James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies have been received from Deputy Ward and Deputy Ó Snodaigh will substitute for him. Today, we will consider Committee Stage of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023. There is quite a lot in this Bill and we will be here for a while.

I welcome the Minister for Justice and his team. Some members are attending online and that is very much in order. I wish to note that if there is a division, all members will be required to be physically present in this committee room and I think that people are used to that at this stage.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know there are no amendments to section 2, but I am obligated to flag that I intend to consider something on Report Stage. For the information of the Cathaoirleach's colleagues, I wish to mention that we may add further necessary definitions to this section on Report Stage.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that in section 1?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is in section 2.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is noted.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 22, after line 38, to insert the following: “(5) Nothing in this section—

(a) confers on a member of garda personnel a power that he or she does not otherwise have by virtue of another enactment or at common law,

(b) authorises a member of garda personnel to exercise a power conferred by law for a purpose that is not so authorised.”.

The amendment tries to strengthen the Bill with regard to its definitions.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a relatively long speaking note. At a high level, I will point out that in reviewing the amendment, my view is that it is unnecessary in the context of this section, which essentially restates an existing section of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. As Deputy Ó Ríordáin says, the amendment provides that nothing in section 3 of the Bill, which relates to the definition of security services other than for Part 7 of the Bill, "confers on a member of garda personnel a power that he or she does not otherwise have by virtue of another enactment or at common law". The second part of the amendment provides that nothing in section 3 "authorises a member of garda personnel to exercise a power conferred by law for a purpose that is not so authorised".

I note that this section restates section 3A of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, as amended, subject to one addition to the definition of "security services". The additional element refers to services provided by An Garda Síochána for the purposes of protecting the State from "acts contrary to the economic well-being of the State where such acts have an impact on national security interests". I am satisfied that the section is fine as it is, but the Deputy may wish to consider it further.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to withdraw the amendment with a view to resubmitting it.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know the amendment is being withdrawn, but I wish to ask a question. The Minister said in his response that he is not satisfied this amendment is required in this section. In what section does the Minister think the amendment would be required?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be more accurate to say I am not sure it is required, full-stop. I certainly do not believe it fits well in this section because of this section being a lifting of section 3A of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, as amended. The more general point that I did not relate in my summarised version is that the powers available to members of An Garda Síochána are already set out in statute and common law and must be exercised in accordance with particular terms of the powers concerned. In the interests of accuracy, I am not of the view there is any appropriate need to insert it, but it does not fit well in this section in particular.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 may be taken together.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 23, to delete line 6 and substitute the following: “(i) independently, impartially and in accordance with law,”.

Section 4, as it stands, provides that one of the "policing principles" is that policing services are to be provided "independently and impartially". We wish to make sure that the phrase "and in accordance with law" is included. This might be obvious, but it is better to have it written.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Ríordáin said it there perfectly. These things should be obvious, but it is no harm to include them in written format. While the ideas of transparency, accountability and effective oversight may be the purpose of this Bill, it is important to state clearly from the very beginning that this is an aim and a principle, because we have seen what happens when this is not done.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 both concern "policing principles", but they are quite different and I will deal with them separately. Amendment No. 2, in the name of Deputy Ó Ríordáin, restates, subject to certain important amendments, the meaning attributed to "policing principles" in section 3B of the 2005 Act, as amended. It is important to note that this Bill provides for a significant and welcome expansion of "policing principles", compared to the current Act. There is a new reference to "community safety". There is also an important change from respecting human rights to "protecting and vindicating" human rights. This represents a move beyond respecting human rights to a policing principle of protecting and vindicating human rights. There are also new references to "being accessible to, and engaging with, communities" and providing "policing services ... within a national framework while having a particular regard to communities". Perhaps most importantly, a new provision provides that "every member of garda personnel is required to act professionally, ethically, with integrity and in a manner that protects and vindicates human rights". There is quite a significant amount of change in this legislation compared to the current Act. I argue and think we would agree that these are progressive and inclusive changes, which I hope will support and guide the work of An Garda Síochána in the coming years.

Section 4(b)(i) of the Bill states that policing services are to be provided "independently and impartially". That is lifted from the existing Act. Deputy Ó Ríordáin's amendment proposes to add the term "and in accordance with the law". I acknowledge the principle underlining this amendment. Of course people have to operate in line with the law. Having taken legal advice, I am of the view that this amendment is unnecessary because every public body is required to carry out its legal obligations in accordance with the law. In many ways, it must go without saying because it is such an important fundamental tenet that people have to act in accordance with the law. When it comes to members of An Garda Síochána, it takes on an additional significance because not only are they bound by the law like all the rest of us but they are also bound by a solemn declaration to comply with the law. All Garda personnel will also be bound by the standards of professional behaviour that are provided for in section 255 of the Bill.

We are proposing a significant expansion of policing principles. We are progressively and inclusively changing the wording from the 2005 Act to this Bill by including provisions on acting "ethically, with integrity and in a manner that protects and vindicates human rights". We are providing for a "solemn declaration" and for the standards set out in section 255 of the Bill. Obviously, it is a statement of fact, legally, that people must act in accordance with the law. For all of these reasons, I am not sure of the benefit of this addition, although I appreciate the principle.

