Vol. 298 No. 1
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 57, line 2, after “a” to insert “fair,”.
This is a very simple amendment. It seeks to insert the word "fair" in respect of the performance by a member of Garda personnel of their duties. As drafted, the Bill provides that the duties shall be discharged in a “lawful, professional, punctual and prompt manner.” The amendment would ensure that first and foremost, Garda personnel shall perform all their duties as outlined in a fair or impartial manner.
I apologise; I know the Senator has heard me say a number of times that I understand the intention. The concept of fairness in the legislative process is subjective and it is not generally used. In fact, I do not think the word “fair” is in any legislation that has gone through the Houses compared to the concepts that are here, namely lawful, professional, punctual and prompt, which are more objective. The purpose of the section is to set out the significance of the Garda Commissioner’s function to direct and to control An Garda Síochána for members and for Garda staff and that is why we have the very clear objective concepts and words being included instead of something that is more subjective and can vary by person. More generally, from a legislative point of view, the word "fair" is not something that would be included for those reasons.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 59, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“(b) the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission,”.
Chapter 6 of Part 2 relates to the governance and accountability of An Garda Síochána. This critical responsibility currently lies with the independent Policing Authority. Under the Bill, the Policing Authority will have responsibility for setting the policing priorities for policing services in Ireland. Before it does so, however, the Bill provides that the authority shall consult with the Commissioner, the national office and such other persons as the authority considers is appropriate. The amendment seeks to insert a provision that would mandate the authority to also consult with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, as part of this process, given the impact of policing on, and the importance of policing to, human rights and equality in Ireland.
While I again agree with what is being proposed here in terms of the overall objective, I need a little more time to engage with IHREC to be sure it is happy to be a body to be engaged with. I suggest we return to this on Report Stage and I will be able to do that in the interim if the Senator is agreeable.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to look at consulting with Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. It would be appropriate that that body come in on it and also that there be a balance for the priorities for the policing service. There is concern among members of An Garda Síochána that complaints are being made against them. I know they do not have trade unions but there is the idea of policing services and the gardaí themselves being represented. IHREC is worthy of inclusion but that relates to members of the public. The gardaí themselves also needs to have some level of representation to counterbalance that. I understand many gardaí are subject of complaints.
Every Monday morning, emails come into the police ombudsman from people making complaints---
I remind Members that we are on section 61. We shall speak to the section rather than speaking generally.
I am just-----
I am going to be very strict on this today because yesterday there was a lot of stuff going on that was not relevant to the Bill. I am not saying that was Senator Daly; I am speaking generally. Let us be specific to the section of the Bill, please.
I am just saying that a counterweight to IHREC would be issues and concerns about the behaviour of gardaí and An Garda Síochána. There is the issue of a counterbalance with regard to coming up with the priorities for the policing service in that there needs to be representation in some way, shape or form of the rank and file. There are many concerns regarding the lack of representation for them in the overall policing structure.
Go raibh maith agat. I call Senator Chambers.
I appreciate that we are speaking to the section.
To the section, yes, indeed.
I support the amendment put forward by Senator Ruane. It is worth considering, but I understand that it will potentially be considered at a later stage.
When going through the section, in particular, section 61(2) states that "Before determining policing priorities, the Authority shall consult with-----" and one of the provisions is "such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate". Can the Minister maybe expand a little bit on who might be included on that, how that might work and how that consultation might come about? Section 61(3) provides that "When determining policing priorities, the Authority shall have regard to the policing principles." In terms of the policing principles, can the Minister confirm where they are set down and how often they are reviewed? Is there scope to expand on those? In the context of the way policing is evolving in the State, the principles may or may not change but there is probably scope there to have a further look at that as well. Overall, I support this action and understand what it is trying to do but there could be a little bit more detail as to who can be consulted, how that might work and what the process is. Is there any scope for cases when somebody is not in agreement with who is being consulted? How that is dealt with?
As I said, I will come back on this particular amendment as I have to engage with the organisation. What we are suggesting in this particular section is that we would have bodies that absolutely have to be engaged with, but who the authority would then decide to engage with beyond that is a matter for the authority. It could be any type of body or organisation. The way in which it decides to engage, again, will be a matter for the authority. I would assume that any organisation or structure would decide by consensus on who they want to be part of that in the same way as any other organisation. However, it is very much a matter for the authority as to who it feels it is appropriate that it should engage with. What we are trying to do in this section is set out exactly who it must engage with and then there is an opportunity beyond that. As I said, looking at IHREC, given that the overall objective of the amendment is to make sure that human rights are upheld at all times, it is something to which I am committed to doing and I will come back on Report Stage.
I will come back on that point around whether we are going to put in something like IHREC. The Minister spoke about the policing priorities. I am sure Members were listening to "Morning Ireland" this morning when people were talking about the structured retail theft that is going on at the moment, whereby gangs now are going into shops and literally clearing out sections. As was explained in the piece this morning, it is nothing to do with the issue of inflation or food poverty or anything like that. These are non-essential items.
I am wondering why one of those groups that would be listed as "appropriate" would not be the gardaí themselves. The "Garda Commissioner" and "National Office" are listed. However, if the Minister is talking about the policing service and police priorities, surely, the rank and file members would be among those listed as those who would have to be consulted with because if they are not being consulted with, the Garda Commissioner and others, obviously, will be consulted with about determining the priorities.
Section 61 refers to "An Garda Síochána in performing its functions relating to policing services". Clearly, we have ongoing issues. We will not go into what has been raised in this Chamber many times during the Order of Business regarding the rank and file and other ranks and their ongoing engagement with the Garda Commissioner. Surely, however, they are one of the groups that should be consulted with. I know the Minister has given an undertaking that there will be others that could be considered. However, that is why I am saying that if we are going to have an issue of listening to the people on the ground, which, in this case, would be the gardaí themselves, they are the ones who would have to be consulted. I know there is an opportunity whereby they might be considered appropriate. They are possibly the most appropriate people in terms of setting priorities for the authorities of the policing services. They have literally said that they are not being listened to. If we do not include them in this Bill, as legislators we are overlooking them again. I ask that notwithstanding the Senator's proposal regarding the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the rank and file members of An Garda Síochána would appreciate our support, and that they and other ranks be included as one of those groups that would have to be consulted in putting this together.
On the "Morning Ireland" report this morning, the shop owner was asked why he did not have his own security. He was told the Garda was under-resourced and to take it up with his legislators. This, again, is from "Morning Ireland".
Stick to the Bill, Senator.
I am sticking to the Bill in terms of-----
You are not; you are straying beyond it.
I am saying that gardaí are being portrayed as not doing their jobs and that is because things like organised crime with regard to retail are not being prioritised. There are things that are not being prioritised. We have all sorts of other issues on which gardaí are saying resources are not being put into because the priorities are not there.
A person from the retail authority said that an announcement was made regarding a new Garda initiative around retail crime. I am not too sure if it is because the Oireachtas is actually having the meeting today, but that person said that what we do not want are initiatives with regard to road safety and other priorities that will come and go. However, because they are not included in a sustained plan and listed as the priorities, which is a good idea, we do not have a continual wave of initiatives around things like speeding, organised retail crime and others. They are not listed in this very worthy policy of having priorities. The only way we can make sure of that is if the representatives of the people on the ground who are dealing with all the crime - not the statistics but the crime - are one of those groups that have to be consulted as a "must", rather than a "may".
I concur with the remarks of Senator Mark Daly. There is a good process here in terms of engaging with the establishment of the priorities. I note that section 61 provides that the priorities will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Is there an opportunity for us to engage with those priorities or is that simply just to let us know what they are? That might be an opportunity for Members here to bring forward issues that are happening in their communities and views they may have on what those priorities should be. The copy of that will then be put on the website of the authority, which is a good thing. It is very transparent and the public will be happy to see that. The work of the authority will be to engage with the public as well. Perhaps having some sort of opportunity to engage with that would be welcome. Could the Minister outline the interaction with the Oireachtas, how setting those priorities works under this legislation and how that might happen?
I note what she said about how it is a matter for the authority in terms of who it engages with. That is leaving it quite open. The question I posed was that if there was an objection to a person or organisation that was being engaged with, is there an opportunity to have any engagement on that aspect or put forward formally an objection to that? Is it simply that once a decision has been made, it is final, and there is no opportunity for elected Members or the public to have a say on it? Again, it is because the authority will be doing such important work.
The nature of policing is changing. That has been acknowledged. If we are to have oversight over policing and how it is done, there has been an acceptance, particularly following what happened in Dublin a few weeks ago, that we had a particular way of policing but now there seems to be an appetite to maybe change the way we police and have a different approach to it. The Minister will know from comments in this Chamber that there is much concern around how we might change how we do policing in this country. We have a human rights-based policing organisation. An Garda Síochána is human rights-based. It is policed with the consent of the community. It is not heavy-handed. There may be suggestions that at times maybe it was in the past, but it is a very polite way of policing, if I can put it that way. If that were to ever change, conversations around the priorities here would be important. I would welcome the Minister's comments regarding whether there is scope maybe to expand who the authority engages with and what the role for Oireachtas Members is in terms of engaging on this when it is set down. Is it simply laying it before the House to be noted or will there be an opportunity for a debate on this?
Now more than ever, there is more of a focus on how we do policing in the country, what the policy is and how we are going to react to different circumstances.
Many in the House have said that what we saw on the streets of Dublin a few weeks ago was not expected or foreseen. Nobody expected that level of violence on the day. There was some suggestion that people could have predicted what would happen. I do not think that is fair. It was right to say that we did not foresee that level of a reaction or violence on our streets. We have never had anything like it before. That is why this type of issue - the setting of priorities and how we police - has more of a focus on it now than there ever was before. The public has more of an interest in that.
Concerns have been expressed in the House about what direction the country might be moving in. When I say that, I do not mean to say that we should not progress, change and adapt - of course we should. As long as it is not change for the sake of change and we are adapting in the right way to meet the needs of our people, whatever type of priorities we set for policing in the country must take into account the changed and changing nature of our society and the demands of the public. The public's demands and expectations have changed as regards how we do policing. It is important to include them in how we set down those priorities, rather than having a pro forma or tick-box exercise.
As I said, I welcome the fact that a copy of the priorities will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and I presume there will be an opportunity to engage on that. The Minister might clarify that. It will also be published for the public to see, which is really important. It is important that the priorities and policies reflect the mood in the country, where people are at and the types of issues they want to be addressed by gardaí and how we do policing in the State.
The Garda Commissioner represents rank-and-file gardaí. That is why he will be consulted. The role of the Minister is to act on behalf of the Government, having been appointed Minister, to approve the priorities in consultation with the other bodies represented. That is laid before the Houses, as has been set out.
Section 61(8) states: "The Authority shall, from time to time as it thinks appropriate, review the policing priorities and make such revisions thereto as it thinks fit". I ask that the Minister consider an amendment to or the setting out of a timeline on that. If something is not being measured, it is not being done. If we do not have a timeline, it might be enacted-----
The Senator could have submitted amendments.
It states "from time to time". We would normally have something every five or two years or an annual report. However, we are not having, at this moment in time-----
We do not necessarily get that all the time.
We are debating an entire section on setting priorities by the authority for police services. All we are told is that there will be a report, but that the authority will only, from time to time, as it thinks appropriate, review the policing priorities and make such revisions thereto as it thinks fit. I am discussing the section.
There are merits in not submitting amendments.
Allow Senator Daly to continue without interruption.
Regarding having a timeline for publishing something every year or five years, the Bill leaves it up to the Garda Commissioner, the national office and other groups, as the authority believes appropriate, to do that at a time of its choosing rather than at an appropriate time, as done by the Oireachtas. It would be appropriate for the Department to outline and make clear when the authority should do that, as opposed to stating that it would do so from time to time, as appropriate. We could then be left with priorities over a long period.
As we have often seen in legislation, while sections are included there is no subsequent follow-through on the actual actions required to produce a report. If something is done once, there is no comeback by the Oireachtas other than to ask questions at the policing committee as to when the next report is due. We will not be able to ask the Minister these questions; the authority will tell us whether it will produce a report. There is no requirement in the Bill for it to ever produce another report. That is the entire purpose of this section.
The Bill contains vague language such as "from time to time". That is not good enough when it comes to legislation. We need to know there will be a directive from, perhaps, the Minister that once the Bill is passed, there will be an onus on the authority to produce a report, whether biannually or at certain times. The phrase "from time to time" is very vague. I will not talk forever on this.
The term "time to time" is the term of art in contract law that means on more than one occasion. It provides a discretionary provision within the Bill. It is entirely appropriate in its use in the Bill and I support its use.
This is very similar to what we have in the 2005 Act. It means that if an issue were to arise, it allows the authority to be able to respond and create new priorities if necessary. It ensures the system is not static. This allows for issues that may arise in this area.
This follows from comments yesterday when we had a discussion in the Chamber on security services. The section relates to determining the priorities for An Garda Síochána in performing its functions relating to security and security priorities. Understandably, the section is vague on what that might be because, of course, security services are sensitive. It is important that we are mindful of how we deal with this.
Subsection 4 states that, as soon as practicable, the Minister will determine security priorities and specific performance targets and that these will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. In the following section, it is stated that the Minister may exclude from the copy of security priorities matters that may, in his or her opinion, be prejudicial to the interests of the security of the State and might facilitate the commission of an offence, prejudice a criminal investigation or jeopardise the safety of any person.
In the context of what we spoke about yesterday, we have had conversations with one or two Senators in the House on security services and our intelligence services. I have previously highlighted that this is an opportunity for us to look to separate those issues from An Garda Síochána. I am concerned that we have a Bill before us, yet I understand the current policy of the State and Government is to continue to have security and intelligence services under the remit of An Garda Síochána. That poses challenges and I am not sure the Garda is the right place for those services to be.
I have said previously that there is an opportunity for the establishment of a separate intelligence service, similar to the UK, US and other countries. This section lays down that those services and security and intelligence matters will continue to come under the remit of An Garda Síochána. That is current Government policy and there are no moves to change that, but it is unfortunate that we are bringing through such a wide sweeping Bill with huge elements of policy changes, all of which are welcome. There is a lot of good stuff in here which is long overdue.
The policy changes in the Bill are the result of a very long consultative process. A report was done on this. Getting the Bill together, including all of the policy changes, has been a long process. It is a missed opportunity that we are not having a greater focus on the security and intelligence aspect of An Garda Síochána and the challenges that poses not just for the Garda but also the State. It is still under the Garda umbrella. The Bill lays out that while there will be security priorities set down for the Garda, and those will be laid before the Seanad and Dáil-----
I welcome Deputy David Stanton and his guest to the House. You are very welcome.
I welcome Deputy Stanton. The fact that the Bill has to state that the Minister can exclude from the copy laid before the House elements that may not be suitable to be in the public domain shows why it can be argued that the appropriate place for those services is not under An Garda Síochána.
The Bill will progress and pass. Is there scope to consider at a policy level removing those elements from An Garda Síochána and setting up a national security service or agency?
