Ms Saoirse Brady:

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak here today on this important and long overdue proposed legislation. The IPRT has been advocating for the ratification of OPCAT, for many years. We welcome this proposed Bill as a significant step forward in making ratification a reality. We urge the committee to give the general scheme its full attention over the coming months in order to ensure that momentum is not lost and that the final legislation is robust in meeting international human rights standards and best practice in monitoring and inspecting places of detention.

OPCAT is clear that the State must guarantee the functional independence of NPMs, as well as the independence of their personnel. The subcommittee on the prevention of torture, SPT, details that this includes financial and operational autonomy. As it stands, the IPRT is not convinced that the general scheme sufficiently establishes such functional, including financial and operational, independence. Concerns include the budget of the new inspectorate of places of detention remaining within the remit of the Department of Justice - under head 3, rather than having its own Vote and the restrictions imposed on the chief inspector around questioning or expressing an opinion on the merits of Government policy, which is in head 11.

Resourcing is an overarching consideration in this proposed Bill. First, there is a need to ensure that the new inspectorate of places of detention has the resources to take on the role of NPM for prisons and Garda stations. Second, and separately, IHREC must be provided with additional resources to carry out the extensive additional duties assigned to it by this legislation. It is also important that the general scheme explicitly sets out IHREC's proposed NPM co-ordinating function as distinct from all its other responsibilities, and that designated NPMs, including the inspectorate of places of detention, are enabled to maintain a clear distinction between any investigative functions they might hold and their inspection and monitoring functions as an NPM. The IPRT would also welcome clarity on whether it is intended that the prison visiting committees will be designated as an NPM. We believe further discussion is needed on the proposed role of the new inspectorate of places of detention in supervising the visiting committees.

Article 24 of OPCAT makes clear that its ratification is not dependent on the passing of this proposed legislation. Rather, the Government could ratify OPCAT today and simply make a declaration postponing the implementation of its obligations for a maximum total of five years, with an additional year to designate the NPM after ratification. Commitments to bring forward legislation and move towards the ratification of OPCAT have been consistently missed since 2018. While the IPRT welcomes the current progress in respect of the general scheme, we remain of the view that the Government can maintain the necessary impetus and make significant progress by ratifying OPCAT with immediate effect.

International guidance describes the important role that civil society can play in both designating and feeding into the work of NPMs. A good example of this is the Australia OPCAT Network. We would be happy to answer more questions on that specific issue. Given the importance of civil society engagement, the IPRT urges committee members to recommend the establishment of a clear formal role for civil society in the designation and operation of NPMs in the proposed legislation. I again thank the committee for the invitation to present here today. We look forward to further discussion of any of the aspects of the submission that we covered in our opening statement or submission.