I welcome the Minister to the House.
Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023: Committee Stage
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendments Nos. 1 and 170 to 181, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 20, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“ “Office of the Police Ombudsman” means the body established under section 64 of the Act of 2005 and continued in being by section 171(1);”.
These amendments follow on from previous amendments made to the Bill in the Dáil arising from proposals made by Deputies on the issue of the prominence of the Irish language in the names of newly established bodies. The Bill already provides for Irish language names for the various policing bodies, in line with the Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021. I did not include the reformed body which replaces the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission in the initial set of amendments, as I wanted to give further consideration to the proposed name of the body. This will be a public-facing body in the police oversight system and to that extent, its name is important. The office will have the attributes of an ombudsman but this does not fully capture the full scope of the policing oversight role involved, which will involve live criminal investigations. I am proposing to change the name of the new office in the Bill from Office of the Police Ombudsman to its Irish language equivalent, Oifig an Ombudsman Póilíneachta, and to add the name Fiosrú, meaning "Inquiry", to the official title, to read Fiosrú-Oifig an Ombudsman Póilíneachta. This will reflect the revised approach to the naming of public bodies in the Irish language, while also reflecting the broader policing inquiry and investigation aspects of this new office.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 21, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(iv) drug or alcohol use.”.
I welcome the Minister. Amendment No. 2 seeks to insert, in page 21, between lines 25 and 25, the phrase "drug or alcohol use". It is a simple amendment which seeks to add drug and alcohol use to the definition of what constitutes vulnerability in the context of the Bill. Section 9 provides that one of functions of An Garda Síochána is to prevent "harm to individuals, in particular individuals who are vulnerable or at risk". I welcome this provision, but I think we have an opportunity, through this amendment, to expand on how we conceptualise and understand vulnerability for the purposes of the Bill. We often underestimate the impact of drug and alcohol use, particularly use sustained over an extended period, on an individual's capacity to keep themselves safe. People in addiction are too often vilified, stigmatised and criminalised because of their addiction, to such an extent that many people in addiction do not seek support or intervention. We need to end the stigmatisation, enchaining and othering of people in addiction, and start asking what we can do to help. While this amendment would not decriminalise the drug user in any sense, it would have a positive impact in terms of framing our understanding of, and empathy for, people who use and abuse drugs or alcohol. If we are serious about pursuing a health and harm reduction-led approach to drug use, this seems like a sensible next step.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to insert the phrase "advanced age and social isolation" into the section. Like the amendment relating to the vulnerability imposed by drug or alcohol use, this amendment seeks to include advanced age, coupled with social isolation, within the definition of what constitutes vulnerability for the purposes of the Bill. The definition as drafted does not include a reference to disorders of the mind, like dementia. My fear is that this does not capture older persons who do not necessarily have a dementia diagnosis, but whose ability to keep themselves safe might be impaired by their advanced age or social isolation.
Again, this amendment speaks to the need to for us to expand our understanding of vulnerability and the impact that aging and becoming more socially isolated can have on people in our communities. I am sure we have all heard stories about loved ones, neighbours or members of our communities having been taken advantage of on account of their advancing age, particularly if they live alone and in circumstances where they may have no other supports to link in with. I should add that this is not to make the assertion that advancing in age somehow makes people vulnerable. That is why I coupled it with social isolation. There is a particular type of elder abuse that can happen within communities that exposes this group to a particular vulnerability. I think the Bill would be enhanced by including the amendments in this section.
I have one final point. We were reminded of the benefit of positive and proactive community policing during the pandemic. It is what drew my attention to the vulnerability of some older people. We saw how many vulnerable older people there were in our communities when they came together during Covid-19 to reach some of them. We all have a responsibility in promoting community safety, but the gardaí have a specific role and particular influence within this.
I thank the Senator. At the outset, I understand why she is proposing this amendment. The overall objective is to make sure nobody is left out of the terminology used. What we have tried to do, and I will say similar about some of the other amendments, is not be so prescriptive as to potentially exclude people. In this particular section, the term "vulnerable" is used in conjunction with "at risk". The definition of "at risk", in the same section of the Bill, is "in relation to an individual, means an individual, including an individual aged under the age of 18 years, who is at risk, at a particular point in time, of harm and who requires, whether due to his or her personal characteristics or personal circumstances, assistance in protecting himself or herself from such harm at that time". We have tried in this definition to make sure everybody is included. The more we define that and put in particular characteristics, there is potential for other people to be excluded because they are not defined. We have tried to capture everybody in the definition. The approach is to reflect that somebody might be in a particular situation or experiencing, for instance, social isolation, but it might be at a particular time due to certain circumstances which may change. We are trying to apply it to somebody who might be in a vulnerable position at a particular time but not at a later stage and ensure it encompasses everybody. By putting in something more prescriptive, it potentially excludes others.