At present the deputy Garda commissioner is charged with the lead intelligence role in An Garda Síochána and is responsible for witness protection, informants and engaging with other police services. Yesterday I raised the difficulties that I understand we have, whereby no member of An Garda Síochána has applied for the role. This is because of other issues, which I know are being worked through in another Department. This is an area that as a country we have to take more seriously. As a country, we have to be seen to be adopting best practice. It would make sense to try and look at a policy change to move it elsewhere and, potentially, have a separate agency for this. Is the Department looking at this? Is it willing to consider this beyond the remit of the Bill? In time this might be something we could look at and the concerns raised by me and others over many weeks in the House could be taken on board. We could try to deal with our national security differently and remove the challenge we have in An Garda Síochána at present, which has highlighted this issue for us. We cannot get senior members of An Garda Síochána to apply for the lead intelligence role. This is not where we want to be. It is an unfortunate situation. It is a challenge for the Garda that perhaps it need not have in future. It is potentially something we could look at. I wanted to take the opportunity when speaking on the section to make this point on the security services.
I have to concur with my colleague. Intelligence services are not normally not part of a police force. An intelligence service is a very different thing. If we go through Europe, we will not find police and intelligence services mixed together. My colleague has adverted to the vacancy for the head of intelligence. It is absurd that we would employ somebody from outside the State as the head of intelligence in this country. Perhaps this is an opportunity because-----
That is a different issue and it is not relevant to this section, to be fair.
Perhaps there will be an opportunity on Report Stage-----
I ask all Members to keep their contributions relevant to the section and the Bill. Senator Craughwell is not, to be fair.
Stick with me on this.
I have and I am.
I am getting there. Perhaps there will be an opportunity on Report Stage to table an amendment with specifics-----
The Senator knows the rules as well as I do. I ask him to be fair.
Specifics could be introduced whereby we would cover off these areas. I agree with Senator Chambers on this issue.
The National Security Analysis Centre is under the Department of An Taoiseach. It engages with all relevant Departments, including my Department, the cybersecurity office, the Army and An Garda Síochána. What we have in the legislation is similar to what we had in the 2005 Act. It was looked at and it was decided not to establish a separate agency or body.
Before I call other Members, I welcome the Moran family from County Galway and guests of Deputy Ó Murchú who come from counties Lough and Monaghan. They are all very welcome to the Gallery.
I thank the Minister for being in the House. Section 62 is very important with regard to the determination of the priorities for the service. I come from central Dublin. Twenty years ago, determining the priorities for the Garda locally in Cabra and Glasnevin was a contentious issue for the community. We came together and we got the Garda to engage with the local community and public representatives. We also engaged with the local authority. Through this we were able to identify local priorities. For the Garda as a force to have the confidence of the public generally speaking there needs to be a national plan with national priorities. The Minister, the Department and the senior management of An Garda Síochána are in a very good position to identify these priorities. My concern arises with regard to understanding how the priorities will be informed by the experiences on the ground. How will local priorities be identified and fed into the policing activities and the allocation of resources? This issue is very important.
I come from an urban community. Even within this urban community, there is a difference in requirements and the issues that arise and the experience of people of safety in public spaces, such as going to school, going to work or living. There is a contrast 1 km or 2 km from the north inner city in Cabra and Glasnevin. There is a very different street environment. I will only speak about the streets because we could speak about the canals, the parks and the shops. It is very important that every community gets to identify what its priorities are. By this, I do not mean telling the authorities what they should be doing but ensuring they are assisting the authorities to respond in a meaningful way and add value to the quality of the work they are doing for these communities.
Section 62 states the Minister may determine priorities for An Garda Síochána in performing its functions relating to security services. Section 62(1)(b) states this can include specifying the levels of performance by An Garda Síochána in respect of each priority referred to section 62(1)(a).
We are on section 62 dealing specifically with security services as opposed to policing plans. I am being fair to all Members. We are on a specific section. People are going into Second Stage speeches that they should not technically be doing, to be fair.
I apologise to the Cathaoirleach if he thought I was wandering. It was not my intention at all.
I appreciate that and the Senator is always very compliant in fairness.
I tried to be succinct.
You do, in fairness.
It is a very important issue and I apologise.
I am amused at the sudden interest in section 62 by all Members. They should be relevant to the particular section rather than going into Second Stage speeches. If they did this, I would appreciate it.
I was getting to the point on security services. There are a number of very high-profile locations in my area. When we speak about security services we could be speaking about Connolly Station, Croke Park, which attracts more than 80,000 attendees, the GPO or O'Connell Street, or the Phoenix Park. The security services have to respond to incidents. I appreciate that the Minister may direct them under the legislation. How does the local community get to input into the process? I will stop there and allow the Minister to answer. I may come back with other questions if that is permitted.
Section 62(2) states that before determining security priorities under section 62(1) or specifying performance targets, the Minister shall consult with the Garda Commissioner and such other persons as he or she considers appropriate. When it comes to security matters, the Minister tends to be guided by the Garda Commissioner and the authority that sits under the Department of An Taoiseach that has responsibility for security.
I understand the Minister said that in 2005 the establishment of a separate national security agency was considered. In the past decade in particular, there have been many changes. Heretofore as a country we relied heavily our geography to protect us. We did not think national security was an issue for Ireland but that it was something that happened elsewhere. We did not think there were threats that could affect us and that we would be left alone because we were a small little island out in the Atlantic Ocean and sure everyone loves the Irish. We have learned the hard way that national security threats are real and genuine.
The HSE cyberattack really brought home to every household how vulnerable we can be when we are targeted. We also know we have the transatlantic cables coming to the west coast. These are very important cables that transmit a large volume of data. They are important not only to Ireland but to the European Union, the US and the UK. I have raised this matter previously, as have others, not only in the context of the Bill but in prior debates in the House. I am concerned that issues of national security and the security services being under the remit of An Garda Síochána poses a number of challenges. There is a capacity issue in An Garda Síochána to deal with the large scale of the work involved in security services in the State. There is also the obvious issue we are now dealing with regard to recruiting a person into the lead intelligence role because of the conflicts that exist. This has highlighted the issue but it was also highlighted previously.
While I appreciate the current Government policy is unchanged in that security services will remain under the remit of An Garda Síochána, there is an opportunity here given the sweeping reforms provided for in this legislation, which has taken the best part of five years to develop. We have not made any changes to policy on national security and intelligence services, despite the huge challenges we face.
I know the Minister has been liaising with her counterparts in the UAE as regards the Kinahans. We know organised crime is a big problem and we have to engage with other security services and police forces across the globe. Our policy has not changed or moved in that period of changing circumstances. The Bill presented an opportunity to do something in that space. While the policy is being maintained by keeping security issues under the remit of An Garda Síochána, that is presenting a challenge to An Garda Síochána because we cannot get somebody to fill that role. It poses a challenge for the Garda in general and the State and our policy in this area needs to be given proper, in-depth consideration.
The world and the geopolitical situation have changed. There is a war on the border of the European Union on which we have taken a particular position and that has left us open. We know there are concerns around the Russian Embassy in Dublin and Russia and China generally. There is a huge body of work that other jurisdictions and countries are taking very seriously. I wonder if this State is taking national security and intelligence seriously enough. Given the constraints within An Garda Síochána, does it have the full capacity to deal with all of the new national security and intelligence challenges?
Given that we are providing for so much reform, now is the time to look seriously at having a separate intelligence agency. The challenges presented by having security issues in An Garda Síochána are obvious and real. That is not a criticism of previous policies but an acknowledgement that the world has changed, as have the security threats to our country, and things are moving at a very fast pace. This is an opportune time for the Government and the Department of Justice to look at this or even start the ball rolling by having a discussion and dialogue on where we want to go with that and what would be the best way to deal with intelligence and security services in future. Even a commitment that we are interested in looking at this issue, having a conversation about it and starting to do some scoping work on it would be a good step forward in the term of this Government, while appreciating that the work on this Bill has been done over a long period.
To double up on what my colleague has said, this week we had a report of a Russian submarine off the coast of Cork.
Before the Senator goes off on another tangent-----
I am not-----
Let me finish, thank you. I have allowed a liberal dose of stretching the debate on section 62, going beyond the cables across the Atlantic nearly, and I appeal to all Members, in the interest of brevity, to stay on the section.
When the Cathaoirleach mentioned the cables across the Atlantic the confusion as to who is responsible for what in this country is totally unacceptable.
The Senator knows better than anybody that this is not relevant to the debate and section we are dealing with.
It is relevant when we are talking about the Garda. We need to know who is responsible for what because we do not know. My colleague is 100% correct. We have been raising for months the issue of who is in charge of intelligence and security in this country. The bottom line is that there is an opportunity now to open the conversation. If we are not going to change the Bill, there is an opportunity to open the conversation and analyse what is done elsewhere in the world, rather than being tied into something historical that needs to be pulled out from the cobwebs. We need a fresh look at where we are going in security and intelligence in this country.
I am deeply concerned. Cybersecurity was mentioned. I have spent the past two years working in cybersecurity. As regards the level of commitment we had, we could not even get anybody to apply for the director's job because we offered a salary of €89,000 per year. We had to get the joint committee to wake up whoever it was who was making decisions on that to offer a salary that would attract somebody into the post. We are not taking intelligence and security really seriously and that worries the hell out of me.
Senator Fitzpatrick indicated.
I would like to hear the Minister's response as otherwise we may not get one.
We take this matter seriously. Following from the Commission on the Future of Policing, the National Security Analysis Centre was established in the last number of years. The Commission on the Future of Policing also considered whether to recommend the creation of a separate agency with powers going beyond analysis and intelligence co-ordination to include, for example, a capacity to develop its own intelligence services. This was decided against. We have been guided by an extensive body of work. This was looked at and it was decided that it is not necessary. The new analysis centre under the Department of the Taoiseach involves my Department, An Garda Síochána, the Army and other cybersecurity networks as part of the overall centre.
If I may clarify one point, did the Minister say the national security centre is under the Department of the Taoiseach and is separate from the Department of Justice?
Yes.
I am anxious to know how many people are employed in the intelligence group that is working under the Department of the Taoiseach.
The matter is not relevant to the section.
I think it is.
No, it is not.
National cybersecurity is based in the Department with responsibility for communications. The Minister will find that in Israel, for example, the director of national cybersecurity is in the office of the prime minister. Most directors elsewhere are at government level and not subject to some department's oversight. They work directly for the prime minister. We really need to look at our security systems.
I have been listening attentively to the debate to this point.
Good.
It is fair to say there is a great deal of confusion among Members. In fairness, Senator Craughwell, along with my colleague Senator Chambers, has been a constant voice in the whole area of security and cybersecurity.
The centre Senator Craughwell is talking about is not referenced in this section. I refer all Members to the explanatory memorandum to understand what specifically the sections relate to when making their contributions.
I take the Cathaoirleach's point. From my limited knowledge of this, and forgive me when I say that, my concentration and concerns are directed towards the security of the State and anything that falls under that heading. I contend that the points made by Members up to this point are all relevant in that regard. I note and take some comfort from the fact that work has been ongoing in this field, as the Minister has outlined, for the past five or six years. It is a constantly changing picture and I wonder how relevant the work done four or five years ago is to the world we live in today. The Minister said that best practice was followed in different jurisdictions and that a body of work had been done regarding best practice in order that we will arrive at a point where we are happy with the policy. If it is in order, could that information be circulated for the benefit of Members of this House?
I am not sure what information the Senator is looking for.
The Minister mentioned information that has been collated as being best practice. That is what I took her contribution to indicate. She said she had taken best practice from other jurisdictions.
If I could be of assistance I think it was the information-----
Sorry but-----
The Minister has a question.
Would one of the Senators take their seat, please?
Work was done in assessing whether we needed a separate security agency and a report was done. Could we get a copy of that?
I can outline it again.
No problem.
I ask Members to avoid repetition. We are heading into the realm of repetition on contributions on section 62.
I can provide the full report for Members as I am sure they would like to read through all of it. We have carefully considered whether to recommend the creation of a separate agency with powers going beyond analysis and intelligence co-ordination to include, for example, the capability to develop its own intelligence sources, such as the security service in the United Kingdom, or even full police powers such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States. We are not convinced that this is either necessary or realistic at the present time. Whether or not a separate agency will be an option at some point in the future, we believe it is vital now that security intelligence should be co-ordinated outside the police or any other individual agency or Department, hence the recommendation for a strategic threat analysis centre under the Department of the Taoiseach. That is what has been established.
I thank the Minister and appreciate her response. I appreciate that she will circulate the report. When was that body of work conducted?
Who was involved in that decision-making process such that, at this point in time, it would not be the right move for us, as a State, to move towards a separate national security agency?
That is not really on the section.
It is in response to the Minister's response. I do not think people were generally aware of that.
It is not relevant to the section, to be fair.
It is. It is about security priorities in the Garda Síochána.
I understand. Thank you.
It is directly relevant to the section. I want to find out when that work was done, who made that decision and if there is an intention to review that decision at any point in the future. If we could get information in terms of what has been established under the Department of the Taoiseach, that would be helpful.
This is the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland report that was finalised in 2018. It was approved by the Government and this Bill is the culmination of that report. This is what we are doing with that report.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 61, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
“(a) the public interest,”.
As an Independent Senator, the resources that we use in our offices are that we have one Senator and one staff member to go through a Bill line by line, prepare amendments and come in to speak to those amendments on Committee Stage. Every party, whether in government or not, has the opportunity to amend legislation. Even with whatever internal back and forth is going on here it is unfair to the staff of other offices, who are ready to come in on amendments, to hold up legislation so we do not get to particular amendments that we are all willing to support Fianna Fáil on. There are amendments that it has that the rest of us want to support in regard to the JPCs. We can get to those amendments but we are not going to get to those amendments. It is unfair to the work of my office and my staff that I have to waste my time here, listening to this back and forth constantly, when all it is doing is delaying. I hate playing this game because it is my time and the time of other Members. Senator Gallagher is on the justice committee. He has an opportunity there to influence this. It is unfair.
To be fair to all Members of the House, any Member is entitled to come in at any stage and have their contribution heard and put on the record of the House. To be fair to Senator Ruane, as she has outlined, she has done an inordinate amount of work, which I appreciate but it is every Member's entitlement to come in and speak to a Bill, whether it is on an amendment or a section.
There is a difference between entitlement and obstruction. They are two different things and one sways over into abusing the other at some stage.
All Members are allowed to come in and speak on a Bill at any stage.
I could be somewhere else.
Thank you. Lean ar aghaidh.
With regard to amendment No. 47, section 63 of the Bill provides for the establishment of a strategic plan for An Garda Síochána by the Garda Commissioner. This amendment simply seeks to provide that the Garda Commissioner, when preparing a strategic plan, would have to have regard to the public interest. The strategic plan is a very important guiding document for policing services in Ireland and it strikes me that the public interest should be given significant consideration in terms of informing its development.
Amendment No. 48 is similar in intent to amendment No. 47 in that it seeks to insert explicit reference to the public interest in respect of the development of an annual service plan for An Garda Síochána by the Commissioner.
As was said, amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are similar and we have considered them together. Amendment No. 47 relates to section 63, which provides for the preparation by the Garda Commissioner of a strategic plan for An Garda Síochána. Amendment No. 48 relates to section 65, which provides for the preparation by the Commissioner of the annual service plan for An Garda Síochána. What the amendments seek to do is oblige the Garda Commissioner, in preparing such plans, to have regard to the public interest.
