Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Ruane. As she has outlined, the amendments are all about membership of the board of An Garda Síochána or appointment to the board. I will discuss them together. Amendment No. 20 seeks to add community development to the list of matters that persons recommended by the service are to experience or have expertise in. While the Bill does not expressly state "community development", if we look at the functions of An Garda Síochána, it is reasonable to expect that persons who have experience in their own express functions, which are provided for in a different section and include preventing harm to individuals who are vulnerable or at risk and protecting and supporting victims of crime, they will also have a background that overlaps with community support and development. The Bill tries not to be overly prescriptive where something is essentially covered in other parts of the Bill. We have discussed this a lot regarding earlier amendments and the same would be said for amendment No. 21, which seeks to add human rights and equality matters. Under section 9, protecting and vindicating the human rights of each individual is a function of An Garda Síochána. In looking at membership of the board we would have to look at making sure we have people whose objective is protecting and vindicating the human rights of each individual. I absolutely agree with the sentiment of what is being proposed but it falls under other parts of the legislation.

Amendment No. 22 is slightly different so I am minded to accept it. What we are saying more generally is that someone should meet one or more of these criteria, along with having knowledge of the functions of An Garda Síochána and financial matters. While we have an obligation to have a data protection officer who is available to An Garda Síochána and the board, as a criterion it is different from more broad community engagement on human rights, which is very clearly defined in some of the overall objectives of An Garda Síochána. I am minded to accept this amendment. I know there is a subsequent amendment to it.

With regard to amendment No. 25, I agree there is more emphasis now on rehabilitation and we need to make sure people are not precluded forever more from being part of Government organisations or senior positions, particularly where they have lived experience and had particular roles. There are provisions in section 18(2), which provide that a person who is convicted on indictment of an offence, convicted of fraud or dishonesty, or sentenced to a term of imprisonment is disqualified from holding office. However, it does not preclude a person who is convicted of a summary offence where it does not involve a term of imprisonment from being considered, except where it involves fraud or dishonesty. Given the sensitive position of overseeing An Garda Síochána, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. This is not to state that in future it will not change or that we cannot make changes in this regard. What we have at present allows for a certain degree of flexibility but it does not go so far because then we would have to prescribe what type of sentence, what length of sentence and what type of offence we are speaking about. This in itself is more challenging. It is something that could be looked at down the line, perhaps in other legislation Senator Ruane or we have been working on with regard to spent convictions. With regard to this Bill, the balance we have struck is appropriate given the sensitivity of the particular position of overseeing An Garda Síochána. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 21 or 25 but I will accept amendment No. 22.