Amendment No. 3, in the name of Deputy Costello, seeks to insert an additional subparagraph into section 4(c) of the Bill, again relating to "policing principles". At present, that subsection refers to the principle that effective policing is dependent on "securing the support and confidence of the public" and "being accessible to, and engaging with, communities". The Deputy's amendment provides that in addition, there should be a provision stating that effective policing is also dependent on "transparency, accountability and effective oversight". The current subsection is based on section 3B of the 2005 Act, as amended. Its purpose as a principle in its own right is to denote the importance of community support and engagement in An Garda Síochána's ongoing commitment. I do not wish to be difficult or pedantic but, in many ways, I do not see how the Deputy's proposal fits into that subsection. We are trying to include a specific subsection here on the idea of community support and engagement. I presume the Deputy would wish the issues he outlines to transcend beyond that subsection.

As I have already said, the Bill proposes a significant expansion of the meaning of "policing principles". I have mentioned the reference to "community safety" and the change from respecting human rights to protecting and vindicating human rights. There are new references that did not exist before, for example with regard to "being accessible to, and engaging with, communities". I have mentioned that a "national framework" for policing will have "particular regard to communities". There is an onus in the development of the national policing framework on being interlinked and involved with communities. As I said in the context of amendment No. 2, there is also the idea of the new provision stating the obligations of a Garda "to act professionally, ethically, with integrity and in a manner that protects and vindicates human rights". When I consider these proposals in the round, I believe this legislation has made a number of significant changes that ultimately achieve a similar aim to what the Deputies are trying to achieve.

I note that in a lot of the commentary on the Bill some people say the Bill is going too far in terms of oversight and others say it is not going far enough. I believe the balance is correct and we can tease through this as we go through Committee and Report Stages. I hope some of the areas I have outlined show how we have tried to make conscious and factual changes in these areas.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must declare I have a member of An Garda Síochána in my family. My brother is a garda. I absolutely understand the nature of the job. However from our political work all of us are aware of difficulties within An Garda Síochána and controversies relating to it. I know particularly in disadvantaged communities there has been a history of a fraught relationship with An Garda Síochána. I want to be in a position as a legislator in years to come, and I hope it does not come to this point, that if there were another controversy I would be able to point to this legislation and state that policing principles require these services to be provided independently, impartially and in accordance with the law. The legislation would be stronger for having these five words. These things may be implicit and assumed but if we are trying to bring the people of the country along with us to accept the validity of An Garda Síochána and the work it does, what underpins those principles is vital. Some may come to this conversation with absolute respect for An Garda Síochána. My regret is that not everybody does. In any circumstance in the future, as we try to predict these things, I hope we will never have to be in a position to point to these words but I would rather they were there than not there. This is why I strongly encourage the Minister to reflect on the amendment.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I echo the words of Deputy Ó Ríordáin and encourage the Minister to reflect on it. One of the things the Minister said was that it does not belong in subsection 4(c). It is important to state these things very clearly. It would be beneficial to find a section in which it does fit. If it does not fit then we need to create a new section. Transparency, accountability and effective oversight should be inherently part of policing principles if we are policing by consent. It is important to let the light in for these things to be seen. I will withdraw the amendment for now.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to withdraw my amendment also on the basis that the Minister might reflect on what we have said.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies. Of course we always reflect. It goes without saying that every member of the committee supports in full An Garda Síochána. I note Deputy Ó Ríordáín's comments and I do not in any way doubt anybody's bona fides on this. We live in a country where confidence in our police, in An Garda Síochána, is extraordinarily high relative to other countries. However we can never take this for granted. We only realise how important it is when it is lost and, sadly, we have seen that in other places. With regard to the communities and the concerns the Deputies are speaking to, we have put a number of provisions in the legislation with regard to policing principles on engagement with community and protecting and vindicating human rights. We may not fully agree on the wording but we are trying to address some of the point Deputy Ó Ríordáin is making. More for the record than anything else, I want to say my worry about the phrase "in accordance with the law" is that I have been legally advised that putting in such phrases can sometimes be unintentionally counter-productive because there are core legal principles and they can have the opposite effect. I will certainly reflect on what both Deputies have said.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This section is on appeals and replacement provisions and I want to flag there may be further amendments on Report Stage.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 36 to 38, inclusive, 40 to 42, inclusive, 45 to 49, inclusive, 53, 54, 56, 59, 68 to 77, inclusive, 80, 82, 84 to 89, inclusive, 91, 92, 94, 97 to 102, inclusive, 134 to 137, inclusive, 144 and 154 are related and will be discussed together. There are many amendments in this group so we may have a long discussion.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 23, lines 23 and 24, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

There are many amendments in the group but I would be surprised if we have a big debate on it. This is a grouping of amendments that are entirely technical to change the name of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Of all the things we are likely to debate I hope this is straightforward. Since the Bill was published the titles of the Minister and the Department have changed. These are technical amendments to reflect this in the legislation.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 5, 17, 18, 26, 39, 64 to 67, inclusive, 78, 79, 93, 95, 96, 129 to 132, inclusive, 155 to 162, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 24, lines 7 and 8, to delete “as An Garda Síochána” and substitute the following: “only as An Garda Síochána, with no secondary title in the English language for use on any logo or branding by the service,”.