Again, I fully appreciate where the Senator is coming from but looking at the Bill overall, I think this is already covered by the obligation on An Garda Síochána and the Garda Commissioner, in particular, to have regard to relevant policies and objectives of the Government. In addition to this specific requirement, the policing principles that have been set out in section 4, and which underpin the provision of policing services in the State, set out the key principle that has the public interest at its core, namely, that effective policing improves the safety of individuals, communities and localities. For those reasons, I do not think this is necessary. The term “public interest” is not defined and could be seen as somewhat subjective in this context. Section 4, which underpins the provision of policing services, as well as the obligations of An Garda Síochána, covers what the Senator is trying to achieve and what she has just outlined.
Section 63(1) states: “the Garda Commissioner shall, at the request of the Board and in accordance with this section, within 6 months after the coming into operation of section 11 and not later than the expiration of each subsequent 3 year period following that coming into operation, prepare and submit to the Minister a strategic plan for An Garda Síochána in respect of the period of 3 years immediately following the year in which the plan is so submitted." I go back to the issue that I raised under section 62 but which is relevant to this section. We are prepared to put in a three-year period in which the strategic plan for An Garda Síochána will be drawn up. We are willing to put in timelines for the strategic plan and subsection (5) then outlines what will be included in that, including the security priorities which we discussed under section 62. However, there is no timeline in section 61 with regard to the issue of policing priorities. There seems to be a disconnect in this regard. Why do we have that in one section but the Department saw fit not to put a three-year timeline in the previous section?
This is very similar to what we currently have. This is to allow An Garda Síochána to plan for the future and make sure we have plans in place, and not just for one year given many plans may go beyond that. That is why a period of three years has been chosen, and it was also three years previously. As I mentioned, the previous reason given for not setting a timeline was that issues arise and we need to ensure the authority can respond effectively where new priorities need to be identified.
With regard to the strategic plan, I note that this section lays down a process by which the plan is developed, how it is laid before the Houses and how it is consulted upon, and I have a couple of questions on that. I agree with the timeline set down. It should be done within six months and it is then submitted to the Minister and the Garda for the period of three years, which is a reasonable amount of time and allows for change when it is required.
Subsection (3) states:
“A strategic plan shall…
(b) specify in relation to the period to which the plan relates-
(i) the main objectives … of An Garda Síochána”.
I ask the Minister to elaborate further on how those objectives will be established, how they will be put together and how they will be set down in the plan. The section also refers to the strategies that will be pursued in order to achieve the main objectives and how those objectives will be measured.
There is quite a lot in that. I appreciate that not all of the detail will be contained within the legislation but, again, it goes back to earlier comments around having a policing plan for an area, acknowledging that the nature of policing has changed to such an extent, particularly in the last few months, when things have moved a lot. It is probably since the Covid period that policing has changed to a certain extent, as well as the relationship that the public have with gardaí, and there are the different challenges that we now face as a country in terms of the far-right, criminality and retail issues. Those issues will feed into how we set down the objectives of An Garda Síochána and what type of strategy it will pursue in achieving those objectives.
This is very important. The section goes on to state: “The Garda Commissioner shall, before preparing a strategic plan, consult with such persons as he or she considers appropriate.” Again, there is the question around who the Garda Commissioner will consult with. Is there a defined list of stakeholders that must be consulted with? Is there any flexibility around who he or she may consult with? If the Garda Commissioner were to consult with certain organisations, is there any opportunity for objections to be raised?
There are a lot of organisations and NGOs out there that all have different views, agendas and whatnot in terms of that consultation process. On the face of this legislation, it looks as though the Garda Commissioner alone can decide who to consult with. I am wondering if there is a set list of persons or organisations that he or she must consult with. Is there an opportunity for local elected representatives, Oireachtas Members and members of the public to feed into how that strategic plan will be developed and who will be consulted with? In terms of the strategies to the pursued, that will be crucial. As I have said, there is not concern, because that is the wrong word, but an acknowledgment that policing has changed and there is a need for a different approach in some circumstances - not all. I do not think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater, for want for a better phrase. Some of the things that are done and some of the strategies employed by the Garda are very good and do not require change, but where change is needed, we must pursue strategies for the right reasons to ensure that they are not reactionary or emotionally-driven. We must ensure that they are done on the basis of evidence and research, and because they are the right thing to do. That consultation process will be key. Who are we talking to? As Senator Fitzpatrick asked in respect of another section, will there be scope to engage with the public, the people on the ground and the people who are actually engaging with front-line services in communities? It will be important to ensure that they have an opportunity to engage with this plan.
Section 63(3)(b)(iii) refers to "the outcomes by which the achievement of the main objectives may be measured". How to we intend to measure the achievement of those objectives? What happens if an objective is not achieved, the measurement is not favourable or the result is not what we want it to be? What is the process in terms of admitting we have not reached the objectives or achieved what we wanted to do? Will time be granted for more work to be done in achieving those objectives? Will sanctions be applied? Will there be disciplinary processes involved in that?
There is quite a lot in the section. I think the strategic plan prepared by the Commissioner is hugely important in terms of policing in the State. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Taking, for example, a rural community in County Mayo where I live and comparing it to inner city Dublin, the two are quite different in terms of their challenges and needs and the plan that would be appropriate in those areas. It will be really important to get a guarantee and an assurance that plans that are put in place will take into account the variation and differences across communities, whether they are rural communities or rural-urban communities, including smaller towns in rural areas like Castlebar where I live, and that they will be tailored to meet the needs of those communities, the policing force and An Garda Síochána in those communities.
As I have said previously, there are concerns around the allocation of resources in terms of meeting those objectives. We talk about the main objectives of An Garda Síochána and the strategies employed to achieve those objectives, and measuring how we have done on those objectives. If we have certain objectives for inner city Dublin, it may require certain things to be done on an annual basis that require a certain amount of resources. There are concerns being raised in the area where I live, in my community and in Mayo - not just in Castlebar but across the county - that resources are being funnelled into more challenging areas. If it is set down in legislation that objectives must be set out and achieved, and that they will be measured, there is an extra incentive for certain areas to look for extra resources to achieve their objectives. Where will those resources come from? Is there any cause for concern for those rural areas that, for the most part, are very quiet and have very few incidents of crime? That is not to say that issues do not occur in those areas. We still need a presence of An Garda Síochána in those areas. The concern that has been raised with me in my own area is that we could see resources being pulled from smaller rural areas into bigger towns and cities to the detriment of policing services in rural areas. When it is set out in legislation that objectives will be measured and looked at, it could create a situation where there is an extra incentive to pull resources from less challenging areas, if I can put it that way, into areas where there might be a greater challenge. What happens when something is required in a rural area? I mentioned the area of Achill in County Mayo yesterday, where for the most part there is quite a small population, but where there are peaks throughout the year when there is a huge increase in population, particularly over Christmas and during the summer and the tourism season. We need to have a strategic plan that accounts for that. Senior Garda management in the different areas have told me and other public representatives that there are no extra resources provided for those areas during those times when it is busier and there is an increased population. It is important, when we are setting out the main objectives of An Garda Síochána, that it is stated that there will be a tailored policing plan to meet the needs of rural and urban areas, that it is tailored to meet local needs and wants, and that where there is a significant change in the make-up of a community during a particular period of time, that will be catered for as well. That is done more on an ad hoc basis. Generally, it seems to be done through overtime in those areas. It needs to be set out in a strategic plan that resources will be made available to an area where there is an increase in population. I am thinking mainly along the west coast, where there are tourism areas where the population can more than double in during the summer. There are no extra resources and no plans to deal with the influx of visitors coming into the areas. They are really welcome and we want the visitors to keep coming, but the strategic plan needs to reflect changes, even throughout the year, in terms of the demands and needs in particular communities. The guards at home tell me that there really is no provision for that. They make do and make resources available if and when they are needed, through the use of overtime.
I ask the Minister to flesh out a bit on that section in terms of how the main objectives will be set out, who will feed into them, and how the strategies will be developed in terms of pursuing those main objectives. Where a measurement is taken and objectives have not been achieved, what is the follow-on from that? If there is a fear among local Garda management that they will be reprimanded or somehow sanctioned for not meeting objectives, it will only further fuel the issue around pulling resources from different areas to meet demands where there is pressure. We do not want to have gardaí competing internally for the allocation of resources. That is not where we want to be.
I am not against setting objectives and measuring performance. That is a good thing to do in any organisation, and I am sure the gardaí are very happy to have that. However, it becomes a challenge where are constraints on resources, which, of course, we are dealing with. We are seeing lots more gardaí coming into the force and Templemore is getting lots more recruits through. That is good, but where there are constraints on resources that will take a period time to address, something of that nature could lead to resources being pulled from other areas to try to meet objectives. I am keen to hear what happens when objectives are measured and are not met. Will time be granted to bridge that gap? I also ask the Minister to comment on section 63(4), according to which "The Garda Commissioner shall, before preparing a strategic plan, consult with such persons as he or she considers appropriate", and detail who that might be. I note that is dealt with somewhat in subsection (5), which states that the Garda Commissioner shall have regard to "the views of such persons as may be consulted..." The policies of the Government or any Minister will also be fed into that as well.
On a point of order, under Standing Order No. 55, a Member is allowed to propose that debate be closed on a question put by the Chair when there is repetition. In this case, the question would be that section 63 stand part of the Bill. I propose that the Acting Chair could put that question.
I am not sure that is a point of order.
I refer to Standing Order No. 55.
I was finished anyway.
I am not sure it is a point of order.
It is a Standing Order.
I second that.
I have no way to interrupt other than to raise a point of order. Under Standing Order No. 55,-----
I was going to let the Minister back in anyway.
I was actually about to conclude.
The objectives are identified through consultation, as is laid out. That is done at the direction of the Commissioner, and he or she can consult whomever they like. It is done that way so that we do not constrain them. Obviously, if targets are set the Commissioner is not just accountable to the Minister, but also to the board, the authority and to the Oireachtas. All Members here can be part of that. Section 33(2) sets out how the Commissioner must manage the resources they have.
I thank the Minister for the plan. It is really important that every organisation has a good strategic plan. It allows you to identify what is important, get consensus on that and allocate resources to that. I absolutely support-----
Sorry, Acting Chairperson, but I proposed the question.
There is no repetition.
There is repetition; I have been noting the repetition.
Senator Fitzpatrick is not repeating anything.
No, but I have put the question, based on repetition. You cannot just ignore me putting the question.
We have only spent 15 minutes on the section and I can make the call that it has not been adequately discussed.
This is a large section-----
Fianna Fáil is in the Chair. There has been repetition-----
Sorry, when I am in the Chair, I am neutral.
There has been constant repetition. I have noted every time the sentence on strategic planning resources was repeated.
Every time-----
It is funny-----
We get a lot of repetition-----
I had just started to speak.
I put the question before the Senator started to speak------
Senator Ruane, first of all-----
-----and then she come back-----
I had only started to speak.
Senator Ruane. First of all, I ask everyone to resume their seats.
There is a lot of repetition in this House a lot of the time. I have never heard anyone complain about it before.
I do not care. I am complaining about it now. The Standing Order is there.
A lot of people get a lot of air time in this House, more than others-----
It is not about that. It is-----
Some of the people who are making genuinely important points about the strategic plan are as entitled to air their views, just as Senator Ruane is entitled to air hers, but she-----
The Standing Order is still available to me.
The Chair decides whether repetition has happened.
So-----
I have decided it has not happened yet.
-----to the Acting Chairperson's knowledge, repetition has not happened.
To my knowledge, this section has not been adequately discussed by the House. The strategic plan-----
Okay. I will keep doing it on every section-----
If you like.
-----and then I will come to the Acting Chairperson with the transcript after the session and challenge his ruling.
Senators are looking to contribute on the section, who have not contributed. I do not know. If they are repetitive-----
The Standing Order is there.
If they are repetitive, I-----
The Standing Order is there for repetition.
-----I will decide if they are repetitive and I will deal with it accordingly. People want to make a contribution on this section. It is a large section by the way and if they want to make a contribution, they are entitled to do so, as is everyone.
Regardless of repetition, I can invoke the Standing Order.
You can ask for it.
Well, I will keep asking for it.
You can claim it, but it is the Chair's decision whether it is valid.
Yes, and you should have to explain why you will not enforce it.
I will have regard to what the Senator said.
Senator Fitzpatrick, go ahead.
I take exception to being challenged about contributing on this debate. I have given a significant amount of time to policing in my community and to making my community safer. I am a founding member of a community policing forum.
Some of us want to support the Senator on it.
Acting Chairperson-----
Without interruption. I will be the same to Senator Ruane.
They are just being, like-----
Senator Fitzpatrick, without interruption.
If they want to vote on the policing forums and councillors, let us get to it and vote on it.
Senator Fitzpatrick, without interruption.
As I was saying, the strategic plan element is important. There are four issues in this section. One is the length of the strategic plan. Policing is a hugely human resource-intensive activity. To put a strategic plan in place will take significant additional resources. I know the Minister is aware of this as she has secured an additional budget to increase the resources in An Garda Síochána. I am querying the need for a strategic plan, when we have an annual service plan. Was consideration given to having a longer strategic plan, a five to ten-year plan, because there are annual service plans? That is my first question.
The second issue relates to section 63(4), which provides that "The Garda Commissioner shall, before preparing a strategic plan, consult with such persons as he or she considers appropriate." Will the Minister explain the thinking on limiting it to the complete discretion of the Garda Commissioner? In my experience, the best plans are made with a wide variety of contributions and there is incredible discretion being allowed to him or her, whoever it may be.
My third point relates to the review and evaluation of the performance of the strategic plan. It links to my last point about the measures of achievement. How will that happen in practice? First, if the Garda Commissioner decides who to consult and puts together the plan and that plan is in place for a period of three years, as is suggested in the Bill, how will the performance be measured and evaluated? I suggest that if there was wider stakeholder engagement at the earlier part and wider consultation in the preparation of the strategic plan, that it would lead to a better, more thorough and more informed evaluation and measurement of the objectives of the strategic plan. I would appreciate if the Minister would answer those questions.
Does anyone else want to contribute before I ask the Minister to respond? Senator Ardagh.
I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. A strategic plan is probably one of the most important documents in all organisations. Much of the time, organisations do not spend enough time considering a strategic plan. I note that a board will be put in place and the establishment of the board has already been discussed in the Seanad. I add that it is important that people from a wide variety of backgrounds and different levels of An Garda Síochána are on the board. People involved in the community should also be on the board, especially when it comes to policing in our city. That is what I have most knowledge of. I am based on the southside of this city. The Minister will be aware that there are different policing plans for different areas, for different times of year. There might be a policing plan for Hallowe'en, for what has to be done in that part of the year. However, ultimately it is important that there is a wide variety of input from different people.
The community policing part of the strategic plan needs to be at the forefront. In my area, at the weekend, the Kilmainham A district had an event as part of a programme that is a community initiative run by An Garda Síochána in that district. They have a holiday programme for the elderly people living in the community. It is important. A lot of discussion takes place-----
We are dealing with a strategic plan.
Yes, between the gardaí and the local people living in the area and there is great feedback. There are great channels of communication between the local community and An Garda Síochána. It is important we get information, not only about the bad stuff we read about. A lot of good stuff is going on as well and An Garda Síochána has an important role to play.
I thank the Minister for acknowledging the main organiser of that event, who is a retired garda, John O'Sullivan. It is a difficult job.
We are dealing with a strategic plan. It is the overall strategic plan, as opposed to the granular detail.