For those reasons, I cannot accept amendments. I want to make sure everybody is captured in this. Careful attention was paid to the language in the Bill concerning the use of "at risk" to make sure it encompassed everyone, not just the young but also the old, and not just people in a long-term position but also people who might, in the short term, find themselves in a vulnerable position. I understand why the Senator put forward the amendments, but for the reasons outlined, I cannot accept them.
I withdraw the amendment with the right to resubmit on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 21, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(iv) advanced age and social isolation.”.
I withdraw the amendment with the right to resubmit on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3
Are amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, grouped?
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 23, line 18, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Independent Examiner”.
This amendment seeks to replace the responsibility for deciding whether a matter relates to policing services or security services with the independent examiner of security legislation. In the Bill as drafted, this responsibility lies with the Minister for Justice. It is our assertion that it should not be for the Minster for Justice to determine whether a matter is one of policing or security. Leaving this decision with the Minister of the day risks politicising the distinction to the potential detriment of public safety. The Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland examined the role of An Garda Síochána as both a police service and a State security agency. Ultimately, it recommended the creation of an independent examiner, as provided for by the Bill. For this office to function effectively, it must be independent of Government.
Hear, hear.
The Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland suggested that the new office could act as an adjudicator in circumstances in which questions or disputes arise in respect of policing and security services. In the Bill as drafted, the independent examiner is not empowered with this function. Will the Minister clarify why this provision was not included in this Bill and consider accepting the amendment to ensure the office is equipped with this function and independence so it can achieve its aims?
Amendment No. 5 is consequential on the acceptance of amendment No. 4, which provides that the independent examiner, when making a determination about whether a matter is one of policing or security, "shall consult with the Minister, and [any] other relevant persons and bodies [as] determined by the Independent Examiner”.
Does Senator Sherlock wish to speak to amendment No. 6?
I will move and withdraw the amendment with the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.
We will come to that.
I will speak to amendments No. 4 and 5 because both relate to the independent examiner and the role he or she will be given in adjudicating. While the independent examiner has many important and significant roles under this Bill, I do not think it is appropriate for him or her to have this particularly expanded determination focus. The remit of the examiner relates to security only, whereas for the Minister for Justice, there is a clear remit with regard to both policing and security of the State. The Minister is politically accountable to the Oireachtas in this regard. For that reason, the examiner has a role relating to security only where the Minister, who is accountable to the Oireachtas, has a role and clear remit with regard to both policing and security, which is what we would adjudicate on. For those reasons, I propose not to accept the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 23, to delete lines 20 and 21 and substitute the following:
“(4) In reaching a determination under subsection (3), the Independent Examiner shall consult with the Minister, and other relevant persons and bodies so determined by the Independent Examiner.”.
I withdraw the amendment with the right to resubmit on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 23, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(5) Nothing in this section confers on a member of Garda personnel a power that he or she does not have by virtue of another enactment (including other provisions of this Act) or at common law.”.
I withdraw the amendment with the right to resubmit on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4
Amendments Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 23, to delete line 27 and substitute the following:
“(i) independently, impartially and in accordance with law,”.
Section 4 sets out the policing principles. Our amendment is very basic and simple but is important and needs to be said nonetheless. The principle is that policing services are to be provided independently, impartially and in accordance with the law. We ask that the Minister would consider including this. It is an important message to send in the context of the legislation.
I will speak to amendment No. 8 first. This is a simple amendment which seeks to include a specific reference to equality matters and the need for equality to be upheld within the principles of policing. As drafted, the Bill provides that policing services are to be provided "in a manner that protects and vindicates human rights". This is a welcome provision but would be made stronger again if it included a specific reference to the need to uphold equality. This would ensure individuals whom we know are subject to discrimination under the nine specific grounds referred to in the Employment Equality Act and the Equality Act would be provided explicit protection within the principles which will underpin policing in Ireland.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to insert a reference to fairness within the principles of policing. As drafted, the Bill provides that policing services will be provided "in a manner that supports the proper and effective administration of justice". I have spoken on many occasions in this Chamber about the fact that certain communities are policed more heavily and acutely than others. It is an uncomfortable truth but something we must come to terms with and confront. The assumption that policing services will be provided fairly is not a satisfactory safeguard because we already know that not to be the case. This amendment would provide that policing services are to be provided in a manner that supports the fair and proper effective administration of justice. It is a small but important and impactful change. I hope the Minister will consider accepting it.