This is similar to a debate we have had on various Bills. There are several major elements. It has to do with the titles of bodies being in the Irish language only, following the precedent of An Garda Síochána in the first instance. Everybody understands "An Garda Síochána". No English translation is required. In recent years we have seen a shift whereby for some reason An Garda Síochána seems to think it has to explain itself in its logo and titles, which state it is Ireland's national police and security service. This never existed previously. It was "An Garda Síochána". This is what I mean by logos and branding. Expanding on this suggests "An Garda Síochána" is not sufficient. There is a specific historical reason that An Garda Síochána was given that name. An Garda Síochána was set up during a very turbulent time. Its name set apart An Garda Síochána from the trouble and trauma in the country at that time. It ensured it was sending out a message that there was a break with the past. It was unarmed and had a peaceful approach towards policing. In my travels abroad people might ask about our police service but no more than we would bother asking somebody in France or anywhere else to translate, they have not asked me to do so.

Amendments Nos. 26 and 39 deal with the title of Garda ranks, which already exist, but where English is given precedence. I have had this argument with a number of Deputies and the Official Languages Act has taken precedent but in this case it is about the specific titles within An Garda Síochána. There have always been ceannfort, cigire and sáirsint. They were the official titles, and we seem to have moved towards Commissioner rather than Coimisinéir and so on. It is giving full legal effect to the Irish-language titles for the ranks. There is no anglicisation of the language or the titles within An Garda Síochána. The remainder of the amendments, which comprise the majority, relate to new titles for bodies being established under this Bill. The Official Languages (Amendment) Act has been enacted, and so far as I know, each provision has been given full effect at this stage. Sometimes it takes a while. There should be no new State bodies or institutions being set up in the English language only, or with an English title. The titles should be in Irish only. That is the case with these. It is the "Bord" of An Garda Síochána. It is not the "Authority". It is "Oifig Ombudsman póilíneacht" nó an "Oifig Náisiúnta". That is the intention of these amendments. We have had this debate and the Minister has been quite open about this in the past, as on other legislation. Other Ministers have understood the effects and the parameters at the time before the Official Languages Act was given its full remit or was fully enacted. Some of these amendments may be superfluous but they are there to remind the drafters that it should be given effect in this legislation.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will also speak briefly in support of those amendments. It is important that there is consistency and that An Garda Síochána is referred to as An Garda Síochána, and not as anything else - particularly not as the force. I do not like that phrase. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh has said, when one speaks to members of the Garda, they always refer to the inspector as the "cig", that is, as the cigire. That is natural and those titles should be made consistent and enforced. It is important to deliver a service, which is of the highest quality and protection for Irish speakers in Gaeltacht areas. People in Gaeltacht areas must see a sufficient level of competence, so that An Garda Síochána in that area is speaking as Gaeilge, and that is enforced. We have already had this in some of the other Bills, as has been stated.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also support what has been said. An Garda Síochána is also a noble phraseology for a policing service. Other jurisdictions have law enforcement, but we have people who are guardians of the peace. That is appropriate, and the Irish-language version is the one that should be used exclusively.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it was Conor Brady, who was head of the Garda Commission at one stage, speaking about whether the force was the guardians of the people, or guardians of the big house effectively. They were guardians of the garrison or guardians of the people. I think that speaks to the substance of this amendment too. It is an interesting one. Will the Minister respond?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not matter what Department I am in, I seem to have these conversations with Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am following the Minister around.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As he should on this issue. I enjoyed working with him in this area on the Higher Education Authority, HEA, Bill. I think we made a better Bill as a result of the engagement we had. We will approach this issue in this Bill in that same way. I agree with a lot of what he has said. I will flag that I intend to bring forward amendments to this section on Report Stage to address the issue as it relates to the Irish language. All of these amendments have a common theme, which is to require only the use of an Irish-language name for a statutory body, other State body, or Irish language logos and branding created by the Bill. I am proud, as an Irish citizen, of the name An Garda Síochána. It think it means a lot to us. There is a lot of national pride in it. I certainly do not wish to see any deviation from that. I am also aware, while it may not technically have been commenced and not a full legal obligation, that the clear intent of the Oireachtas passing the legislation, which will be commenced and enacted is that new bodies should be set up with Irish-language names. I would like that to be reflected in this legislation. We will bring amendments forward to constructively engage on that basis on Report Stage. I also want to flag, and not to be in any way disingenuous, I think the issue of the statutory name of certain grades is a slightly different space. It is something that deserves consideration and teasing through. However, in terms of new organisations, logos and branding, I am pretty convinced of the argument being put forward. We just need to reflect on it as a Department and engage constructively on Report Stage.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I stated at the outset, we have worked on previous Bills, which gave effect to similar changes. The Minister is correct on amendments Nos. 26 and 39, which refer to the titles of different ranks in An Garda Síochána. The titles already exist but prominence is given to the English version. Part of the intention of the Official Languages (Amendment) Act, which we are already seeing in everyday advertisements is that the Irish language will be heard and seen more often than heretofore. That would feed into the use of titles and so on, so that people understand the language in daily use. It encourages others to learn. I will come to different amendments later about the role of An Garda Síochána. As the Minister has acknowledged it is important from the start that new organisations are named in Irish first, so that is what will be used. If they are in both languages, usually immediately or in time the English version will be used. For years Iarnród Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath were the titles but they are now Irish Rail and Dublin Bus. People sometimes shift over time. CIÉ still exists but nobody talks about it. There are examples right across society of well-intentioned titles that start to disappear if they are not the official titles. That is the important role. I am happy to withdraw that long group of amendments, starting with amendment No. 5, on that basis.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 6 is grouped with amendment Nos. 58 and 152. Amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputies Daly and Ó Snodaigh has been ruled out of order because of a potential charge on the State.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 24, line 24, to delete “in particular individuals, who” and substitute “in particular individuals who”.