I just want to bring in the community element of the strategic plan. I am giving an example of how the interaction-----
I accept the point, but we are trying to stick to the strategic plan in this section.
My point is there should be huge interaction with the community policing aspect and input into the strategic plan. I would like to see community involvement in the membership of the board. It is important that people have a say. If we re-invest-----
-----in our communities, not only the elderly, but also the younger section of society, we will see massive dividends being paid as regards less crime on the street and people feeling-----
Okay. Thank you Senator Ardagh.
-----more of a sense of belonging.
Thank you. Senator Daly.
As all politics-----
Ideally without repetition. Thank you.
I will repeat what Senator Ardagh said, because all politics is local and Garda John O'Sullivan is from Kenmare, so I thank him for all his work.
It is not really repetition, but anyway.
I accept it is not relevant to the section.
My colleague, Senator Chambers, raised the issue of the evaluation of the performance by An Garda Síochána. It is not clear how the evaluation would be done, what the strategic benchmarks would be or who would do it. Independence is needed for the evaluation but also in putting together the strategic plan and main objectives. I suggest each of the main objectives has to be allocated to the relevant superintendent or rank of the Garda or deputy Garda commissioner who would be given the responsibility for its implementation. I note there will be a strategic plan every three years. As I said in my previous contribution, after the first plan is drawn up, the timeframe allowed is six months and there would be one every three years. However, it is not clear under section 63(5) of this Bill, where the policing principles to be included are outlined, including the policing priorities, the security priorities and the national strategy, that they do not necessarily have to be updated and that when they are being included in the strategic plan, there may not be any particular evaluation or updating in relation to that section.
My main concern is how an evaluation of the performance of the previous strategic plan would be done. I know it will be made available to us but if it is not highlighted in terms of being laid before the Houses, oftentimes those would not be consulted on. It is very important that in respect of section 63(3)(c), the evaluation of its functions would also be discussed and made available in a very detailed format. Reports often have recommendations but they do not have the implementation path about who is responsible and the timeline for those amendments because after the first three-year period, we will be able to see what is and is not working. How do we turn around from there and make those necessary changes and who will be responsible for those changes?
The Commissioner decides who he or she consults with and that is to allow him or her to consult with whosoever he or she deems fit. The Commissioner must bring the plan to the board. The board is a new structure with one chair and eight ordinary members. We already discussed the make-up and how that board will be appointed. The plan is a three-year plan so that we allow for various different elements to work, be developed and embed in communities depending on what it is. The Commissioner is responsible to the board, the Minister, the authority and the Oireachtas committee, which is composed of Senators and Deputies who can raise any issue they wish.
I thank the Minister for her response to that. We can take it as given that everybody has no issue with the plan being a three-year plan. It is important. There is no doubt that we need a strategic plan. I know the Minister of the day can amend that plan or the procedures relating to that plan. A plan may be approved today but events within the next three years could have implications for it. Would the likes of the events that took place in this city three weeks ago today have implications for an approved plan relating to resources, policing models and how An Garda Síochána carries out its duties? How would circumstances reach a point whereby a plan would need to be looked at again and have something stitched on to it or taken from it? How would that happen and how would events change the plan that would have been agreed prior to that?
I did not hear the answer to the question asked by Senator Mark Daly about evaluation and who would be evaluating the plan. In writing up the plan, the policing and community safety authority will have a major role to play. Will it have a role to play in the evaluation? It provides in section 63(3)(c) that after the first plan, there will be a review included in all future plans. Who will carry out that review? Will the police be policing the police or will independent eyes look at it? What will be the role of the policing and community safety authority in the different regions in respect of this evaluation? How is it proposed to correlate that evaluation and assessment geographically? An evaluation of a plan in a rural area will differ immensely from feedback you might get from an urban area. The last thing we want is a higgledy-piggledy plan that is "plan A" for here, "plan B" for somewhere else and "plan C" for another place. How is it proposed to be evaluated? How do we expect or hope to correlate the regional evaluations in order that we can have a national policing plan that will work across the regions?
Will the strategic plan be on public view in local Garda stations? Will there be any input from the public into the plan before it is decided upon and presented to the Minister?
Section 63(8)(a) states that the strategic plan may be amended by the Minister at any time having consulted with the board. If issues arise, it can amended at any time. It does not necessitate a new plan. This is a national plan. The Commissioner represents gardaí throughout the country so it is not just for any one specific area. Again, section 63(5) states that in preparing a strategic plan, the Garda Commissioner shall have regard to the views of such persons as may be consulted, to the authority, to policies of the Government or Minister of the day, to policing principles and priorities, to security priorities, to the national strategy and to the resources reasonably and prudently expected to be available to An Garda Síochána. Consequently, there is a significant amount that the Commissioner needs to take into account when he or she is developing these priorities. As for how they are then monitored, the authority, the board, the Minister and the Oireachtas all have a role to play.
I know we have been back and forth on this but the point I raised was that if there is evaluation and the objectives are not met, will further time be given or is a particular process employed after that point - almost an evaluation as to why objectives are not being met? My concern remains that the view in rural areas is that because Garda resources are at times constrained and a lot of overtime is being used, resources will be pulled from rural areas to the cities and bigger towns. Regarding a policy like this where objectives are laid out and there is an assessment as to whether we have met those objectives or done the job to a certain standard, what is the follow-on if the assessment does not produce the desired result? I would be concerned that this might serve to incentivise the movement of resources from one area to another to the detriment of the less challenging areas.
It is important to address this. I know the Minister says it is a national plan and that it will not ignore the differences across the country but it is important that in a strategic plan for the country, there is an acknowledgement that rural towns and villages and the islands are catered for properly in the national plan and as Senator Paul Daly said, that the consultation process does have regional input into that because the challenges are very different. Some are the same but there are different challenges across the regions. There is a view, rightly or wrongly, in rural areas outside big towns and cities that we are a bit of an afterthought at times and that sometimes when resources are tight, they are pulled from rural areas. Because of that assessment process, it is important to know what happens if the results are not desired. What is the follow on?
The Commissioner represents all of the organisation both rural and urban. As he or she will consult any of those bodies he or she deems fit or look at any of the priorities or principles, this covers not just rural but urban areas. In terms of resourcing and allocation, it is the same in any Department, organisation or agency. It must have the capacity and funding. There is a separate process in terms of identifying what funding is allocated to each Department every year. The Commissioner must then work with the resources he or she has and allocate them as he or she sees fit. This legislation allows for the Commissioner to make those decisions based on what the priorities are and where policing priorities need to be.
I have a brief question about the publication and implementation of the plan. A question was asked about whether the public will have access to that plan in terms of being able to view it in a particular location. How is it intended to publish that plan and will it be made available in a number of formats to take account of the fact that not everybody might be to get into the local Garda station or access a website? How would that feed into the public being able to link in with the plan in terms of its publication?
As Senator Chambers said, some people will not be able to access a plan like this, particularly those with a disability. A lot of information from other Departments is only accessible online and not everybody has an email address or access to broadband. Could we get an assurance from the Minister that the plan will be on display - possibly in every Garda station in the country - and that there will be an option for people to submit any submissions or recommendations not only online but also in person at a Garda station?
Could she also assure us that there will be an option for people to make submissions or recommendations not only online but also in person at a Garda station or, if there is no Garda station in their locality, at a post office or somewhere like that?
As both Senators will be able to see, because they have copies of the legislation right in front of them, section 64(2) states:
The Garda Commissioner shall ensure that, as soon as practicable after a copy of a strategic plan is laid before each House of the Oireachtas, the plan as laid is published on a website maintained by or on behalf of An Garda Síochána or in such other manner as the Minister may specify.
May I follow on from Senator Ardagh's appropriate proposal to make the plan available in a Garda station? The plan should also be made available in libraries throughout the State because people could study it there. While we are living in a digital age, the number of people who could access the plan on a website, in the knowledge it is available, is relatively limited. People will need to know the plan will also be available to them in printed form. This is where the Garda stations and libraries, and perhaps council buildings, could offer a service. Making sure the plan is available is the issue. Never was there so much information available, yet people do not seem to be as well-informed as we would hope. Having the plan in as many public locations as possible, not just in cyberspace, would be appropriate. I acknowledge the plan will be available through the Houses of the Oireachtas, which I accept, but will it be in our library in digital format only?
It states "or in such other manner as the Minister may specify". That probably covers it.
Yes. That is why I am asking about the libraries and supporting my colleague, Senator Ardagh, on her proposal on Garda stations.
I thank the Senator. Does the Minister want to contribute-----
Yes-----
-----or will I just put the question?
-----where it goes but I do not know too many people who would go into the Garda station to read the service plan.
I did not hear the Minister's reply.
I said I do not know too many people who would go into the Garda station to read the service plan, but-----
I take the Minister's point. That is why I suggested that libraries also be made available.
I thank the Minister for repeating her remark. I had not heard her. The exact point we were trying to make is based on my agreement with her comment that I do not believe anybody would want to go into a Garda station and ask to have a look at the service plan nor would anyone want to go in to ask to see the strategic plan and, therefore, the suggestion being made is valid. For the strategic plan to serve the wider community and society, it has to be known, understood, bought into and supported. The capacity of the general populace in this regard will be greatly enhanced if the plan can be accessed easily. We appreciate there is a commitment to put the plan online. A library would be a more appropriate location. A commitment from the Minister on that point should be easy to make. It would serve to better inform the scrutiny of the plan and generate support for it. I hope she will consider this because we are trying to move our policing model to one that continues to enjoy broad public support while being given a strong strategic direction that allows the State's resources to be applied to it, such that the Garda, under its annual service plan, can actually deliver and perform according to citizens' desires and expectations. We want to set the Garda up to succeed and need to do so. The request is reasonable and I hope it is one on which the Minister can make a commitment here today.
Section 64(4) provides that there is to be a report. It seems to be styled in terms of the publication of a report on implementation. Can the Minister assure us that the report on implementation will also be made public in Garda stations, libraries and post offices, as we have suggested, or will this not be the case?
I welcome from Graiguecullen guests of Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor. They are all very welcome. Deputy Murnane O'Connor was a Member of this House. I am delighted to see our visitors and I hope they enjoy their day.
As I have outlined, and as stated clearly in the subsection, reports may be made available in such other manner as the Minister may specify. This could absolutely include libraries, but it is not to be put into primary legislation. There is no need for it to be specific nor should it be specific on the implementation of the strategic plan.
I thank the Minister for that clarification. The point being made broadly is that we should ensure the reports are accessible to all people of all abilities. Sometimes putting something online or laying it before the Oireachtas means it does not reach everybody. Perhaps there are other locations, such as in a community centre, where they could be made available. I am sure the local partnership and local authority members will have access. Maybe the local authority is a good place to lay plans. Often plans of this nature are laid in the local authority building for people to access. The suggestion is reasonable but I agree with the Minister that we do not need to set it down in primary legislation and that it is a matter for the Minister. He or she would be open to making sure it is accessible.
On laying of the plan before the Houses of the Oireachtas, is it intended that there can be a debate on it, or is it just a matter of noting the content? It is just not clear the legislation.
Section 64(4) provides that the board, in consultation with the Garda Commissioner, shall provide the Minister with reports on the implementation of the strategic plan. Although this is good, because we need an update on this, what will be the follow-up if when the reports are received, there are challenges, deficiencies or implementation gaps, or if additional resources are needed? Is it intended to give extra time and then review the implementation? Paragraph (b) states "at such intervals as the Minister may direct". Is this related to paragraph (a)? If there are things in the report that are not as desired, will there be a further opportunity to assess implementation as opposed to having to wait until the following year? I assume there will be time and that implementation will not be considered just once a year, such that there will be an opportunity to engage on issues that arise and review the report at an early opportunity as opposed to the end of the year.
I take the Minister's point on not putting into primary legislation where a report should be placed, but the point I was making was that there is no provision for making printed copies available to the public.
Senator Chambers made a point on section 64(4), which states the board, in consultation with the Garda Commissioner, shall provide the Minister with reports on the implementation of the strategic plans as part of the annual report. One of the points I was making earlier was on evaluation, how it would be done and the follow-up on it. Senator Chambers pointed out that the plan would be laid before the Houses. It is not usual for the Houses to debate the reports of the Garda. There is a range of State agencies. From time to time, the Houses do debate reports but not as a matter of course. I imagine that doing so might be more appropriate for the justice committee. It is not for the Minister to outline the work of this House on reviewing but I imagine it is something that the Government would ask for. However, it goes back to my point on making the information available to the public in a way that is accessible to them and does not require broadband. If the latter is the only option, it excludes quite a large sector of our society.
The point is very well made. Does the Minister want to come back in?
The justice committee can look over this at any point. There is a standard way in which memos and documents are laid before the Houses. A debate or approval is not required but a debate could be had at any time.
In the scenario where the plan is accepted by the Minister of the day, who else is consulted before this plan is given the green light for implementation with regard to finance? What happens if we adopt and accept the plan, the Minister for Justice accepts the plan and, God forbid, circumstances change like they did in 2008 and the funding is not available for the implementation of the plan?
I think that may have been addressed but I will let the Minister come back in.
I have answered that, I think, three times now.
I may not have been here.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 64, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“(i) the public interest,”.
I will withdraw amendment No. 48 with the right to resubmit on Report Stage. To be clear, it is not in the Acting Chair’s gift to refuse Standing Order 55, because the Cathaoirleach has to be in the Chair.
I am not the Chair.
As the Acting Chairperson is not officially the Chair, on the next Stage, I will look for suspension of the House for the Cathaoirleach to return to the Chair to make a ruling on Standing Order 55.
I refer to the annual service plan. Section 65(3)(d) sets out “the performance targets to be achieved in relation to each of the objectives referred to in paragraph (c)”. It again goes back to the point I made earlier in respect of other evaluations of different parts of the strategic plan but also the security policy. As outlined in a previous section, a strategic plan includes national strategy, policing priorities, policing principles and security priorities.
Section 65(3)(d) concerns performance targets. How would they be evaluated, who would do the evaluation and who is responsible whether or not each of those performance targets is reached? Someone should be made responsible for ensuring the performance targets in those plans are assigned to somebody and if they are then not reached, the person they are assigned to is made responsible. We talked about performance not being measured. This is being measured but it is not specific as to who is responsible for each of those elements.
Section 65(3)(e) is about the capital expenditure proposed by An Garda Síochána. In respect of capital expenditure in a service plan, the issue is who is responsible not only for the capital expenditure but, in the event of an overrun on the budget, who is made responsible for that in terms of the Comptroller and Auditor General? Would the Oireachtas public accounts committee be given the opportunity, as it has on others? It also must be consistent with the directives issued by the Minister under section 37. I have read section 37 and I am not quite clear on what they would be covered under.
I wish to return to the performance targets and whether they will be allocated to people. If people are not allocated the roles and responsibilities, as we have seen in many reports and many targets set out, it becomes nobody’s problem and nobody’s responsibility.
On section 65, I raise similar types of points. The annual service plan is obviously important. It sets out which services the Garda will provide, the volume of services, the objectives to be achieved through those services and performance targets. Similar points were raised by Senator Mark Daly. How would the objectives be established and how will performance be measured effectively? What will be the consequences in terms of measuring those performance targets?