Related to this point - it is something I will seek to come back to on Report Stage - is the need for our policing services to be trauma informed in their development and delivery. The Bill provides a unique opportunity to embed the need for trauma-informed service within policing. Research tells us that the vast majority of persons with whom the police interact are people who have experienced trauma in some form or were subject to adverse childhood experiences. These experiences shape how we behave, why we engage in criminality and how we interact with authority. A trauma-informed approach to policing will lead to greater understanding of the needs of those interacting with the gardaí, more effective interventions and greater confidence in the delivery of policing services.
Amendment No. 10 pertains to the need for a whole-of-community response to public safety. Like amendments Nos. 8 and 9, this amendment seeks to expand the meaning of policing principles within the Bill. It is based on an acknowledgment that effective policing depends on a whole-of-community response to public safety. When we think about policing and the administration of justice, we often conceptualise it as an "us and them" situation, involving criminals and well-behaved people, where An Garda Síochána is exclusively entrusted with maintaining safety and security. However, truly effective policing relies on a co-ordinated community and societal approach to creating and maintaining safety. If we look at how we responded to the riots in Dublin a fortnight ago, we will see that a concerted effort was made by many people in both Chambers to "other" the people who were involved, to put distance between us and them. However, they are "us"; they are in our communities and form part of the idea of safe policing and community forums. It is my assertion not only that this was unhelpful in the immediate aftermath of the violence in Dublin, but also that it is an unhelpful way to conceptualise violence and disorder more generally in terms of our shared ambition to create safer communities for us all.
Working in the community sector for as long as I did, it was always extremely difficult to hear people who shared the intention of reducing crime or increasing safety saying "this is not my community" or "this is what our community is" as if the people who engage in a particular behaviour that we may see as a threat to safety within the community, or who engage in a social activity that causes harm to themselves or to other people, are somehow in some other liminal space that is separate from the community and not part of it. I always felt that understanding how we engage in community organisations is not about separating those two spaces, because that can make people feel so ostracised that they rebel within and against their own communities. Under any legislation, or within any policing or safety forums, there must be a willingness to engage with groups and with people who are engaged in activities in which we do not like their being engaged. They do not stop engaging in such activity just because we do not like it or we wave the finger. That is not what happens. Shame cycles lead to people staying in their current positions because it is a case of "you are them and we are us and we are to stay in this type of dynamic with each other".
I remember that when I first tried to set up a programme in 2008, I ironically - probably to amuse myself - called it the DPP, the drug-dealers pilot programme. I thought DPP was a clever name for it at the time, and I still think it is. I will explain what happened there. Even those who want to work with people in the community to bring everyone along have a fear that by engaging with people who are engaged in behaviour you do not agree with, somehow you are trying to excuse or condone that behaviour even though that is not actually the effort being made. The effort being made is based on the idea that we can never truly change something unless there is a willingness to understand it. Is it not similar, on a micro level, to looking at conversations about the North and the South and how to get everybody in the room? That national concept of peace has to be taken right down to the micro level of community. That is what I mean by a whole-of-community response. Putting put the word "whole" in there is my effort to ensure everybody is included, even if we are not comfortable or happy with the behaviour being engaged in. We will never achieve cohesion if we do not have a whole-of-community mindset where we do not other people.
Amendment No. 11 relates to the provision in the Bill, as drafted, requiring the policing principles to establish that effective policing depends on securing the support and confidence of the public. This is a provision that I agree with absolutely but it is missing an important reference to the need for trust between the public and An Garda Síochána. Similar to amendment No. 9, the reality is that many communities do not presently trust members of An Garda Síochána. When I reflect on my own experiences as a young person, I recall that there were many occasions where people refused to call the gardaí even though they should have because they simply did not trust how the gardaí would respond to the situation. I know that is still the case. Some of that can be handed down historically through the generations even if a person does not directly have a negative experience with the gardaí. It can become a cultural norm generationally within the community that the relationship is not a positive one and that one should not engage in that relationship. We need to make efforts to have some sort of restorative justice programme between people within particular communities and the gardaí to the benefit of everybody. At the moment there is a incredibly weak foundation on which to build an effective policing service. I do not believe that true community safety can be created without that.
I welcome the Minister. I wish to express Sinn Féin's support for amendments Nos. 7 to 11. As the Minister knows, we support this Bill but the well-thought-out amendments proposed by the Civil Engagement Group are worthy of support. As Government amendments are pending anyway, there is the opportunity for the Minister to take some of these on board today. I really hope she does so. I also want to take the opportunity to welcome some of the folks in the Visitors Gallery today. They have a particular interest in this Bill. The Minister will have met them before. They are our comrades from Fórsa, the trade union: Mr. Jim Mitchell, Ms Bernie Aston, Ms Ellie Brennan, Ms Paula Hilman, Mr. Chris Crowley and Ms Orlagh Fawl. They have a particular set of concerns which we may or may not get to today in terms of amendments but they are here to show that their concerns are still very much in place and we hope the Minister will pay heed to them.