There are three amendments in this group. Amendment No. 6 is a technical amendment and serves to remove an unnecessary comma. Amendment No. 58 relates to section 78 and concerns a code of ethics for members of Garda personnel by the policing and community safety authority. The Garda Commissioner is required to ensure that all members have read and understand the code. Subsection 3(a) provides that in preparing a code of ethics, the authority is to have regard to the standards, practices and procedures applicable to the conduct of police officers and police staff in member states of the European Union. Obviously, the UK has left the European Union, so with regard to Brexit, it is proposed to amend this subsection of the Bill to bring the UK within its remit.

Finally, amendment No. 152 is a technical amendment to section 293 of the Bill.

Section 293 amends the Garda Síochána (Functions and Operational Areas) Act 2022 to update the definitions in section 2 of the Act. This amendment involves replacing the reference to section 9 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 relating to the functions of the Garda Commissioner in section 32 of the 2005 Act relating to the delegating of those functions. This again is to ensure there is a cross-reference in the Garda Síochána (Functions and Operational Areas) Act 2022 that is equivalent to the provisions in this Bill, which replaces the 2005 Act. It is a technical amendment.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I noted, amendment No. 7 is ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge upon the Revenue. Under Standing Order 212(3), unfortunately, no amendment to a Bill can be made by a Member, save a Member of Government, that may involve a charge or potential charge upon the Exchequer.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 24, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(j) keep accurate records of statistical information concerning offences, criminal proceedings and the state of crime in the State.”.

One of the frustrations I am sure everyone on this committee and Members beyond it have felt when asking parliamentary questions about particular incidents or issues is that we are frequently told “We do not have the numbers on that” or “We can’t get the numbers on that”. Time and time again, we had witnesses before this committee talking about the importance of disaggregated statistics and the need to improve statistics. This amendment is about inserting that to try to make that recommendation of numerous witnesses part of the legislation.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Costello. I note the point the Deputy makes and I acknowledge the concern. I send many letters to the Deputy providing a lot of statistics, through parliamentary questions and the likes. Often, we have to say that we have to get the data and then revert to the Deputy. I acknowledge the concern behind the amendment.

The provision in section 77 of the Bill hopefully addresses the Deputy’s concerns. This section requires the Garda Commissioner to ensure that statistical information concerning offences, criminal proceedings and the state of crime in the State is compiled, stored and made available to the Central Statistics Office, CSO, and the Minister at such times and in such a manner as the Minister may require. That is a clear legal provision for the Minister of the day to request in whichever manner they may require any data and statistics relating to offences, criminal proceedings and the state of crime in the State. The issue the Deputy may be referring to is probably more an administrative one in making sure that gets compiled efficiently for a Deputy when he or she requests it. I am satisfied that section 77 of the Bill provides the legal provision that the Deputy wishes to see in the legislation.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for that. This is not just about trying to get better answers to my parliamentary questions-----

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and getting an answer instead of just a reply-----

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do try.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Chair wish to speak?

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, the Deputy can keep going. I just said something about his parliamentary questions.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is borne out of numerous groups coming before us looking for better record-keeping and statistics. However, on the basis of the Minister’s response, I am happy to withdraw for the moment.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is useful to look at section 77 in that context. I just had a quick look at how that statistical information is set out.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 26, lines 15 and 16, to delete “or, in the English language, as the Board of An Garda Síochána”.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 26, line 17, to delete “ “Board” ” and substitute “ “Bord” ”.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have amendments Nos. 19 and 20. We can speak to them together or separately. They are not grouped but the Deputy may wish to speak to them together if there is an overlap.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 26, lines 31 and 32, to delete “, having regard to the resources expected to be available to An Garda Síochána,”.

This amendment, in lines 31 and 32, would delete “having regard to the resources expected to be available to An Garda Síochána”. Simply stated, there should be an absolute obligation on the board to ensure compliance with the law and financial reporting systems. Including “having regard to” is a suitable phrase for a strategic plans perhaps but not for obligations such as these. It is important that should be there.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy wish to speak to amendment No. 20 as well?

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In respect of amendment No. 20, we understand that Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, pointed out it is under an obligation under section 169 to work in a timely manner. However, the Garda is under no obligation to co-operate with GSOC to achieve this. Therefore, this amendment to delete lines 4 and 5 and substitute “to ensure that An Garda Síochána co-operates with the Office of the Police Ombudsman with regard to his or her obligations” should address that concern.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for the amendments. On amendment No. 19, which relates to the functions of the board and, more specifically, the amendment’s intended function of ensuring the legal compliance and efficient running of the organisation’s accounting and financial reporting systems, my genuine concern, just to be helpful, is that the effect of the amendment would be that the board would not be obliged to have regard to the resources expected to be available to An Garda Síochána in ensuring the integrity of accounting, financial systems, risk, financial and other controls, and compliance with the law and relevant standards.

