Lynn Ruane (Independent)

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. Recruitment, operation models, morale and pay are crucial. They will not be the things I talk about but I recognise they are paramount in their impact on other areas.

There are two things I want to look at. One is around the current proposals for a diversion scheme in relation to drugs possession. What are the witnesses' thoughts on a discretionary model to potentially be built into that, whereby guards will have discretion about whether to refer someone to a health assessment? From a human rights perspective, I am against the referral. If it can be enforced, somebody will end up involved in the criminal justice system because they refused treatment. I have an issue with that in general but if that model exists, how do the witnesses feel about the discretionary element?

At the start of the year I read the new human rights policy - I cannot remember the author's name - for the police. There was a quote in it saying the police force or law enforcement is the first defence in human rights. If the police are the first defence in human rights and a discretionary model is introduced whereby anything can feed into a decision about whether someone is arrested for possession of drugs for personal use or is sent for a health assessment, I cannot imagine that adds to morale. First, it is not human rights-led for the person and does not have equity and equality built in. Second, there will be different training levels and understandings in the police force. Some people will have blind biases they are not aware of in relation to drugs use, so the policing will be ad hoc. I imagine that will not help the community aspect. We are saying we are losing the community element and community engagement in policing and then there is going to be an ad hoc approach to people using drugs. Could issues arise from a model involving discretion whereby everybody is not just referred for a health-led approach when it is for personal use?

I am sure that if there are no resource issues and the models are intact, then it is easier to think about different policing models. I was in America last year and spent time with the founders and architects of Group Violence Intervention and the focused deterrence model, which massively reduced youth homicides during the Boston ceasefire project. I explored some of those models. They involve the police and need police involvement. They do call-ins. The police are very engaged with community members but instead of just arriving and arresting or stopping and searching, there is a model whereby they bring in the key actors causing harm in the community and lay out the consequences if they do not cease retaliation, community violence and violence on the streets. Then a negotiation piece opens between those potentially causing the most harm and police and social services. There has to be a community service response too. Are those conversations happening in Garda circles? When we talk of community policing, it is only scratching the surface. It can be much bigger than that in terms of how we engage. There is a model in the States suggesting violence is bad for business, though some people are uncomfortable with it. There are hot spots in Dublin where violence has increased massively. People think it is all drugs related but, even if people are selling drugs, the conflict is usually not drug related. It is often relationships, old family stuff or just stuff kicking off. Police and the community could respond differently to that to reduce violence in communities. Those are my general questions about policing and looking at different models.