I welcome those in the Gallery as named. Are there any other contributors? I call the Minister, Deputy McEntee.
I too welcome the visitors in the Gallery. I am not sure we will get to that section. We are working through the Bill anyway and are obviously committed to working with all of them as the Bill progresses and beyond.
Obviously the amendments collectively are relating to policing principles. I will speak to the first one and then group the others together. Amendment No. 7 proposes to add the phrase "in accordance with law". The principles of policing services are to be provided both independently and impartially. This is something that was raised in the Dáil previously. I accept the underlying principle for this but it is just to say that all public bodies are required to carry out their legal obligations in accordance with the law. It must simply go without saying. In particular, An Garda Síochána members are bound by a solemn declaration to comply with the law and all Garda personnel will also be bound by the standards of professional behaviour that are provided for in section 2(5)(viii) of the Bill which will be informed by a code of ethics which is then provided for in section 78 of the Bill. This is unnecessary because it goes without saying that gardaí must conduct their work in accordance with the law at all times. As I said, the declarations and indeed the professional behaviour standards that they are bound by are set out in a number of different sections.
In regard to section 4 more broadly - the following amendments are connected with this - it contains a significant expansion of the meaning of policing principles compared to the current Act. There is a new reference to community safety. There is an important change from respecting human rights to protecting and vindicating human rights. There are also new references to being accessible to and engaging with communities and to providing policing in a national framework that has a particular regard to communities. All of this is new, enhanced and amended, compared with the current Act.
Our gardaí and the relationship they have with our communities, and by that I mean all communities, is something other policing services look on with admiration. That is not just because we have, for the most part, an unarmed force, but the way in which we police and the way we have always policed directly with communities have resulted in that connection, which perhaps does not exist in other countries. There are always ways in which we can improve it. Again, however, the fact is we have expanded the meaning of policing principles to include a reference to community safety, and references to respecting human rights have moved to protecting and vindicating human rights. There are new references to being accessible and engaging with communities, and providing a national framework that has a particular regard to communities. Most importantly, a new provision states that "every member of garda personnel is required to act professionally, ethically, with integrity and in a manner that protects and vindicates human rights". These are very progressive and inclusive changes that will support the work of An Garda Síochána.
Amendment No. 8 proposes to add the term "and upholds equality". As I noted, this principle has been significantly expanded in the Bill. The view I take is that upholding equality is inherently within the protection and vindication of human rights. That specific reference was just mentioned.
I understand the objective of amendment No. 9, but it is something I do not think is necessary. The administration of justice that is proper, effective and, of course, fair is encompassed in the expansion I just mentioned.
Amendment No. 10 references a "a whole of community response to public safety". I agree with the principle here but the principles outlined in the Bill have been expanded significantly to make a number of references to communities. Again, references in the Bill to being accessible, engaging with communities and providing a framework that has a particular regard to communities is all to make sure that every person in every community has access to members of An Garda Síochána and that gardaí are engaging with and consulting them and making sure they are supported in whatever way is necessary.
On amendment No. 11, securing the confidence of the public and its trust are essentially one and the same. If you have the confidence of the public, it should mean that you also have the trust. Again, it is not that I do not agree with what is being proposed but I am not sure, in a Bill of this size with the ways we have expanded it already, that putting in duplications will strengthen it any further.
I reassure Members that the intent in all the amendments tabled is captured in what is in the Bill. I do not disagree with Members. I absolutely support what is being proposed, but it is captured not just by what was already in the Bill but in what has now been expanded in the current legislation.
I understand that the principles may be there but I sometimes wonder, in a collective sense, where the ideology is in respect of the community. We can say "community" but there is still a separation that happens. For me, it is about putting on the record that there cannot be a division of what that is and is not.
Beyond that, while the policing principles have been expanded to include community safety, there is no definition in the Bill as to what community safety means. Should the Bill have a definition of community safety? Some words can be washy and interpreted in different ways. To go back to my point on addiction, some people will go to prison for something addiction related and will be forced into homelessness because they will lose their tenancy with, say, Dublin City Council. That would create an unsafe place, which goes against the principles of community safety. Another example is when some people's houses are used, for example, older persons in isolation, to hold or cut up substances, etc. It is about what community safety actually is. If there were a definition of that, it might also capture, in a much more real sense, the intentions and principles. Community safety could mean anything to anyone. It could mean expelling anyone you do not agree with within your community and that somehow creates community safety. What is the meaning of community safety when it comes to policing principles?