We are coming at this from a different perspective but not necessarily wishing a different outcome. The purpose here is that the board, in fulfilling its obligations, has to have regard to the resources expected to be available so that it can ensure the integrity of the accounting, financial systems, risk and financial or other controls. It seemed prudent and essential for the board to have regard to the resources expected to be available to An Garda Síochána in carrying out its functions.

I note that chapter 7 of the code of practice for the governance of State Bodies recognises “A fundamental duty of the Bord is to ensure that a balanced, true and fair view of the State body’s financial performance and financial position is made when preparing the annual report and financial statements” when submitting these to the Minister. I also note that section 67 of the Bill places an obligation on the Commissioner, in implementing the annual service plan of An Garda Síochána, to deliver services in a manner that does not exceed the resources available.

We would end up with an inconsistent approach where the Commissioner would have to publish an annual plan, where he is obligated under that plan to not exceed resources available. The board is then meant to have an oversight role. For those reasons, I am not in a position to support the Deputy’s amendment. Perhaps it is something he or I may wish to reflect on.

Amendment No. 20 also concerns the functions of the board under section 12. It seeks to place an obligation on the board to ensure, as Deputy Daly said, that An Garda Síochána co-operates with the office of the police ombudsman, before it gets its name as Gaeilge, with regard to the police ombudsman’s objective of ensuring his or her functions are performed in a timely, efficient and effective manner. By way of context, section 34 of the Bill provides the Garda Commissioner is independent in the performance of his or her functions. One of those functions listed in section 33(1)(f) of the Bill is to assist and co-operate with the police ombudsman in order to facilitate the performance by the ombudsman of his or her function. Section 34 of the Bill also provides that the Commissioner is accountable to the board for the performance of his or her functions. In addition, section 12(1)(h) confirms that one of the board’s functions is to establish arrangements for the management of the performance of the Garda Commissioner. Therefore, it will be the case – I just sought clarity on this – that the Garda Commissioner will be accountable to the board for the performance of his or her functions. That accountability expressly includes assisting and co-operating with the police ombudsman. In addition, section 214 of the Bill obliges the Garda Commissioner to provide the police ombudsman with information and documents as soon as is practicable, subject to relevant security considerations.

This new governance structure is being introduced. We are trying to define clearly and operationally the independence of the Garda Commissioner in operation.

That is vital and must not be impeded in any way that has the potential to limit his or her accountability. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I believe we have struck that balance in the various sections I have referenced. The Commissioner is accountable to the board for the performance of his functions. One of those functions requires co-operation with what we are currently calling the police ombudsman. It is my sense of things that we do not need to go further.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The two amendments are on separate issues, although the Minister spoke on both. Given section 214 and so on, I will withdraw the amendments.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy withdrawing both?

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would he like to flag the issues for Report Stage?

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will reserve the right to reintroduce them.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the amendment is now being withdrawn but, on what the Minister said about the ombudsman and the Commissioner's responsibilities to that office, I could be wrong but I do not believe the sections he cited said anything about actions being timely. While the Commissioner has to respond to and work with the ombudsman, nowhere does it seem to say that he has to respond in a timely fashion. That is the key to this issue. There has been a lot of talk lately about delays in the Garda responding to and dealing with issues the Garda ombudsman has brought forward. That will affect the further workings of the office.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note the Deputy's comments. Section 214 as now drafted includes the phrase "as soon as practicable", which may be a response to the Deputy's reference to the term "timely". The phrase "as soon as practicable" recognises the complexities, including security matters and so on, that can arise.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, it leaves it totally to the Commissioner's discretion to determine how soon it is practicable.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I will not endeavour to define what is timely in the legislation, under the Bill, the Commissioner will be accountable to a board in respect of his or her co-operation with the police ombudsman. There will be an oversight role for the board with regard to how the Commissioner carries out those roles. That is something that is not there today.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 27, to delete lines 4 and 5 and substitute the following: “(i) to ensure that An Garda Síochána co-operates with the Office of the Police Ombudsman, with regard to his or her obligations under section 169 (1)(c);

(j) to perform any other functions conferred on it by or under this Act or the regulations.”.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 21 and 145 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 28, line 38, after “management” to insert “, data protection”.

The amendment relates to expertise and recommendations for appointment as members of the board. Section 16(3)(b) talks about "organisational governance, management or public administration". I seek to put in "data protection" as a very explicit consideration. While it may fall under organisational governance, I believe it is worth mentioning in its own right. There have been very high-profile cases in which people's personal information has been leaked with devastating consequences. It is an essential part of good governance that needs to be highlighted, particularly given how it has gone wrong in the past.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The practice of leaking from An Garda Síochána, which is patently obvious to the observing eye, is particularly disturbing. I am familiar with an incident that occurred and have spoken to the mother of the individual concerned, who is no longer with us. A film of a woman in a particularly distressed state walking down a prominent street in Dublin, O'Connell Street, was circulated via WhatsApp. That is utterly disturbing. We have to learn from that and provide within legislation protections against such actions. That is why this is a well-judged amendment.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might also speak to my own amendment in this grouping, No. 145. Before I get into the specifics of the amendment, I will address the issues Deputies Costello and Ó Ríordáin have raised. There can be no tolerance for the sort of conduct both Deputies referred to within An Garda Síochána. Without getting into the individual case, I share Deputy Ó Ríordáin's general sense of revulsion with regard to any such act. This is an issue the Garda Commissioner takes extraordinarily seriously. Again without commenting on any specific situation, I know these matters are always absolutely fully investigated. Swift action should be taken to mete out sanctions to anybody engaging in this practice, particularly when it relates to very sensitive, upsetting and traumatic information whose circulation can have an impact. I acknowledge that at the outset.