I note with interest the provision in section 65(3)(g) whereby the service plan shall “be consistent with the resources reasonably and prudently expected to be available to An Garda Síochána”. In the context of constraints – at certain times, not always – we may not have the number of gardaí we would always like to have. There will always be an element where unforeseen or unpredictable situations will arise. Even in quiet areas, sometimes there will be a situation where more personnel will be needed than ordinarily would be. As that relates back to the performance targets and how all of this will be assessed, it is important there is flexibility within the service plan to acknowledge that, at times, there will be occurrences that may not be predictable or foreseeable and might add pressure. That should not negatively impact on the performance target with regard to the overall service plan.
That is important to point out because there is a wider debate happening across the Garda that there is much scrutiny on the performance of Garda members' work. Scrutiny, transparency and how we assess the performance of the Garda are important. I think they are quite happy to have those structures in place to an extent. However, the conversation is happening among gardaí that they feel there are many eyes on them at different times, and things such as performance targets and assessing how they perform adds to that narrative to an extent. It would be important if the Minister could outline how the objectives are set out, what happens when performance targets are missed – they could be narrowly missed because of things that might have happened – and whether there will be flexibility within the service plan to take into account situations that might occur that would not ordinarily occur in the normal course of business. In the context of the past number of weeks, we can acknowledge that can happen on rare occasions. There should be flexibility for the Garda to deal with that and for the service plan to be adaptable and flexible in the context of those particular issues.
Regarding oversight of the functions but also performance, the Commissioner is accountable to the board. When it comes to issues further down in An Garda Síochána, they are accountable to the Garda Commissioner, but the Commissioner is accountable to the Minister, to the authority and, of course, to the Oireachtas. I am sure we will speak to sections 72 and 73, which outline the ability for the Oireachtas to govern when it comes to overall expenditure.
Of course the Government has the ability to top up resourcing throughout the year. We saw that with the €10 million in additional funding allocated for Dublin policing but also more recently with the riots and the requirement for the Commissioner to be able to respond and essentially buy more equipment. There is a flexibility to be able to respond to issues as they arrive outside what might have been set in the plan earlier on or even in the budget overall.
Others spoke about the service plan. The old adage of "What gets measured, gets done" springs to mind. From time to time, resources will be key to implement a plan. In the case of an extreme event, for example, where there may be a dispute going on within An Garda Síochána, whether that be what we experienced previously with the blue flu or where sometimes, Garda members may be involved in a dispute whereby overtime that may be on offer may not be taken up. We have seen, unfortunately, examples of that. It begs the question as to where the Garda would be if we did not have overtime.
If a situation arose that, for whatever reason, a dispute was ongoing within the Garda, what implications would that have for a service plan, how would that be addressed going forward, how would lost time be made up and how would a plan be adjusted? As regards the performance of the plan or a review of the plan after 12 months, how would all that feed into it and what would the mechanisms be were such an event to occur?
Before I bring the Minister back in, I welcome Eoin and Mike Nesdale, who are guests of Senator Garvey. I see them in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery. They are very welcome to Leinster House. I hope they are having a nice day and enjoy the rest of their time here.
Does the Minister wish to address the point made?
I think I probably have addressed some of the points that have been raised.
The Minister has dealt with them already.
On the specific question on performance targets and what happens if they are not met, I note the Minister said there would be flexibility in the plan. However, I think the line used by Senator Gallagher that “What gets measured, gets done” is pertinent. If there is an incentive to get certain things done, other things may get missed. It is important that unnecessary pressure is not put on the Garda by particular targets being set. How will that evaluation take place and what is the process after that? Within a workplace evaluation, for example, if you have not met a particular target, often you are told you will be given three months, at which point it will be looked at again. Will it be something along those lines or is it at the discretion of the Garda Commissioner and the board?
Again, it is fair to say that the Garda Commissioner is accountable, in a number of different ways, to the board, the Policing Authority and the Oireachtas. Where somebody is not performing, there is an ability on the part of the Commissioner to try to respond, whether it is a change in policy or a requirement for additional resources. This will happen in the way it always happens. People are held accountable and if changes are needed then they are responded to in the most effective way possible.
I thank an tAire for her reply on that issue. I mention a scenario where resources are needed or if objectives or targets have not been satisfied. I support the idea of the annual service plan. From my time as chair of a JPC in Dublin city, there was a practice where once a year the chief superintendent would engage with all of the stakeholders of the committee and ask them for their submissions in advance of the end of the year to be included then in the service plan for the following year. My concern is that in this piece of the Bill we are missing an opportunity to extend the buy-in and support for the annual service plan.
What it does is say that the service plan will be prepared by the Garda Commissioner, that it will be presented to the Minister and that the Policing Authority is involved but it is all so removed from communities, including communities that the Garda has to serve. The Garda relies on the support of those communities to succeed and to increase safety in our communities. I would have hoped that in the preparation of the annual service plan, the legislation, as it does later, would include the community safety partnerships in this section. These are meant to be community-based organisations that will, within each of our local communities, draw in all of the stakeholders.
There is an opportunity in this part of the Bill for us to include a requirement for the community safety partnerships to have a role in inputting and determining the objectives of the annual service plan. That should not just be a role for them to feed into the national policing service plan but we should have a top-down approach, involving the objectives of the Government, the Policing Authority and the Commissioner, and a bottom-up approach as well. There could be a meeting then in the middle where there would be a strong consensus and buy-in from all of the stakeholders. We all recognise that the Garda, on its own, cannot ensure our safety. It needs the support of the community to do so. Was consideration given to including a requirement, in this section on the preparation and evaluation of annual policing plans, for a specific statutory role for the community safety partnerships?
Before I bring in Senator Ardagh, I welcome to the Visitor's Gallery: David Conn, John Harte and Bryan Follan. They are guests of Senator Davitt and they are all welcome to Leinster House. I hope they enjoy their time here. We are doing lots of welcoming of people today. The last Wednesday of the term always has lots of visitors.
There might be another Wednesday in it yet.
I refer to section 65(13), which we discussed at length when we discussed the strategic plan under section 63 and its publication. Is it similar in that there will be some sort of right of reply? Will it be displayed in public? Will there be a right of reply for members of the public to the plan and a body that will accept any recommendations or submissions the public will have? In the absence of a community-type forum, members of the community, either in groups or individually, should be able to make some sort of submission or have a right of reply to the annual service plan. In that way they would have some sort of input to it.
I am sure Senators are aware that the annual service plan is around the services that are being provided by the Garda based on the strategic plan it has just set out. All the points I have referred to in how the strategic plan is developed can involve engagement with the community or whoever the Commissioner sees fit. This is about looking at the resources that are then needed and how that is put in place.
I did not get a specific answer to my question about giving a statutory role to the community safety partnerships in the preparation of the annual service plans.
There is an entire section on the community safety partnerships, as the Senator will be aware. This section is about the service plan that the Garda Commissioner puts in place to roll out the resources that are necessary for the overall plan. There is a role for communities and others to engage with the Policing Authority, the board or ourselves as Members, to make sure the strategic plan represents what it is that the Garda needs to do and is doing on a daily basis in our communities. The service plan is about how that is then achieved. It is not required to include the partnerships in this particular section.
Can I take it from the Minister's response that no consideration was given to giving a statutory role to the community safety partnerships to have a specified input to the service plan preparation and evaluation?
It is not necessary for this section.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 67, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
“it for the period to which an annual service plan relates, so inform the Board, the Authority and the Minister.”.
The amendment proposes to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the wording "it for the period to which an annual service plan relates, so inform the Board, the Authority and the Minister.” Currently, where the Commissioner exceeds his resources for the year, he is only obliged to tell the Minister and the board. The amendment adds the obligation that he or she also tell the authority, thereby adding to the authority's powers.
The amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Commissioner to inform the authority, in addition to the board and the Minister, of "any actions, proposed actions, omissions or proposed omissions" which would exceed the resources available to An Garda Síochána for the period of the service plan. It is very much the view, as discussed previously, that this would go against one of the key principles that applies throughout the Bill, as envisaged by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland, namely, that governance and oversight of An Garda Síochána should be separate. The authority and inspectorate are amalgamating their role when it comes to oversight, while governance will then move to the board. It is essential that there are clear lines of responsibility between the different actors in the policing landscape. The responsibility has, appropriately, been given to the Garda board in terms of the function and purpose to provide oversight to An Garda Síochána. Considering that it is the board and Minister, and not the authority, that will have the roles in relation to the approval of the plan, it is appropriate that they are both informed of any exceeding of resources as soon as possible. It is for those reasons that I cannot accept the amendment. We need to make sure we have that separation.
I seek clarification. Section 67(1) reads:
The Garda Commissioner shall manage the services set out in an annual service plan as laid under section 65(12) or section 66(10), so as to ensure that those services are delivered, in so far as practicable, in accordance with the plan and in a manner that does not exceed the resources available to An Garda Síochána for the period to which the plan relates.
I ask Members who are not participating in the debate to leave the Chamber so that Members can hear the debate.
I thank the Cathaoirleach. The amendment refers to "the period to which an annual service plan relates".
I am not being facetious but I genuinely cannot hear the Senator. I ask him to speak into the microphone.
I am speaking down to the microphone so maybe there is an issue with the microphone. No one has ever said they could not hear me. This is a first.
The Cathaoirleach was always afraid to say it but he is saying it now.
The amendment refers to "the period to which an annual service plan relates, so inform the Board, the Authority and the Minister." I seek clarification on not exceeding the resources available to the Garda Síochána and how that is determined. What are the consequences if the resources are exceeded in terms of the plan itself? Perhaps my question relates to the section.
I could hear the Senator much clearer at the end of his contribution.
That is because I was sitting down closer to the microphone. Maybe I should sit next time.
This section is specific to whom the Garda Commissioner must engage with if the resources available to his or her for the period of a particular plan are to be exceeded. As I mentioned, we are ensuring the Commissioner must engage with the Minister and the board, which will now have responsibility for oversight where resources have been exceeded or will potentially be exceeded. The Commissioner will then engage with the Minister if additional funding is required, as would be the case for additional overtime or for other areas for which the Commissioner may need additional funding or resourcing to fulfil the plan. In such circumstances, there will have to be engagement with the Minister to see how that can be addressed, depending on what exactly is being exceeded and by how much.
I seek clarification about the engagement on exceeding resources. Will the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts form part of the overall engagement? Exceeding resources is a serious concern for various Departments. For example, there is always a budget overrun in the HSE. There is a particular concern that there should be parliamentary oversight of such matters.
On repercussions if the service plan is not met, I note there will be redress to the board and the Minister. What specialist advisers does the board have in this area and what redress will it have, if any, in respect of overspend or misfeasance in the annual service plan?
Subsection (2) states:
The Garda Commissioner shall, as soon as practicable after he or she forms the opinion that any actions, proposed actions, omissions or proposed omissions by him or her will have the effect of An Garda Síochána exceeding the resources available.
Would it not be advisable to apply a specific timeframe rather than use the term “as soon as practicable”, as the latter can be interpreted in many ways? Given the serious issue of Garda resources and its effect on the Exchequer, should we not consider inserting a timeframe in the section?
I remind Senators that it is their prerogative to table amendments on Report Stage, if they so wish. I am making that point to all Senators, not just Senator Clifford-Lee.
I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.
I was not referring to the Senator specifically but to all Members. I have been following this debate since 2.30 p.m. It is open to Members from all sides of the House to table amendments on Report Stage.
The term “as soon as practicable” is standard language. If we do not set a timeline, the Commissioner might be able to inform the board and the Minister even sooner. This term allows the Commissioner to inform us as soon as possible.
Regarding financial accountability, sections 72 and 73 deal with the Commissioner appearing before Oireachtas committees to respond.
I will speak on the issue of capital planning. We all know that the process of budgeting resources for organisations is a budgeting process for their long-term future that includes projections for future projects.
I commend the Minister and the Department. Around the country, we can see beautiful Garda stations. I think we have seen these in all our communities. I know the OPW can be involved a lot of the time in this work. Kudos must go to that organisation and to the previous capital planning within An Garda Síochána. The station at Kevin Street is beautiful and state-of-the-art. The Garda station in my area in Crumlin is getting a revamp. It is not a full rebuild but significant structural works have been undertaken. It is very welcome. It not only improves the Garda station itself, but also the locality. This type of work improves our villages and towns around the country. We all know it is prudent to have a multi-year capital plan.
I might be missing something here, but there does not seem to be a timeframe on the capital plan. Usually, these are for between five and 25 years. The Minister might be able to shed some light on this for me. I am excited to find out what the plans for the future are for An Garda Síochána. I know that certain Garda stations around the country are seeking improvements, and that new Garda stations are being sought in other places. I commend the Minister again on what has been done to date. I would like a bit more clarification in terms of how long this new capital plan will be for.
I call Senator Chambers, the Leader of the House.
In relation to the capital plan, this is obviously extremely important and related to the Garda being able to deliver services. What is set out in this capital plan is crucial and vital in terms of An Garda Síochána being able to deliver its services across the country. Section 68(3) states that "In preparing a capital plan, the Garda Commissioner shall have regard to (a) the resources reasonably expected to be available to An Garda Síochána for the period to which the plan relates". I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on this aspect of the section.
In terms of what we have seen in recent months, extra resources are clearly needed in general. We know we need more gardaí and much work has been done by the Government to get more gardaí through the Garda College in Templemore and out onto the streets. This work has been commendable. In the context of Garda resources, Templemore was closed for a period during the Covid-19 pandemic, which was a decision taken at that time in the context of extraordinary circumstances. This had an impact on the number of gardaí coming through, and this must be acknowledged as well. The numbers coming through now, though, are healthy and we are seeing a good intake-----
We are on the capital plan and not on human resources.
If I can clarify for the benefit of Members-----
On the section.
On capital planning
It is on section 68(3)(a), and this concerns resources reasonably expected to be available. Regard must be had to resources when developing a capital plan. The key resource the Garda has is its members.
They are not capital.
The members are the key resource.
They are not considered capital.
For the benefit of Members-----
The Leader is straying now.
The members are not considered capital in the capital plan.
I am sorry Senator Ruane. I will chair the House, thank you. Members will speak through the Chair.
I thank the Cathaoirleach.
I thank the Senator.
I have to clarify the point I was making.
On the section, please. The Senator is stretching again.
Actually, I do not think I am stretching.
Sure I know that, and that is the problem.
I do not think I am stretching.
The Senator is.
The Cathaoirleach has a job to do as Chair.
Yes, I do.
He does.
In fairness, I do.
Yes. We all have a job to do, a Chathaoirligh.
That is all right. Senator Chambers is the Leader of the House.
And Senator Buttimer is the Cathaoirleach.
Yes, and I will chair the House, thank you.
I am participating as a Member of the House in relation to this Bill-----
I thank the Senator.
-----as it is my right to do so.
I have never stopped the Senator from doing that, as she knows.
I know that. We are having-----
Lean ar aghaidh.
I thank the Cathaoirleach. I will continue.
On this section, now.
Yes. The Cathaoirleach said that already.
I will keep saying it.
Not to repeat oneself, of course.
I will keep saying it. I think Members need to hear the Chair on this point.
I am listening, I am just trying to-----
Go raibh maith agat.