The Senator alluded to it in her last comment. Community safety can mean different things to different people. To her last point, it can mean somebody who takes the law into his or her own hands, or tries to because of his or her perception of a person or group of people in that individual's community. Nobody is above the law. That is why we have An Garda Síochána; to make sure the laws are upheld. Safety can mean different things to different people. It can mean a person who is isolated and living on his or her own feeling safe from burglars or somebody coming into that person's home. It might mean somebody being safe in his or her own home from somebody that person is with, as regards domestic violence. We have seen, even through the three community safety partnerships that have been piloted, the broad variety of actions and asks that have come out of it, depending on where the partnerships are, and they are in Longford and Waterford while one has been developed in the city centre. Safety means different things to different people.
It is similar to some of the earlier amendments. We do not want to be prescriptive in primary legislation as to what safety can mean to any individual because it would inevitably exclude somebody or some scenario we have not thought of or worked through. The community partnerships are so vital because they will help communities identify what is important to those communities as regards safety. What is needed in County Meath might be separate from what is needed in parts of Dublin, Donegal or elsewhere. We have not defined it because it is a broad concept.
Again, I accept the intent of the amendments but the overall objective is to make sure there is that connection with the community, that there is no division, that we are not identifying any one part, person or group of people, and that the community encompasses and includes every single person in it. That is what we are trying to achieve with this section.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I will take it up on her response to Senator Ruane, when she said she did not want to be too prescriptive and mentioned the broader sense of community. As the Minister knows, we will come later to the issue of community stakeholders, who are very wide and varied and come at different levels. Oireachtas Members are stakeholders. They live in communities. One of the great things about Irish democracy is that most of our parliamentarians live within their communities. That is a very strong connection. Our city and county councillors live in our communities with democratic mandates. They are not self-appointed individuals. They have a democratic mandate from the people to represent them. We need to be a little more prescriptive. We cannot be airy-fairy. I am not suggesting the Minister is saying that, but we have to be very clear and acknowledge the very significance of who our community stakeholders are. We have community networks and a whole range of things.
The other key aspect I wanted to hang on is the Minister's word, "partnership". It is all about partnership, soft intelligence, covert operations and a range of things. Every tool possible should be made available to An Garda Síochána to do its work in administering safe communities and policing, but we must do so as partners, as the Minister said. It is about partnership. We will have an opportunity later to discuss it but, fundamentally, I believe our elected people, community representatives and business people in the city of Dublin and throughout the country are also partners. It is in everyone's interest to have peaceful, orderly communities and law and order and enforcement in those communities.
As I said, we will talk about that later, but the Minister gave me an opportunity to raise it arising from her response. It is something we need to reflect on in the coming days and weeks as we go through the Bill. Again, I am not suggesting this of the Minister, but let us not be tone deaf to the requirements of community, be that ordinary citizens, and we are all ordinary citizens, or different groupings, including An Garda Síochána, liaison officers, community welfare officers and, importantly, our city and county councillors. Our TDs and Senators also have a huge role. This is our opportunity. This is where we make primary legislation and where all of us have been asked to put down amendments on this Stage and the next. This is our only opportunity, in a public forum such as this, to make the case and have it on the record that we are making that case. I hope, in all of our debate, we are not tone deaf to the needs of our public representatives.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 23, line 28, after “rights” to insert “and upholds equality”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 23, line 29, after “the” to insert “fair,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 23, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“(i) a whole of community response to public safety,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Moynihan, Rebecca.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Blaney, Niall.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Mark.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Lynn Ruane and Paul Gavan; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Regina Doherty.
Amendment declared lost.
I welcome to the Visitors Gallery Joan and John O'Neill and also Bryan and Kathleen Fitzpatrick, who are uncle and aunt to our colleague and friend, Senator Fitzpatrick, and it is great to have them here. I welcome a good friend of mine from Cork, John Purcell from Ballincollig. John, you are very welcome to the House today.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 23, line 31, after “the” where it firstly occurs to insert “trust,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 26.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Moynihan, Rebecca.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Mark.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Lynn Ruane and Paul Gavan; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Regina Doherty.
“Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Alice-Mary Higgins has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 19th June to 19th December, 2023, and the Whip of the Fianna Fáil Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fianna Fáil Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Higgins for the duration of her maternity leave.”
Amendment declared lost.