With regard to the specific amendments, which have been grouped because they relate to data protection, although they are quite different in nature, the amendment Deputy Costello has tabled clearly concerns the experience and expertise of a person. These are people who would be appointed to the board of An Garda Síochána by the Minister, having come through the Public Appointments Service, PAS, under section 16. The Deputy is seeking to add data protection to the list of matters that a person recommended by PAS should have experience of and expertise in. He has somewhat guessed my answer because, as drafted, the provision provides for experience and expertise in "organisational governance, management or public administration". The subsection in question refers to general management and governance experience. While I will be clear that data protection is a very important area of experience in and of itself, I consider it to be more specialised than the types of experience intended to be covered by this subsection. If we were to put it in, why would we not be more prescriptive in other areas? It opens a significant Pandora's box. Data protection is extraordinarily important and there are obligations on An Garda Síochána under the Data Protection Act 2018 to appoint a data protection officer. Of course, that person is available to the organisation and the board to provide expertise in this area and has specific responsibilities under the existing Act, which include a requirement to report to the Data Protection Commission. In these circumstances and given that I do not wish to place an overly prescriptive legal requirement with regard to board membership in the Bill, I do not propose to accept this amendment. Of course, one imagines these are all things a Minister would consider as names come through PAS.

I propose the second amendment. Section 260 provides a statutory basis for the sharing of documents and information, including personal data, in accordance with the law, between An Garda Síochána, the policing and community safety authority and the office of the police ombudsman. This sharing may be carried out for the purpose of the performance of their respective functions where to do so is in accordance with the law, necessary and proportionate. In addition, the section provides for the Minister to prescribe additional bodies for the purpose of the reciprocal sharing of information between a relevant body and such a prescribed body for the purpose of the performance of their respective functions. I am advised that, as published, sections 260(1) and 260(2) allowed for information to be shared where it was for the purpose of the relevant body or the prescribed body that was actually sharing the information but not for the purpose of the receiving relevant or prescribed body. This was never the intent of the provision, which was meant to capture the purpose of either or both of the sending and receiving bodies as the basis for sharing information. I am bringing forward an amendment here that simply tries to address the original policy intent. My officials have consulted with the Data Protection Commission, which has raised no concerns in this regard. Deputies may also wish to note that I am now assessing whether there may need to be minor technical amendments to this section to ensure that it fulfils its intended purpose. If necessary, I may return to this section on Report Stage.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 29, line 29, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 23, 83 and 133 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 30, line 17, after “offence,” to insert the following: “or is convicted outside the State of an offence consisting of acts or omissions which would constitute an offence triable on indictment if done or made in the State,”.

These amendments relate to sections 18, 126 and 234, respectively.

The first amendment extends section 18(2)(c), which excludes persons convicted on indictment of an offence from membership of the board of An Garda Síochána, a committee of the board or the audit committee of An Garda Síochána, to include foreign convictions. The purpose of the amendment is to put it beyond doubt that such convictions fall within the remit of the paragraph.

In amendments Nos. 83 and 133, I propose similar provisions with regard to the eligibility criteria for the policing and community safety authority and the office of independent examiner.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 32, line 5, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform".

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 32, line 21, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 36, line 11, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 37, lines 6 and 7, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 42, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(3) Where a person fails or refuses to comply with, or disobeys, a summons to attend or other direction under subsection (1), the High Court may, on application by the appointed judge concerned and on notice to the person—

(a) order the person to comply with the direction or, in the case of a summons, to attend before the appointed judge, and

(b) make such other order (if any) as it considers necessary and just to enable the direction to have full effect or, in the case of a summons, to ensure the attendance before the appointed judge.

(4) A person who—

(a) on being summoned to attend before an appointed judge for the purpose of an inquiry under section 31(3)(a), fails to attend,

(b) in attendance as a witness for such a purpose—

(i) refuses to take an oath lawfully required by the appointed judge to be taken,

(ii) refuses to produce any document in his or her power or control lawfully required by the appointed judge to be produced by him or her,

(iii) refuses to answer any question to which the appointed judge may lawfully require an answer, or

(iv) does anything which, if the appointed judge were a judge of the High Court hearing an action, would be contempt of that court,

is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class C fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.”. —