It is difficult to make a point when there are constant interruptions. In any event, in preparing a capital plan, and regarding the resources reasonably expected to be available to An Garda Síochána, at times certainly, what we have seen in the recent past has been that additional resources are needed for certain periods but may not be needed throughout the year. This is something to be factored in regarding being flexible concerning the capital plan. The nature of this has changed in recent years, particularly since the pandemic. Policing has changed and the nature of the resources required have changed as well. People's expectations have also changed, as have the challenges in the State.
In terms of preparing a capital plan, if the Garda Commissioner is to have regard to those "resources reasonably expected to be available", again this can be quite a subjective term. I accept it is normal language to be used in the course of a Bill. It would be important to hear from the Minister that those resources will be available to allow the capital plan to deal with the needs of the nation. This will be not just in terms of the cities and the bigger towns, but also the regions. I labour this point, as I have made it before. There is a concern in rural communities because resources, at times, are not always to the level we would like them to be, despite significant efforts and a commitment from the Government to meet those needs, and in developing these national plans, these rural areas are afraid they will play second fiddle to the bigger urban areas. This is notwithstanding and acknowledging the fact that, of course, there are different challenges in the capital and in our cities and towns and there are probably higher levels of incidents that the Garda needs to respond to.
In developing national plans, it is important rural areas can be assured that the resources made available will be made available for them also and that there is equity, taking into account the needs and demands of those areas, in the distribution of resources and that the capital plan will reflect this. It is important to put this on the record in the debate on this Bill because when it is being interpreted, beyond when it passes the Oireachtas, the debates will be looked at in respect of what Members intended on the day. It is important, therefore, to discuss sections and amendments and it is important Members have an opportunity to have their say. Suggestions that Members' contributions are not to a standard that others would like is again not a point I think it is fair to make.
On the section, please. The Senator has been straying beyond the section in the last two minutes.
The Senators have spoken for three hours and said absolutely nothing, so the contributions are not of any standard to be honest.
I am sorry. I wish to make one point, please. Members are entitled to participate in the debate. They are not-----
Hang on.
No.
Hang on-----
=
An Cathaoirleach: I am chairing the proceedings and I will let Senator Ruane come in when she wants to. Members-----
They are in government.
Senator Ruane-----
They spoke on the heads of the Bill and on various Stages.
Senator Ruane-----
They are not coming in here just to have a standard of debate on a section.
Would Senator Ruane do me a small favour?
They are afraid to vote on their councillors' votes. That is all it is.
Hear, hear.
Would you respect the Chair, please?
We are entitled to-----
The Senators are afraid to vote on the issue of the councillors' votes.
I am sorry. I understand the concerns you may have and it has been well expressed and articulated since 2.30 p.m. today. I ask Members to please stick to the section and to refer to it, and not to be going back and forth. I ask the Members to respect where we are and what we are doing here. This interaction between the Members is not helping anybody. I understand the motivation of some on all sides of the House to make the Bill a better one or to improve it or whatever. I ask the Members, though, to please stick to the section. The Senator is repeating herself and I ask her to conclude. I thank the Senator.
With respect-----
On a point of order, there are 999 city and county councillors watching this and waiting for amendments that concern them. This is not good.
I am not referring to anybody, Senator. I am allowing all Members to participate. My job as the Chair is to ensure the debate-----
The Cathaoirleach is doing fine.
I thank the Senator. I call Senator Kyne on a point of order.
Yes. As a point of order, there seems to be unusual interest----
That is not a point of order.
I ask the Leader if we could perhaps sit later tonight or even tomorrow-----
That is not a point of order, Senator.
-----or, indeed, Monday or Tuesday of next week?
I am sorry, but that is not a point of order.
We are not getting through this important Bill. We have extra time tonight-----
I thank the Senator.
Depending on the diary of the Minister, of course, the House-----
That is not a point of order.
I ask the Leader if we could provide extra time this evening, tomorrow evening and into next Monday-----
I thank the Senator.
This is a very important Bill, which was agreed by the Government at Cabinet.
I thank the Senator. That is not a point of order. The matter of the discussion of business is one for the Leader of the House, Senator Chambers, and her alone, in consultation with her office.
The Leader has just been asked-----
I thank the Cathaoirleach.
To be fair to her, she can reflect on the proposal in her own time. It is a spur-of-the-moment request and she cannot be asked to answer the question right now. She may reflect upon what Senator Kyne has proposed. If she sees merit in it, then she can give it consideration. If she does not, then that is a matter for the Leader and for her alone. I call her now.
Maybe she will respond.
I thank the Cathaoirleach.
Sure.
If I can continue making my point concerning section 68 of the Bill, and to refer to section 68(3), I have talked about the reasonable resources in this context. Section 68(3)(b) refers to "any priorities of relevance to such a plan that may be determined by the Minister for the period to which the plan relates". Can the Minister please expand on how the priorities will be established? Will they be done in consultation with anybody? Is it a matter for the Department or is it one for the Minister, working with the Garda Commissioner and the board, or A.N. Other. If we could get some details as to the priorities in terms of the relevance and how this would work in respect of section 68(3)(b) of the Bill, I would be grateful. I may have other questions on this section, but I will allow the Minister to respond now. I thank the Cathaoirleach.
I thank Senator Chambers. I apologise to the other Members. I have lost the list of speakers. Senator O'Loughlin had indicated, as had Senator Clifford-Lee. I cannot remember who else did. I call Senator O'Loughlin now, to be fair to her.
I thank the Cathaoirleach. I appreciate that. On the capital plan, which is under section 68, investment in capital is hugely important to the people who are served by our police force. I have just a few questions and comments. In terms of the capital plan, I take the point that the best resources are the people who are employed as members of An Garda Síochána. Yet, here I am assuming we are talking about buildings. Quite some time ago, two Garda stations were closed in Kildare in Ballitore and Ballymore Eustace. I would like the opportunity for Garda stations to go back into those two villages in a capital plan. That is hugely important.
Also, I am assuming there is expenditure here for squad cars and Garda cars. There is no Garda car in Rathangan, for example. Last Halloween there was a horrific situation where a certain demographic - I do not want to name the particular age group - gathered from different villages. Because there is only one bridge going into the town, many people were harassed in a horrific way. It took quite some time to be able to get gardaí there, because we do not have enough Garda cars in the area.
I also ask about 68(12), which states: "The Garda Commissioner may, with the approval of the Board and subject to the prior consent of the Minister, amend a capital plan." I found that a little unusual. I would like to understand from the Minister why it would be the Garda Commissioner amending the plan. I had assumed there would be a situation where there would be consultation and that the Minister would then go through the normal procedures to amend it.
I call Senator Clifford-Lee.
I wanted to speak about the capital plan. As many of my colleagues have outlined, the issue of Garda stations is of great importance to us all across the country. My colleague, Senator Chambers, referred to how the rural areas are being left behind. They feel that the resources are being allocated to the bigger urban areas. I am in one of those bigger urban areas, namely, the greater Dublin area. We very much feel that resources are not being allocated where the population is. I live in one of the fastest-growing parts of the country. I will name one area of Donabate, which has 12,000 people and no Garda station. Many other big towns have part-time Garda stations. We desperately need new Garda stations. It was great to see the Minister opening a new Garda station in Dublin Port last month, which is to be welcomed. Other areas, such as the Docklands have outlined their great need.
I will make specific reference to 68(11), which states: "The Minister may at any time direct the Garda Commissioner to amend a capital plan." I ask the Minister to outline under which circumstances she would envisage the Minister for Justice asking the Garda Commissioner to outline the plan. Would it, for example, be on the foot of a motion of either House of the Oireachtas on a particular need? Is it the case that the Minister or any of her successors can take the political judgment that a Garda station is needed in a particular area? Is that how she envisages it? Will it be done on a collaborative basis with the community?
The areas that are absorbing housing, such as in north County Dublin, are doing so with open arms, but we really do need the infrastructure. Garda stations are a vital piece of infrastructure. In the greater Dublin area, there is a complete lack of Garda stations and it is creating a very unsafe environment for people. It is making people feel aggrieved about the level of development, when they do not see vital things, such as public transport and Garda stations, coming alongside the housing. I would like the Minister to outline on what basis she or any other Minister would intervene in directing the Garda Commissioner to amend the capital plan. Would any Members of this House, the Dáil, the local area, the county council, the councillors or any of the local authorities have a say in that? How would that work in reality?
For clarity, I am quite happy to sit until midnight or whenever Members deem suitable this evening-----
I thank the Minister.
-----or I am happy to come back tomorrow.
Very reasonable.
One voice.
That is a matter for the Leader to decide and discuss, and for the House to decide, as the Minister will know. I have no jurisdiction over that.
I am happy to come back after Private Members' business.
The first question was on the timeline of the plan. It would normally be for three to five years. It is clearly stated at the beginning of the section that that is to be specified by the Minister. It is a three-to-five year plan, because we align it with the national development plan. It is to ensure we have a multi-annual plan that can change. There may be delays, so there is always a level of flexibility within the overall plan, be that on a yearly or a multi-annual basis.
Regarding who decides, I think the Commissioner, who is the head of the organisation, is best placed to decide what is needed in a capital plan. It has to be approved by the board and the Minister. It is important that the Commissioner is given that level of discretion. The Minister may direct, for example if we are in the midst of a recession and there is a need to cut the funding overall, the Commissioner to change or amend the capital plans. This is to allow for any type of situation that might arise. Again, I will say very clearly that the Commissioner is best placed to know where the resources are needed and where investment is needed in terms of refurbishment, new stations, garda cars, vehicles and any other type of IT or equipment the Commissioner deems necessary for the overall functioning of An Garda Síochána.
I have not spoken on any aspect of this Bill here today. I thank the Minister for confirming to the House that she is willing, able and wishes to continue with this Bill today. She is available and is giving us the time, which is an enormous commitment. I want to acknowledge that.
I came into this House this morning for the Order of the Business, which proposed that this Bill would be guillotined at 6 o’clock by the Leader. It changed subsequently. No notice was given. Members who are now in this Chamber and who are filling all time, which is their right, are putting other people who want to propose their amendments at a disadvantage. Some people who spoke here today have tabled no amendments.
Hear, hear.
That is their call. Fair enough, and I will not argue with them. Yet, call it out for what it is. We are democrats and parliamentarians-----
I wish to raise a point of order.
-----and we want to conduct our business. I am not ceding to any point of order.
What section in the Bill are you discussing?
I am responding to the Minister.
Can you outline what section?
Please allow me to speak.
Senator Clifford-Lee could you resume your seat?
I am responding to the Minister.
We are on section 68, as you know.
That is okay, and I will finish on this point. Call it out for what it is.
I ask Members to respect Senator Boyhan’s right to speak. He has not interrupted anybody here this afternoon and he has been here for most of the debate. Let him make his contribution.
I went down to the Library and Research Service. There are 554 pages of pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. This Bill has been exhaustive. Everyone has had an opportunity to speak on it. Many Members who are present were members of that joint committee. Let us call it out for what it is. For those who are listening in, some people might not like the quality, or the outcome of some of the amendments, but never be afraid to come and make a distinct, concise case, and vote for or against it. That is the reality of it. What we have seen here today is a charade. It is a disgrace and it is an insult to the Minister for Justice who has come into this House.
We are discussing the section, Senator.
As my colleague on the right-hand side of the House has said, this Bill has been approved by the Government. It is a tripartite Government.
We are on section 68.
You have your snouts in the nuts and you can either put up or shut up.
We are on section 68. Can I just-----
I thank the Cathaoirleach for facilitating my intervention.
Thank you. I welcome the members of Castleknock Golf Club, who are guests of Deputy Catherine Murphy.
I would like-----
I am not finished. Senator, I am welcoming-----
I would like that removed from the record.
Senator, I am not finished.
I am not finished either.
I was welcoming the guests of Deputy Catherine Murphy and I was just going to conclude by wishing them a pleasant visit to the House, as I do for all groups coming in. I hope they have a very enjoyable visit. This is parliamentary democracy in action.
I listened with interest to the previous speaker's sentiments.
We are on section 68.
I will absolutely speak to the section.
The Senator has not done much of that so far. We are discussing section 68.
I would place great credence in the knowledge of such matters because those on this side of the House, from memory, if my memory serves me correctly, were quite happy and content to contribute many hours to debate, which is their right and entitlement. I certainly would not criticise anybody for doing that.
Cathaoirleach-----
No, no.
I have the right to put the motion.
I will call Senator Ruane the minute Senator Gallagher is finished.
I have the right to put the motion. I have the right to put the motion under Standing Order 55.
To be fair to Senator Gallagher-----
No, the motion exists regardless of its fairness.
Senator, Senator-----
Sorry, why does the Standing Order exist if I cannot call it?
Let me finish, please. Senator Gallagher has not contributed thus far on this particular part of the debate.
He is not doing it now either. He is actually referring back-----
Senator-----
-----to something someone else did at some other stage of their-----
I did not see you rising to your feet to object to his contribution.
Do you know what I mean?
The Senator did not rise-----
Too right I did not.
Senator Gallagher.
Yes, Chair.
Speak through the Chair, first of all.
Absolutely.
I ask the Senator to conclude his remarks on section 68. I will then bring in Senator Ruane. We are on section 68.
Tell us what you are afraid of.
Senator Craughwell, you are a long-standing Member of the House and know full well that no interjections are allowed. The Senator should not be raising the temperature of the debate by any heckling of the Member in possession. Senator Gallagher, please, on section 68.
Go raibh maith agat.
The only people suffering from the temperature here are our Fianna Fáil colleagues across the way-----
Senator Craughwell-----
-----who are afraid of this Bill.
Senator Craughwell, you are well able to-----
They are afraid of it.
We are on section 68. Senator Craughwell has not indicated he wants to speak. Senator Gallagher is speaking. Let him conclude his remarks. I will then call Senator Ruane. I call the Government Chief Whip, Senator Gallagher.
I thank the Minister for her clarification on the capital plan.
I have a point of order.
Point of order from Senator Ward.
I am conscious of what the Cathaoirleach has said in respect of Standing Orders. Standing Order 55 states-----
The Senator on a point of order.
This is a point of order. Senator Ruane raised a point of order under Standing Order 55-----
Let the Senator-----
I am entitled to make the point.
You are. Go ahead.
It states that where such a proposal is made, it "shall be put forthwith". In my respectful submission, for the order of the House, that should be taken before Senator Gallagher is allowed to continue.
Hear, hear.
If and when Senator Ruane does that, I will answer and determine the question at that particular time.
She did, a Chathaoirligh.
Senator Gallagher will conclude and I will then bring in Senator Ruane. I will bring the Senator in after Senator Gallagher.
Cohesion has fallen apart here.
As I was saying, the capital plan is an important document. A number of colleagues previously mentioned the distribution of funding within that capital plan. Like others who come from a rural part of the county, I am concerned about us getting our fair share of the cake when it comes to capital projects. With that in mind, a number of Garda stations are currently lying idle throughout the country. I know that four or five miles from where I currently reside in Clontibret village, just outside Monaghan town, a Garda station has been lying idle for the best part of a decade. Does the Minister have any idea of, or any handle on, how many Garda stations are currently not in use throughout the State? Perhaps she could get that information for me. In respect of Garda stations that are currently lying idle in different parts of the country, are there any plans to bring them back into use again? As the Minister will know, Clontibret is quite close to the Border. It is a unique part of the country in that we straddle another jurisdiction, which brings with it additional challenges that people from elsewhere in the country would not be accustomed to. I am wondering if the Minister has any idea of the number of Garda stations that are still out of use. Has she any plans to bring them back into action again, including the one I referenced in Clontibret village in County Monaghan?