I welcome the chairperson of the Meath county board, Mr. Martin O’Halloran, Damien and Catherine Clarke and Damian and Bernadette Usher who are here from Navan. I hope that next Saturday in Páirc Uí Chaoimh, Cork will gain revenge for 1990, or rather 1987 and 1988, as we won in 1990.
Section 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9
Amendments Nos. 12 to 14, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 25, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“(d) preserving safety and security in our communities,”.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to provide an additional function for An Garda Síochána under the Bill to provide policing services with the objective of preserving safety in our communities. As drafted, the relevant section does not make reference to the duty of An Garda Síochána to promote or preserve community safety, which we feel is a missed opportunity. There are provisions that relate to preserving peace and public order, so it might be seen that promoting safety is implied within that. However, I think it is worth being explicit about the role of An Garda Síochána alongside the community as a whole, as I already referenced, in promoting and preserving community safety. This was a clear recommendation from the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland, COFPI, so I ask the Minister to speak to the rationale for omitting this provision from the Bill.
There is a significant issue in the Bill that is not addressed directly by this amendment but in respect of which I may seek to table an amendment on Report Stage, which is the absence of a definition of community safety, as I spoke to in the last grouping. With this being omitted, we are left a little bit in a space of uncertainty about what safety means in the context of the Bill, which ultimately impacts policing. I do not mean being prescriptive in terms of groups of scenarios but a definition in terms of intention of what community safety is. The Bill aims to provide for the generational reform of our policing services, so there is a real opportunity for us to reframe our conceptualisation of what policing is and what it sets out to achieve.
I mentioned already the issue with an “us and them” conceptualisation of crime and criminality. I believe that in excluding explicit references to the objective of preserving safety and security and also not being expressly clear about what safety looks like, we risk reinforcing the othering of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system, which does not serve the best interest of Irish society. I will not go into too much detail on that now.
I refer to when we look at keeping the peace or public order, when we think people who are engaging in particular scenarios and then when we think of safety. In working with people who are in the prison system or who have engaged in various different levels of criminality throughout their lifetime, you will often come to realise when you sit down with them as individuals in a space where there is a relationship or piece of work going on that they too grew up in that community not feeling safe. You can be the perpetrator of violence while also growing up being the victim of that violence. Usually perpetrators were not perpetrators before they were victims. Usually they have been victims of that lack of safety. Yet somehow we remove safety as a thing they may feel when they are in that guise of perpetrator or “us and them”. Most people involved in criminal activity, if you get right down to the heart of it, in and of themselves do not feel safe or grew up in environments or childhoods that were not very safe.
Amendment No. 13 relates to page 25. It would insert “preventing harm to classes of persons who are disadvantaged by reference to the following factors”, and I will not go into the factors. Basically, in respect of the functions of An Garda Síochána, the Bill charges the Garda with the duty to provide policing services with the objective of preventing harm to individuals, in particular those who are vulnerable or at risk. However, the Bill does not provide that An Garda Síochána has the same duty in respect of particular groups of people that we know are subject to discrimination and harassment on account of their membership of that group. We have taken the equality Acts as our reference point for this amendment, charging the Garda with the function of protecting groups of people who are disadvantaged based on their socioeconomic status, gender, civil or family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, disability, race, ethnicity or their membership of the Traveller community. We know these groups are subject to targeted harassment, discrimination and exclusion. Therefore, we feel it is imperative this is acknowledged in the Bill so that specific steps must be taken by the Garda to prevent harm to these individuals and their relevant communities.
Amendment No. 14 also relates to page 25. It is a simple amendment that seeks to replace the word “criminals” in respect of functions of An Garda Síochána with “individuals who have engaged in criminality”. The Minister and my colleagues will be aware of my concern regarding the use and misuse of language. Language matters and I do not think it is acceptable that the Bill would invoke the term “criminals” in respect of people who, for one reason or another, might have a criminal record. In my view, it dehumanises the person and makes permanent the fact that they at one time broke the law. Do we perceive someone who previous committed a crime or served a sentence but is meaningfully engaged in their rehabilitation and who is in full active membership or a participant in Irish life as a criminal or do we choose to hold empathy and understanding for them and see them for the persons they are and the dreams and aspirations that they may hold for themselves? I mentioned othering many times already but when we use a static word like “criminals”, it creates a subgroup of people. It almost implies that it is a characteristic. As much as someone is born with blond or red hair, you are a criminal. It is somehow a characteristic of your essence rather than being someone who has, was or is engaged in criminality. It allows them for a point in time to not be considered a criminal way in such a static way. It gives people a way back from being framed in a particular way and engaging in a particular activity that will cause any sense of unsafety to others within communities.
Amendment No. 16 seeks to provide An Garda Síochána with a function of facilitating restorative justice.