This follows on from the section relating to removal from office of the Garda Commissioner or deputy Garda Commissioner and relates to an inquiry under that section. We are trying with this amendment to pre-empt the potential for the Garda Commissioner or deputy Garda commissioner to fail to comply with a summons to attend or another direction under subsection (1) in relation to an inquiry. What should happen if an inquiry was to be undertaken into the Commissioner or deputy commissioner? We need to lay out and legislate for what would happen in that circumstance. In the eventuality of a controversy around a Garda Commissioner or deputy Garda commissioner and an associated inquiry and for whatever reason the Commissioner or deputy commissioner decides not to adhere to or to obstruct that inquiry, the powers would be in the legislation in terms of compellability. I want the Minister’s reflections on that.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment concerns the powers available under the section to a judge who has been invited by the Chief Justice to hold an inquiry into any matter, as the Deputy said, giving rise to a proposal to remove a Garda Commissioner or deputy Garda commissioner from office under section 31. Section 31 sets out the procedures which may give rise to the judge being invited to carry out an inquiry by the Chief Justice. Section 32 provides for the conduct of an inquiry by a judge appointed under section 31. An appointed judge may conduct an inquiry in the manner he or she thinks proper and will have the power, rights and privileges vested in a judge of the High Court. The appointed judge under section 31 is the superior court judge, which refers to a judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or High Court.

I have sought legal advice on the issue the Deputy raised. Such advice provided to my Department has confirmed such judges have ample powers, which are sufficiently broad to address what appears to be the Deputy’s amendment, including the existing common law of criminal contempt powers. The object of such power is punitive. It is to uphold the law generally and the authority of the courts.

The amendment reflects in a number of respects the proposed powers and penalties for non-compliance assigned to a person conducting an inquiry under section 48. This is where the suspension or removal from office of an assistant Garda commissioner or chief superintendent is being considered by the Garda Commissioner. I am advised the powers listed in section 48 are in the form proposed as the person in that instance is not restricted to a judge of the superior courts nominated by the Chief Justice. That is where that difference arises from.

Apart from the key differences between sections 32 and 49, I am also advised the proposed amendment could result in a situation where a judge of the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court is applying under section 32 to the High Court to ensure compliance by requirements imposed on a person or persons during the inquiry, which I do not think is the Deputy’s intention.

Having regard to these factors, I am not minded to support the amendment. I hope the Deputy takes comfort from the fact we have sought legal advice to satisfy ourselves the issue he seeks to cover is covered and clear and sufficient powers are broadly available to our superior courts, including the existing common law criminal contempt powers, which I think will address the concerns the Deputy raises.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister confident that, in a situation where an inquiry is taking place into a Garda Commissioner or deputy Garda commissioner for whatever reason, potentially removing either or both of those individuals, there is nothing either or both of those individuals could do to obstruct such an inquiry by non-attendance?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am, based on the legal advice available to me. I am also aware that, beyond that legal advice, there is a clear democratic safeguard, which is the powers a Government has relating to the removal or suspension of a Garda Commissioner. The amendment raises an important issue and, while we cannot envisage it today, it is right and proper in progressing this legislation to tease these things through. I have satisfied myself on the basis of the legal advice that the powers are there for the superior courts and I am aware of the power available to Government in terms of removal.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are related and may be discussed together. Amendment No. 32 is in the same section but not grouped. Amendment No. 33 has, unfortunately, fallen foul of the "charge on the Revenue" rule and is out of order.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 42, line 33, to delete “to seek”.

The current subsection (1)(d) states: “to seek to secure the continuous improvement of the policing and security of the State”. The amendment would strengthen that by removing “to seek” and putting more emphasis on securing the continuous improvement of policing. We should not be seeking to do it, but actually going ahead and doing it.

In amendment No. 31 we propose to delete “with due regard” and substitute “according” to the policing principles, the objective of promoting effectiveness, etc. The obligations on the Commissioner are currently far too weak with “to seek to ensure” and “with due regard to” both used. These place no legal obligation on the commissioners and “shall seek” in the second line protects the amendment from being overly restrictive.

Is amendment No. 32 part of this group? Is this also approved? Amendment No. 32 states: "From the commencement of this Act, the Garda Commissioner shall only station" and that is related to the Irish language part of it. This was dealt with before in previous legislation. I remember it went through to the Dáil Chamber. Anything other than "shall" gives the Garda Commissioner an out. There should be no excuse for not having members of An Garda Síochána stationed in a division that includes a Gaeltacht area without being sufficiently competent in the Irish language so that they can use it with facility in carrying out their duties. The Garda Commissioner should be saying "shall" only do it and an obligation should be put on him or her to do that.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister want to respond? Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are grouped but we have had a discussion on amendment No. 32 and, therefore, we can take the two together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about amendment No. 32?

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the Deputy not speak to that just now?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to speak slightly longer on it.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is no problem if the Deputy wants to expand on it.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is to do with trying to ensure An Garda Síochána does not fall foul of An Coimisinéir Teanga again. An Coimisinéir Teanga reported in 2011 that An Garda Síochána had breached the Garda Síochána Act 2005. He set out how it had done so and then monitored An Garda Síochána for a number of years afterwards until, upon getting frustrated, he submitted a report to the Oireachtas in 2020 explaining how An Garda Síochána had not acted or had ignored the recommendations that were made to allow or to help it be in compliance with the Garda Síochána Act 200vis-à-visthe Gaeltacht areas. We have had a number of engagements in my role as Chair of the Oireachtas committee during Covid-19. It was interesting. It was in the Dáil Chamber that we had an exchange with Coimisinéir an Gharda Síochána, other members and also then subsequently with officials from the Department, on how we ensure An Garda Síochána is delivering the service it is intended to deliver in the Gaeltacht area without transgressing on the language rights of those in that area. That cannot be done at the moment because there is not, according to Coimisinéir an Gharda Síochána, enough gardaí with sufficient fluency in the Irish language. The intention of this amendment and amendments Nos. 7 and 33, which are related and which have been ruled out of order, was to try to ensure there was urgency in An Garda Síochána to address that and that there was a recruitment target of 20% set now. The 20% target is already set by Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla (Leasú), 2021, to be achieved by a deadline of 2030. It is not in 2030 that 20% applies. By that stage, all Departments and not just the Department of Justice or An Garda Síochána will fall under this.