I will reiterate the point that the capital plan is for rural and urban areas. It does not distinguish between them. It is only appropriate that the Garda Commissioner, who is responsible for the resourcing of the Garda, would be responsible for the roll-out of any capital plan. I do not have any figures in front of me in respect of unused Garda stations.
I call Senator Ruane. Go ahead.
I should have been able to come in when I came in.
I will chair the proceedings, thank you.
I am adhering to the Standing Orders.
As am I. Go ahead.
We cannot both be adhering to them if we are doing different things. I am adhering to the Standing Orders. I invoke Standing Order 55 to ask that the question is put to the House for many reasons. It is clear that the Bill is being filibustered. An enormous amount of work from other Senators has gone into the Bill to table amendments that are constructive to the debate. It is embarrassing to the Seanad and the work of this House that people are watching. They can see exactly what is happening. Repetition is happening. Questions more appropriate to Commencement matters are being asked. They could be asked at any time. Second Stage debates are being had. People had the right to put in amendments on Committee Stage if they cared about these sections. They still have the right to put in amendments on Report Stage. It is not about people being entitled or not entitled to speak about something because people are so entitled. However, I have never seen so many members of Fianna Fáil in a room to speak on a Bill this many times and with such interest. One has to ask if they are using their entitlement or getting in the way of the Bill progressing. It is going against the work of the rest of the House. I would like the Chair to rule on whether the question should be put to the House without any more intervention.
On a point of order-----
I am not taking a point of order right now. Thank you. I heard Senator Ruane's earlier intervention around Standing Order 55. I have been following the debate. I have been here for a piece of the debate. To Members who are not familiar with Standing Order 55, a Senator may claim to move that the question be now put, as Senator Ruane has referenced. In this case, the question involved is the question on the section and unless it appears to me, as Cathaoirleach, that the closure motion "is an infringement of the rights of a minority [of Members], or that the question has not been adequately discussed, or that the motion is otherwise an abuse of these Standing Orders", the question will be put forthwith and must be decided by the House without amendment or debate. I heard what the Senator said. I have watched the debate, as I have said.
I inform Members of the House that the House has disposed of 11 sections of the Bill, with five amendments decided, and we have been here since 2.30 p.m. In my opinion, notwithstanding some of the remarks Senator Ruane has made, this is not unduly slow progress. To be fair in the circumstances, it is difficult for me to conclude that the question has already been adequately discussed. Accordingly, I do not propose to permit a closure motion to be moved right now.
That said, I want to make the following point to all Members of the House. I want all Members to listen to what I say next. This is an important debate. It is, of course, important that the debate on any question before the House is conducted in a manner that is relevant to the sections or amendments being put forward and is not unduly repetitious. This afternoon, Members, some of the contributions have been extremely repetitious, not relevant to the sections and have strayed off the point completely. It is a matter for me, as Chair, to determine whether or not Standing Order 55 should apply and I have made that decision. I urge all Members, in the interests of progressing the Bill, to ensure their contributions are relevant and that they do not repeat themselves unnecessarily.
Section 68(6) relates to the Garda Commissioner. I know this point was made in respect of previous sections. The section states:
If the Garda Commissioner fails to submit a capital plan to the Minister within the specified period, the Minister may, in writing, issue a direction to the Garda Commissioner to prepare and submit a capital plan to him or her not later than—
(a) 10 days after the date on which the Minister issues the direction to the Garda Commissioner, or
(b) such earlier date as may be specified in the direction.
The Garda Commissioner must comply, as it states in section 7. However, no consequences for the Garda Commissioner are outlined in the event the ten-day deadline is not met.
The reason I raised that, and I meant to raise it with regard to section 65(5)-----
We are not going back, Senator.
No, but I am saying it is the same wording as the previous sections. I brought this up about consistency in measurement. This relates to the fact that while the Garda Commissioner has to do something under the direction of the Minister, it is not clear, and there is a ten-day period for which that must be done. What happens if the Garda Commissioner does not comply with the Minister's orders? That is a fair question, and it is not repetition.
I thank the Minister for her patience. It is great to get a Minister into a House at any time to discuss legislation, and she has been very patient listening to what she has had to listen to here for almost three and a half hours. I thank her for her patience.
On the capital plan, will that include the building of prisons, as well as building or improving Garda stations? Does it include a provision for building prisons?
No, there is a separate capital plan for prisons that come in under the Department of Justice.
The Act itself has to assume compliance with the ten days. In extreme circumstances, one would go to the board and issue what I am not sure would be a warning but it would be assumed that if the Minister directed something to be done within the ten days that it would happen, or that reasonable excuse could be given as to why that cannot be the case. There would need to be engagement. The assumption is that there would be compliance within the ten days but in extreme scenarios the Minister could go to the board.
Does the Leas-Cathaoirleach want to speak to section 70?
I thought a vote was called.
No one called a vote. I am asking if the Leas-Cathaoirleach wants to speak to section 70.
Oh yes, sorry. The annual report-----
Did the Leas-Cathaoirleach say he opposed section 70?
I thought I heard someone calling a vote.
I thought I heard the Leas-Cathaoirleach say "not agreed". Does he wish to speak on section 70?
Sorry, just to be clear-----
Does the Leas-Cathaoirleach wish to speak on section 70?
Yes.
Okay, please resume.
I reiterate that I did not call a vote and I did not oppose one. Somebody said "votáil". That is what I-----
We are on section 70 now.
In section 70(2) it says that the annual report "shall not be submitted to the Minister unless it has been adopted by the Board". This goes back to the implementation of the strategic plan under section 64(1). I wanted to get clarification on the broader point made under section 70(3)(g), where there is a reference to "any other matters that the Board might think fit". That is a bit broad, and I wonder if the Minister has any thoughts on how that might be narrowed a small bit. It is leaving it open to the board for an undue array of views with regard to the annual report.
Going back to the Garda Commissioner, it states that the Commissioner must prepare and submit "not later than 4 months after the end of each year". Again, it makes my point on the previous section. What are the consequences if the four-month deadline is not achieved by the Garda Commissioner?
Paragraphs (a) to (f) very specific, and (g) are simply to make provision to allow for "any other matters that the Board thinks fit" in producing the annual report. I cannot imagine that the report would have a reference to hospitals, shops, retail or any other matter that does not involve the role of An Garda Síochána. It is intentionally open in that regard, and it has to be.
Again, where it states "not later than 4 months", one would have to assume compliance with this by An Garda Síochána and by the Garda Commissioner. If there is some reason that this is not done, I am sure there would be engagement between the Minister and the Commissioner.
The Cathaoirleach might rule me out on this one because it might sound like repetition. The reason I am making the point is that it says the same thing again, "a report on the performance of An Garda Síochána during the preceding year". This relates to section 70(1), where the Minister will get this report. The reason I am-----
We are on section 70 now.
Yes, section 70(1). On the report on performance - and it goes back to the point I had made on this topic but it is relevant to this section as well - what is the measurement of that, who is allocated, and what are the consequences for those performance targets not being met? I know that sounds like repetition but it is in the section, and that is the point I am making on it.
I know this also sounds like repetition but it goes back to the made point we made previously and it is in this section as well, in section 70(5) and (6). It does not allow for printed copies of the report. It states the Minister may exclude matter from the annual report being laid before the Oireachtas, and that the Garda Commissioner should ensure "as soon as practicable" that it would be laid before the Oireachtas. Again, it is not necessarily available to the public. It also refers to it being available on websites, not in this section but in other sections. I am conscious that members of the public should have access to this, as they should all other Government reports. That should be done through our library service, which would be accessible. It would be a printed copy and would basically mean that people who do not have access to the Internet - we all assume everyone does but we all know that is not the case - do not then have access to the report itself.
I just-----
Is Senator Fitzpatrick okay?
Sorry, the seat came back. Apologies, I am okay. I am fine, and I thank the Cathaoirleach for his concern.
On the annual report, the way it is specified here is all to be welcomed and supported. I will go back to what we spoke about on the strategic plan, the annual plans and now the annual report. These are all really important documents for us here in the Oireachtas, for the Minister and everyone involved in making them. The most important people are the people they are designed to serve. I would encourage that when the Minister specifies where and how these annual reports would be made public, that similar to the request that a copy of the strategic plan would be in each library and easily accessible to communities in a public space, that the annual reports would also be available. Most importantly, the annual reports that should be made available locally in each library are the annual reports that pertain to that local area, or the annual reports that pertain to each community safety partnership. It is only at that level that people will be able to determine whether the resources that are being allocated, the strategic plans that are being rolled out and the service plans that are being promised are really being delivered. I would appreciate if the Minister could respond to that and advise as to whether she is in a position to specify that to the Commissioner.
There is a plethora of hands now. I will take Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee and then Senator Fiona O'Loughlin, and I remind Senators that we are on section 70 of the Bill.
I wish to speak to section 70(4). That has the same language, and states that "as soon as practicable after a copy of the annual report is submitted to him or her under subsection (1) cause a copy of it to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas". Again, I think it might be an idea to put in a timeframe there. The phrase "as soon as practicable" can mean anything to anyone, and given the importance of the plan, it would be fitting to put a timeframe there. While we can trust the Minister's bona fides, maybe some of her successors would not be as quick as she would be to lay such a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Would the Minister consider putting a specific timeframe within the legislation?
I completely understand that under section 70(6) the Minister may exclude any information that may not be in the interests of the security of the State or that may prejudice a criminal investigation, etc. That is certainly important but I will go back to section 70(3)(b) and (c). That report would have to be on the implementation of the strategic plan, including the achievement of the performance targets.
It would be hugely important for there to be some level of consultation with the people that are served, and in terms of what may be coming in to replace the JPCs, that there would be an opportunity, at the quarterly meetings for the public representatives and those who represent the community to be asked their views on the achievement of the performance targets. While there will be performance targets, there will be other events that will need to be reported on in an annual report. For example, I recall asking for numbers relating to domestic violence at a JPC meeting a number of years ago . At that point in time, there were no records of the actual figures, numbers or cases. That has changed since but as time goes on, different situations will arise and there will need to be an opportunity to have them accounted for in the report. They may not have been part of the initial strategic plan or the initial performance targets but there needs to be room to have that commented on by people within the community.
I am asking for some guidance really. I have come to this debate late. I make no bones towards my Fianna Fáil colleagues, who can do what they wish. What we are witnessing now is so well choreographed that it is like watching Swan Lake or some other ballet. It is so well done.
We are on section 70, by the way.
If this debate is going to run until 6 p.m. and if Fianna Fáil Members insist on running it out and wasting the time of Members and the Minister, how do we, as a House, decide to sit past 6 p.m.? I am happy to sit here all night until we get this done.
Hear, hear.
This is what we are elected to do.
I think-----
Senator Clifford-Lee, I will chair the proceedings, thank you. I am very happy to have lots of help from the terraces all day on how to referee the match and how to chair the proceedings. I will chair them. We are on section 70.
I mean this in the most respectful way to my Fianna Fáil colleagues. If they wish to continue on with this, it is absolutely fine. I will continue on with this all night. I will listen to point after point all night. I have no problem sitting here until 12 midnight. How can we, as a House, sit past 6 p.m.? That is what I am asking.
The order of the House today is that the debate on the Bill, if not concluded, adjourns at 6 p.m. The Leader, and only the Leader, may propose to amend the Order of Business.
Or the Chief Whip.
Only the Leader can propose an amendment to the Order of Business.
No, the Chief Whip can.
Can we get clarification on this?
The Government Leader has to indicate to the Government Chief Whip if there is an agreement to do that, as far as I understand. I will get clarity on that . My understanding is that the Government Leader or the Acting Leader of the House makes the proposal. That is my understanding, but I will get clarity for the Senator.
On whether it is the Leader or the Chief Whip, or both.
Under Standing Order 16, the Leader or the Acting Leader proposes the business of the House, and the House decides whether to accept it or not.
The only way this can be extended, and for us to sit past 6 p.m., is if the Leader of the House, Senator Chambers, who has left the room, proposes to sit past 6 p.m.
It is proposed by the Leader of the House or a person nominated by the Leader to represent the Leader's role.
We are on section 70 now.
We are all willing to sit here after 6 p.m. I assume other Members are.
Please, Senator Kyne.
The Minister is as well.
Just to help clarify, there is other business scheduled from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m.
We can come back at 8 p.m.
This is our full-time job. We are professional politicians. Let us sit all night to get the business of today done.
Hear, hear.
I think-----
I have no issue with that, Senator Clifford-Lee, but it is you guys who are delaying this.
I ask the Senator to conclude or to address his remarks through the Chair.
I will conclude, because I have spoken long enough. Let us bring this charade to an end. We are either going to sit past 6 p.m.-----
We are on section 70, and all I can say to the Senator is-----
I want to put it on record that I would like to know if the Leader of the House, Senator Chambers, who I have so much respect for, is going to come back and propose that we sit past 6 p.m.. If she decides that she is not going to do that, then it is as plain as day what everyone is up to. Let us just get that clarity. Let us sit past 6 p.m. and have it on the record that Senator Chambers is happy for this House to do its bloody job, sit past 6 p.m. and get this legislation passed.
Hear, hear.
Members-----
We know what you are at. It is fine and I respect it, but let us be genuine about it. We want to get this done.
Members, I know we are in the Christmas season. The pantomime season has started off in good fashion already this year. I remind all Members that-----
God, I would hate to be refereeing a match, lads. It is like being-----
Standing Order 16 is very clear to all Members. The proposal for the arrangements for the day are put forward by the Leader. A vote of the House is required to amend or change that. If Members wish to speak to the Leader, that is their prerogative. If the Leader or a representative of the Leader chooses to bring a proposal to the House, it is the House's decision to make.
We have an Order of Business and opportunities tomorrow morning.
We are on section 70.
This section concerns the governance framework document for An Garda Síochána, which includes an outline of the guiding principles applicable to An Garda Síochána and the organisational structure of it. It almost indicates that there could be significant changes. It is very important for members of the public as well as us, as parliamentarians, to be informed of the organisational and governmental structures of An Garda Síochána. In other sections-----
I ask Members to let Senator Ardagh to speak without the background noise.
I will start again.
Oh no, you need not start again.
It is like Comical Ali after the invasion of Iraq. This is a joke.
I want to speak to the section on the governance framework document for An Garda Síochána and, specifically, the organisational structure of An Garda Síochána. As I said, it is important that members of the public and we, as Members of this House, are aware of the organisational structure. Section 70(4) states that the annual report will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. There is no provision in the section for the governance framework document to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not know if this is an omission, but it might be something that should be included in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could speak to that.
Senator Kyne, on section 71.
I put forward a proposal before 5 p.m. that the Leader would extend the sitting after the Private Members' business, up to a point that the Minister's diary would allow for. She has kindly agreed to sit here later than 10 p.m. or even 10.30 p.m. In the absence of the Leader, I ask the Government Chief Whip to get confirmation from the Leader as to whether she will accept that proposal and whether she is agreeable to it. If she is not, she is not. I ask the Government Chief Whip to engage with the Leader,-----
I ask the Leas-Chathaoirleach to resume his seat.