Restorative justice is when dialogue is facilitated between a victim, the individual who has committed a crime against that person or their family and an independent person who is trained to prepare and manage these types of conversations. In the Irish context, the independent person can be a garda, a probation officer or a person who works within a community-based restorative justice programme. It is a powerful tool, but although there are some instances in Ireland of restorative justice being used, it definitely has not become as embedded in our practice as it could potentially be.
Youth workers are sometimes really good at engaging in restorative justice practices between young people in the community and people who may feel frightened of them. I refer here to groups of young people hanging around shops or instances of burglary. People might have a perception of safety versus real safety. Where someone has committed a crime, in order for there to be restoration, he or she has to engage in a practice of accountability and understand the impact the crime had on the person against whom it was committed. Victims must also be able to advocate for themselves in that moment in a very protected way, particularly in circumstances where they may have felt violated when the crime happened. Sometimes restorative justice can actually give the victim of a crime a moment where they can take some power back, engage and be able to bring the matter to a conclusion. It is not a case of their saying that what the other person did was okay, but it can add to the feeling of safety people have within their communities when they engage with the principles of restorative justice. This does not necessarily mean there is no accountability. There still must be accountability for crimes committed, but restorative justice can happen alongside that.
Amendment No. 17 proposes the deletion of the phrase "and improving road safety" from subsection (1). Amendment No. 18, which is related, also deals with road safety and would reinsert the phrase "improving road safety" by means of a new subsection (1)(j). These amendments have a shared intention and should be considered together. They aim to separate the objectives of regulating and controlling traffic and improving road safety, and to make it expressly clear that it is the function of An Garda Síochána to promote both concepts independent of each other.
The rationale for amendment No. 17 is to draw the distinction between traffic management and road safety. While traffic management impacts on safety on our roads, it is not exclusively responsible for promoting it. We have heard statistics recently about the reduction in the level of road traffic enforcement activity on the part of the Garda. The Minister of State with responsibility for road safety, Deputy Jack Chambers, advised that this risks undermining road safety in general. Garda detections of mobile phone use by drivers are down by 40% this year compared with 2019. The number of motorists stopped for speeding is down 30%. Arrests for drunk driving are down 14%. This is reflective of a shift in the focus of the Garda regarding road safety. It needs to be corrected as a matter of urgency. The number of people who have lost their lives on Irish roads to date in this year is 172. That compares with 142 deaths in the same period last year and it makes 2023 one of the most dangerous years on Irish roads in a decade. This is a hugely concerning trend that is not reflective necessarily of a marked shift in driver behaviour but, rather, lower levels of enforcement by gardaí. That is inexcusable. While amendment No. 17 cannot realign the focus within policing on its own, it can place a renewed focus on the duty of An Garda Síochána to improve road safety as a stand-alone function.
I thank the Senator for the amendments. Again, all of them are particularly focused on the functions of An Garda Síochána under section 9. In amendment No. 12, the Senator is proposing to insert the phrase "preserving safety and security in our communities." If one looks at the section and the objectives of An Garda Síochána - and I know the Senator is saying that it does not specifically say security or safety - it includes concepts such as preserving peace and public order, protecting life and property, preventing crime and preventing harm. One could take from that - and I certainly do - that the objective of safety and security of communities is absolutely intrinsic. There is also a definition of "vulnerable or at risk", which is clearly linked to community safety and something to which we have spoken previously.
On amendment No. 13, the proposed new paragraph has the objective of preventing harm to classes of persons who are disadvantaged by reference to a number of factors. The Senator set those factors, which relate to the Employment Equality Acts and the Equal Status Acts, clearly in the amendment. To revert to my previous point, I do not want to be so prescriptive that we could potentially exclude people. The objective behind amendment No 13 is sufficiently covered where we refer to preventing harm to individuals and, in particular, to individuals who are vulnerable or at risk. The definition of what constitutes being vulnerable or at risk is already set out. I have explained that definition in some of my previous responses.
Amendment No. 14 - and I am not trying to be derogatory here - essentially mirrors what is contained in the Garda Síochána Act 2005. It is a clear definition. It applies to those who have committed criminal offences. I am sensitive to what the Senator said and the matter that has been discussed. It is not in any way to label people, but it is a clear definition applying to somebody who has committed a criminal offence. It is important that our legislation is precise and that it reflects reality and everything we are talking about here. To all of Senator's points, we need to ensure that people have the ability to change their lives around and be able to move on from their past and from criminal acts they have engaged in committing. That is very important. It is something I am committed to in working with the Probation Service, looking at restorative justice and looking at the ways in which we can invest in our youth diversion programmes and invest in our young people, including those who are getting involved criminality at an earlier age. In the context of the Bill, we need to have definitions that are precise and that reflect what we are talking about.
