Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am sympathetic to the impetus behind these proposed amendments. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 relate to section 16 of the Bill and the skill set that members of the board would have. What Senator Ruane said is absolutely right insofar as the board would benefit from people who have a background in community development or experience and knowledge of human rights and equality. I have a small concern, however, in respect of the way section 16(3) is set out, which is with a view to setting up a body that has a specific skill set in terms of experience or knowledge of "the functions of An Garda Síochána", the "organisational governance" and the "financial matters". Looking at section 12(1), it would appear that this seems to be the main impetus of the people who will be on the board.

By the same token, I appreciate what has been said about the added value that would be gained from people who have the range of experiences set down in amendments Nos. 20 and 21. I do not agree, though, that these aspects should be core competencies as set out in section 16(3). However, I wonder if there is room for the amendment to be changed slightly to state that these could be additional features that could be considered in the appointment process, rather than making them criteria set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 16(3). I do not think I could support the amendment as currently drafted.

Regarding Senator Ruane's proposed amendment No. 25, to amend section 16 to include a new section 16(5) to prevent, essentially, anybody with a previous conviction from being excluded from the board for having a previous conviction, if I have understood this proposal correctly, I do not think the Bill, as drafted, necessarily excludes people but I understand the point the Senator is making. Generally speaking, an important point to consider is that we have people on boards who, for whatever reason, have fallen foul of the law, have been convicted of an offence and may have served a term of imprisonment or whatever it might be.

We must, of course, remember that a conviction can include some very minor things, like speeding, for example. Nobody goes to jail for it, unless there are consequences or unless it becomes dangerous driving. It is still a previous conviction, however, and, in theory, those people must, as I understand it, report that previous conviction under the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016. It is grossly unfair that people who have had that kind of misstep and had the misfortune of being convicted, and perhaps of having served time, are thereafter excluded from any rehabilitation into society or from the ability to have functional lives, including functional working lives and functional lives in charities or whatever it might be.I do not think the amendment is reasonable in circumstances where I do not think it is necessary, insofar as the Bill does not exclude these people. It is really a matter for the Minister of the day to take into consideration whether the type of people whom Senator Ruane mentioned, who have clearly gone on, post conviction, to lead functional and contributing lives, would be an asset to the board. The notion of putting into the Bill that no previous conviction could ever be used to debar someone from membership of the board is problematic. I have mentioned speeding as a previous conviction but a previous conviction could also include capital murder or very serious drug trafficking, fraud or whatever it might be. This might necessarily deem a person ineligible under many other criteria. The baldness of the amendment makes it problematic and I do not think it can be supported in this regard.