-----by modern communications methods if she is not available in the House, via text, WhatsApp or phone call, and ascertain whether she is available to come here and allow the House to sit. The Minister for Justice is here and is willing to sit past 8 p.m., 10 p.m., 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m., and even tomorrow evening or Monday. I ask the Government Chief Whip to check with the Leader of the House whether that is in order.
Hear, hear.
The Leas-Chathaoirleach put his hand up to speak. Is that correct? Yes. I will then bring the Minister in. Senator Gallagher might consider the request made by Senator Kyne.
Is the Cathaoirleach bringing the Minister in first?
I will bring you in now. I have indicated you are in possession.
Going back to a point I made previously, section 71(5) states: "The Board shall, as soon as practicable, after the approval by the Minister under subsection (3) of the governance framework, arrange for the publication of the framework on a website maintained by or on behalf of An Garda Síochána or in such other manner as the Minister may specify."
It sounds like repetition but the same issue keeps coming up over and over again. The Government’s view of publication of a report means only on websites, which then, by definition, means it is not available to those who are not able to access websites. I note the Minister has responded to this each time I have raised it on each of the sections. It might have been an oversight on the part of the officials. As I said, we all live in a digital age and just assume-----
You are repeating yourself.
I am repeating myself because-----
The Leas-Chathaoirleach is a long-time Member of the House and he has chaired the House.
I am repeating myself. I am getting the same answer but I am asking the same question. It is in section 5-----
You know better than most.
The view of Government is a publication of a report is only on a website or such other manners as the Minister may specify. What I would like as a principle is not allowable because there is no mention here that there would be subsequent statutory instruments outlining how the Minister would specify those frameworks and so on would be published. All the documents I have referred to would be published only on websites and that is a disservice to our members of the community who do not have access to the Internet.
Senator Clifford-Lee, on the section please.
On the annual report and its publication, could the Minister confirm that the report will be published both in English and Irish? There have been a number of issues over the years of various Government bodies and different organisations not publishing reports in the two languages. There have been particular issues within An Garda Síochána and the use of Irish and not providing gardaí who can serve the Irish-speaking community both within and outside the Gaeltacht areas.
I remind the Senator we are on section 71. It is on governance frameworks, not reports.
If the Minister could confirm the reports will be published in both languages, I would appreciate it.
As somebody who has never filibustered in this House-----
I feel I have to be brief.
Can you clarify that remark to the House?
I will speak briefly about section 71. The governance framework provided for in this section is to be devised by the board. It seems that is a good idea but what I am increasingly worried about in respect of this Bill – I want to put it on the record – is the whole process of running An Garda Síochána is becoming more and more complicated. On the provisions of this Bill, I note the so-called independent Policing Authority is being replaced but the relationship between the Parliament, the national police force, the Minister and the Commissioner is being made increasingly complicated and increasingly regulated.
I will confine myself to this observation. The Garda Síochána Act 2005, which was introduced by a person not too distant from where I am now, was superior to all of this, if it was operated correctly. The amendments made to it and the Policing Authority, which is now being abolished, were an aberration. I note the commission reported on this matter and came up with its own views on it. However, there is nothing as good as having a member of Government who is responsible to the Oireachtas, and to Dáil Éireann in particular, for the police force of the country, who carries the can when things go wrong and who has a direct relationship with the Commissioner without the involvement of a layer of a series of other bodies that are cluttering responsibility.
I wish to make one other point about governance and An Garda Síochána. The direct relationship between the Commissioner and An Garda Síochána's Minister, namely, the Minister for Justice, has never caused a problem in the past. Nobody has ever alleged that Ministers were wrongfully interfering in the way in which An Garda Síochána was run or that the simpler procedures were defective or incapable of being run correctly.
My last point is that in 2007, the 2005 Act was amended to accommodate the views of the Maurice Hayes group, a former Member of this House who kindly agreed to look at the governance of An Garda Síochána in the light of the Morris report on Donegal. He came up with a proposal that a small board should assist the Commissioner. As to the composition of that board, that amendment was made but never implemented.
I think we should keep it short and simple, and I will do that with this intervention. We are massively overcomplicating the policing function in this State. The old system that was provided for in 2005 and 2007 was perfectly capable of running An Garda Síochána. There were no complaints that that system did not work. There were people who were misguided and said that if Northern Ireland has an independent policing authority, we need the same thing here. The notion of its independence was a complete distraction because nobody should be independent of this House. The Minister for Justice and his relationship with the Commissioner was never independent of being accountable to Dáil Éireann and the Oireachtas.
My strong view is that although this new system will be an improvement on the mistaken governance that was put in place after the changes were made subsequent to the 2005 Act, it still leaves things massively overcomplicated. The time will come when somebody will ask what was wrong with the old system. What did it do wrong? What did it prevent from happening that was good? In Northern Ireland, there is an independent policing authority. We were told that we needed a body here to depoliticise policing whereas in Northern Ireland, the independent policing authority has party political members appointed on the D’Hondt principle. We were being asked by people to imitate institutions and structures, which were to reflect a divided community in Northern Ireland by replicating something similar here.
If it is not broken, do not try to fix it. The sheer size of this Bill depresses me, and the fact that it is simply not necessary. The Minister is well capable of functioning under the old system and all of this extra furniture is only complicating the matter. I will leave it at that.
Before I call the Minister, I welcome the president of the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, Councillor Gail Dunne, to the Public Gallery. I thank him for being here today.
Regarding some of the questions, again, it is stipulated in the Bill as to how the Minister would lay this before the Houses. Section 75 clearly outlines the fact that it will be made online means that is being made available to the public. I have no doubt though that if somebody wanted a hard copy, they could get it printed off in the library.
On the overall Bill itself, I think many in this House would agree that there have been situations in the not-too-distant past that would have benefited from greater structures and oversight than we currently have. While change can be challenging, change can also be good. The Minister still has full accountability. In fact, every single section of this comes directly back to the Minister.
I call Senator Clifford-Lee and ask her to speak to the section and to avoid repetition.
The question I asked the Minister, to which I did not hear a response, was whether this would also be published in the Irish language.
It is not provided for in the Bill but if obviously comes under the Irish language Act, which means it could be available in the Irish language.
On a point of order, I thought the Leader said in her contribution a few minutes ago that she was going to go to the Chief Whip to get an answer to Senator Kyne's question about sitting later. It seems that almost everyone present wants to sit later. Every point of order that has been raised can be clarified and answered by the Chief Whip or by the Leader. One of the reasons we were given for not being able to sit until 8 p.m. is that people have to put kids to bed. The Minister has two very young kids-----
The Senator is straying.
-----and is willing to sit late.
That is a low blow.
The Senator is straying beyond a point of order.
Could we just get an answer?
If the Senator will let me adjudicate on the point of order, which I have just done, I will give him clarity, if he would like to hear it. The Chief Whip is not answerable to the House with regard to the proposal. It is for the Government to reflect upon the request of Members. If the Government decides to come back with an amendment to the Order of Business of the day, the Leader may, under Standing Order 16, decide to put forward a proposition to amend the Order of Business agreed this morning. The Government Chief Whip is not in the Chair and does not have to answer the request. It is for Government to decide on the matter and to come back to the House if it so chooses.
Even though almost everyone wants to sit later because this is really important, we cannot do it because one person does not want to.
The House agreed on the Order of Business and the arrangements for the sitting of the House for today. Members of the House have asked the Leader to look at changing the Order of Business but that is a matter for the Leader and the Government. To be fair to Senator Gallagher, it is not a matter for the Government Chief Whip. He should not be put on the spot in the Chamber. I call Senator Craughwell.
On a point of information-----
There is no such thing as a point of information.
-----the latest I have sat in this House is 3.30 a.m. I am quite prepared to do the same tonight. In fact, I will stay here until 9 a.m.
I say to all Members of the House that, if the Leader comes back with such a proposal, I, as Cathaoirleach, the Leas-Chathaoirleach and other Members who act as temporary chairs will facilitate that. However, that is a matter for the Government and the Leader alone.
We will have the Order of Business tomorrow. That is when the Seanad-----
On a point of order, will my Fianna Fáil colleagues get in touch with the Leader of the House and ask her to return to the House? Is that a possibility? Can anyone get in touch with the Leader of the House to ask her if she will come back?
Senator Keogan was about to start. I hope she is not making a point of order or a point of information.
The Cathaoirleach has given some time to Senator McGahon. I ask for just one minute. I see the AILG chair down there. What has happened here this evening is absolutely terrible. We will have an opportunity to amend the Order of Business tomorrow morning. We will come back next week. We can come back next week. Let us get this done.
It is open to any Member to amend the Order of Business, if they so decide.
We will do that tomorrow morning.
We need the Leader. Where is she?
Senator Craughwell is a long-standing Member of the House and will know better than most that comments like that are unnecessary, unwelcome and irrelevant.
I think they are welcome all right.
Senator McGahon indicated that we wished to make a point of order.
It is not that. It is just-----
Okay, then the Senator may not speak.
Could my Fianna Fáil colleagues please get in touch with the Leader of the House to ask her to come to the House and make a decision? Can she just make the decision as to whether we do this or not?
Who is the Acting Leader in the absence of the Leader?
It is whoever the Leader decides to appoint in her absence.
Who did the Leader appoint as Acting Leader?
The Acting Leader, whoever that person-----
It is great that the Senators are all experts on Standing Orders and the rules of the House. I hope they will all adhere to them in future because it would make the running of the House an awful lot better, enhance the debates and lend-----
The fact is that the running of the House is not happening. That is the point. The point is that the running of the House is being deliberately obstructed. Let us call it for what it is.
Hear, hear.
Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 66, 106, 107, 126 and 127 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 71, to delete lines 5 and 6.
This suite of amendments seeks the deletion of the provision in multiple sections of the Bill that prevents certain public representatives from questioning or expressing an opinion on Government policy or the objectives of such policy. This provision usually arises in circumstances where the public representative is called to appear before an Oireachtas committee. It is our view that this is an incredibly restrictive provision that prevents Oireachtas joint committees from engaging in meaningful scrutiny with certain public representatives on matters of relevance and importance. There have been a number of occasions over the past year on which public representatives with significant experience of and expertise in a given subject have had to refuse invitations to appear before Oireachtas committees on relevant matters. While their perspectives would have illuminated our discussions or prelegislative scrutiny, they were prevented from contributing to the process by similar provisions in other Acts. It is our view that these provisions are unjustifiably restrictive and have the impact of gagging public representatives. We should instead be empowering our public representatives to express their views so that they can contribute positively to the development of policy, practice and legislation.
The amendment seeks the deletion of such a provision as it relates to the appearance of the Garda Commissioner before the Committee of Public Accounts. The amendment also seeks the deletion of the provision as it relates to the appearance of the Garda Commissioner before the Oireachtas joint committee. Amendment No. 66 in this grouping seeks to delete the same provision as it relates to the appearance of the director of the national office for public safety before Oireachtas joint committees. Amendment No. 106 seeks the deletion of the same provision as it relates to the appearance of the chief executive of the Policing Authority before the Committee of Public Accounts. Amendment No. 107 seeks the deletion of the same provision as it relates to the appearance of the chief executive of the Policing Authority before other Oireachtas joint committees. This is a particularly important deletion given the need for the Policing Authority to be independent of both An Garda Síochána and Government for it to be effective in its function. Amendment No. 126 seeks the deletion of the same provision as it relates to the appearance of the CEO of the police ombudsman before the Committee of Public Accounts. Amendment No. 127 also seeks the deletion of the same provision as it relates to the appearance of the CEO of the police ombudsman before other Oireachtas committees.
On a point of order, have we ascertained who is in charge here? Have we ascertained whom the Leader appointed to act in her place?
I have bad news for you; you are looking at him. I am the Cathaoirleach so I am in charge.
The Cathaoirleach is the Chair but who has the Leader appointed to run the business and make decisions? Proposals have been made to sit past 8 p.m. Who is here to make that decision? There is nobody here. Where is the Leader?
As the Senator will know-----
The Cathaoirleach stated that the Leader has to appoint somebody so who has the Leader appointed?
As the Senator will know, the Leader does not have to be here.
Who has the Leader appointed?
That is a matter for the Leader.
Who has the Leader appointed to make the decision? Proposals were made.
I cannot answer that.
Does the Cathaoirleach not want to know who the Acting Leader is?
I am quite happy to stay impartial in the Chair.
I am honestly asking. The Cathaoirleach says it is a matter for the Leader. Surely, he will want to know.
Could both Members-----
The Cathaoirleach is going to have to go to the Acting Leader to propose a suspension or to propose to move on.
Will all Members resume their seats?
Surely, the Cathaoirleach will want to know who the Acting Leader is?
Who is our Acting Leader? We all want to know who the Acting Leader is.
The Acting Leader is leaving. The Acting Leader is out the door.
Will all Members resume their seats?
Can I propose a suspension until-----
No, you cannot.
Who is the Acting Leader?
Can I propose a suspension of the House until we find out who the Acting Leader is or until the Leader returns?
The House needs to be suspended due to unruly behaviour.
Senators will resume their seats. Members are not, in any way, helping the debate to progress.
Proposals were made.
It is not progressing. This is deliberate obstruction.
We asked the Leader to consider them over an hour ago and we have not got an answer.
I thank Senator Kyne.
I thank the Members. I know they would rather be in the Gaiety Theatre at pantomime season. I know they want to be doing that. The Punch and Judy-----
Sorry-----
This is very serious. This is legislation on policing and security in our State-----
I understand fully. Senator Seery Kearney-----
-----that is being obstructed by Government Members.
-----I understand fully your point of view. I thank the Senator.
They are obstructing it. This is very serious.
We need-----
We have a right to know. If the Leader and the Chief Whip and Members-----
Members, please.
-----are obstructing the business of the House-----
I am asking the Senator to resume her seat, please.
-----they deserve to be held to account for it.
Will you resume your seat please?
I will not.
With respect, Senator Seery Kearney, resume your seat please.
Out of respect for the Cathaoirleach, I will but, with due respect, what is going on here is obscene.
I thank the Senator.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
Go raibh maith agat. Members, as it has now reached the point of 6 p.m. and-----
-----and gone past that time, the proceedings on the Bill must now be adjourned in accordance with the Order of Business of the House today.
No-----
It was agreed today.
No, it was not. Our question was never answered. The Leader should answer our question.
Members, sit down, please. Stop. Please resume your seats. I understand what is going on. The Members who are here will understand, and I ask them to listen to me, please, that the Order of Business was agreed by the House today, by all the Members this afternoon. There was no vote to amend the Order of Business-----
There was no-----
Senator Ruane, sorry, please do me the respect-----
I did not-----
I have been in the House for 17 years. The Order of Business was agreed today, and, per that, my hands, as the Cathaoirleach, are tied. It has reached 6 p.m. The business of the Bill, if it is not concluded, must be adjourned. I must do this. I thank the Members.
I thank the Cathaoirleach.
I was going to report progress, or the Minister was, because all those interventions actually interrupted the amendments, so-----
The business of the Bill has been adjourned.
It was adjourned without the person who was engaged on the amendment reporting progress.
Senator Ruane, some of us do understand the Standing Orders as well.
The Senator is actually right.
She is actually not. The Members would want to learn to read over Christmas. I will give all the Members a copy of the Standing Orders for Christmas.
I see an election coming.
We have some forms in our office.
That is fine.