Amendments No. 15 and 16 are very much interlinked. We talk about facilitating restorative justice and rehabilitation. I absolutely believe that gardaí have a key role in this regard. It is important that it is not just gardaí, however. By including these amendments, we would place a greater onus and emphasis on gardaí to be responsible for rehabilitation of criminals and for restorative justice. Obviously, it is also about prison services, the Probation Service, youth justice programme, etc. It is very important to consider where we have already expanded the role, the objectives and the functions of An Garda Síochána in the Bill. To expand it even further without reference to the other bodies and agencies that play a vital role would place undue pressure and emphasis on gardaí. Obviously, they have a role, but they are not solely responsible.
With regard to amendments Nos. 17 and 18, I appreciate what the Senator said but it is my understanding that amendment No. 17 would have the effect of splitting the objective of improving road safety from regulating and controlling road traffic. While they are arguably different objectives, they are inextricably linked. I am not sure what would be achieved by separating the two. While they are separate objectives, they are very much linked with the theme of road safety and so should remain in the same paragraph. My reasoning for this is consistency in the approach to drafting that has been taken in other paragraphs as well. What is proposed would have a knock-on impact on other paragraphs.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 25, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(g) preventing harm to classes of persons who are disadvantaged by reference to the following factors:
(i) socio-economic status;
(ii) gender;
(iii) civil status;
(iv) family status;
(v) sexual orientation;
(vi) religious belief;
(vii) age;
(viii) disability;
(ix) race, including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin;
(x) membership of the Traveller community;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 25, line 11, to delete “criminals” and substitute “individuals who have engaged in criminality”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Moynihan, Rebecca.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Lynn Ruane and Eileen Flynn; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Regina Doherty..
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Alice-Mary Higgins has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 19th June to 19th December, 2023, and the Whip of the Fianna Fáil Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fianna Fáil Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Higgins for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
"In page 25, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
“(i) facilitating restorative justice, and”."
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Moynihan, Rebecca.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Lynn Ruane and Eileen Flynn; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Regina Doherty..
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Alice-Mary Higgins has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 19th June to 19th December, 2023, and the Whip of the Fianna Fáil Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fianna Fáil Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Higgins for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared lost.
I welcome to the Visitors Gallery a good friend of mine, Michael Hegarty, who is joined by David Doyle and Liam O'Shea. They are very welcome. They are before a committee today in Leinster House. We wish them well in their deliberations.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 have already been discussed with amendment No. 12.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 25, line 13, to delete “and improving road safety”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 25, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(j) improving road safety.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 27, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(i) to ensure that the Garda Síochána co-operates with the Office of the Police Ombudsman, with regard to his or her obligations under section 173 (1)(c);
(j) to perform any other functions conferred on it by or under this Act or the regulations.”.
I will be brief. We support this Bill but we feel it has room for improvements. Our amendment No. 19 simply places an obligation on the Commissioner to co-operate with the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. It is funny, but not in an funny way, that this does not currently exist. I cannot imagine why the Minister would possibly want to oppose an amendment such as this. Of course the Commissioner should co-operate with GSOC. That is all we are requesting in this amendment.
I cannot accept the amendment because it is actually provided for elsewhere in the Bill. In section 30(4)(ii) of the Bill it confirms that the Garda Commissioner is accountable to the board for the performance of his or her functions. The function of the Garda Commissioner then in section 33 of the Bill includes the function "to assist and cooperate with the Authority and the Police Ombudsman in order to facilitate the performance" of either his or her functions, a new explicit function which was not in the current Act. As currently drafted, the Commissioner is already accountable to the board for assisting and co-operating with the Police Ombudsman and the Commissioner obviously is working on behalf of and representing An Garda Síochána more generally.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Moynihan, Rebecca.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Blaney, Niall.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- Ward, Barry.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Gavan and Lynn Boylan; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Regina Doherty.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Alice-Mary Higgins has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 19th June to 19th December, 2023, and the Whip of the Fianna Fáil Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fianna Fáil Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Higgins for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared lost.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, to the House. He is back in his former home with his guests. They are very welcome to Leinster House. I hope they have a very pleasant and good visit. I hope the Minister is not getting pangs about returning to the Seanad - as a visitor perhaps. He is very welcome.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
As the time allocated for the debate has expired, we must now adjourn in accordance with the order of the Seanad today. I ask the Acting Leader to report progress.
I so propose.
Progress reported; Committee to meet again.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 5.05 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 5.15 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 5.05 p.m. and resumed at 5.15 p.m.