, is hereby agreed to in committee; Schedules 1 to 7, inclusive, are hereby agreed to in committee; the Title, as amended, is hereby agreed to in committee; the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House; Fourth Stage is hereby completed; the Bill is hereby received for final consideration; and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
As there are no tellers appointed to the "Níl" side, I declare the question carried.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Next Tuesday at 1 p.m.
Is that agreed?
It is not agreed. I just want to point out that this is the third guillotine from this enlightened Government in three days.
Question, “That the House adjourn until 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 January 2024”, put and declared carried.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 7.17 p.m. go dtí 1 p.m., Dé Máirt, an 30 Eanáir 2024.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.17 p.m. until 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 January 2024.