In these amendments, we were trying to bring that forward again to try to focus on the urgent need to specifically recruit. One of the things I found during that debate was when I asked Coimisinéir an Gharda Síochána, or it may have been an Coimisinéir Cúnta or the assistant commissioner, whether there had been a specific recruitment campaign targeted at Irish language secondary schools or at university graduates, I was told there had not been. I found this bizarre but maybe things have moved since 2021 when we had the debate, though I do not think so. That is the only way to achieve that level. Either that, or we have to upskill those in An Garda Síochána. Some 20% of all recruits means that one is only getting recruits in with Irish skills. That does not address the shortfalls in cigirí and sáirsint and other levels. There is an internal aspect to ensuring that the Irish language service of An Garda Síochána can be delivered. There is an upskilling needed but also recruitment. To date, I have not seen an urgency in that and that is why we are suggesting that targets be set ahead of the official targets for other Departments given that in some parts of the Gaeltacht areas there is no service at all available as Gaeilge. There are people stationed there who have little or not fluency in the Irish language. That is especially so given that in recent years the mandatory Irish language component of those who are joining An Garda Síochána as trainees has all but disappeared. That is regrettable as well and may be a debate for another day. At least in the past there was some semblance that somebody joining An Garda Síochána, if placed in a Gaeltacht area, could understand even the basics of Irish language conversation and maybe deliver some type of service. At the moment, that is not the case.

I know from those within An Garda Síochána that there is a difficulty in attracting gardaí with fluency in the Irish language to move to the west coast if they are born and bred in Dublin. A stipend or an allowance was available in the past. I am not sure whether it exists now if gardaí are moved to serve in Gaeltacht areas. Those are the type of incentives needed. It is not to give incentive or to add funding to the pockets of gardaí. However, sometimes if there is a problem, it can be addressed by an allowance or a benefit such as if a garda serves three years in a Gaeltacht area, he or she could benefit by it being recognised as four years service. There are different ways to try to encourage people to serve. I think any garda, looking at what they would gain from being stationed in parts of Gaeltacht areas, would gain a lot more experience than in some of the stations elsewhere. It would also help to show young gardaí, or those who are being recruited, that there is a career path. A career was there in the past because gardaí had to have Irish to qualify as a sergeant. That has disappeared now. There was a benefit and now there is not a specific benefit for those who are joining other than that they are joining the force like anybody else. The Minister may be able to look at my attempts, which fell foul of the rules, to see whether through legislation or by encouraging the management of An Garda Síochána, that this can be addressed. They need to address it quickly. Otherwise, we will be starting with a position where the Irish language service within An Garda Síochána will all have collapsed following the retirement of quite a number of gardaí in Gaeltacht areas who are of, or nearing, retirement age and then that situation becomes even worse than it is at the moment.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have dealt with amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which Deputy Daly has spoken to, amendment No.32 which he spoke to briefly. Then Deputy Ó Snodaigh has elaborated on amendment No. 32 and has also spoken to some extent on amendment No. 33, which is out of order because there is a potential charge on the Exchequer. Some of the points are a comment on amendment No. 32 anyway. I think the points carry and are well made. I invite the Minister to respond to that discussion.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take the amendments in the order we discussed them. I thank Deputy Daly for amendment No. 30, which relates to the phrase "to seek" and concerns the specific function of the Garda Commissioner that he or she is "to seek to secure the continuous improvement of the policing and security of the State". I understand what he is trying to achieve, in that by removing the phrase "to seek" the function will be more definitively "to secure" improvement. However, I cannot accept the amendment on the basis that securing continuous improvement is the envisaged outcome of the performance of the function rather than the required performance of the function itself. These are the functions relating to the Garda Commissioner. In addition, we must acknowledge there can be external factors beyond any individual Commissioner's control that might prevent the securing of continuous improvement. Thus, though the legislative requirement is quite strong, if it is "to seek to secure the continuous improvement", the phrase "to seek" is quite important because it would not be appropriate for the Commissioner to be considered to have been unsuccessful in performing one of his or her functions where there may have been other or external factors at play.

Amendment No. 31 proposes to amend section 33(2) to the effect the Garda Commissioner, in performing his or her functions, would have to seek to ensure such functions are carried out "according" to the matters listed rather than "with due regard" to them, as currently drafted. I am not in a position to accept the amendment due to how it is listed with other matters. The listed matters, which include the policing principles, policing priorities and the security priorities provided by the Bill, do not entirely relate to the functions of the Garda Commissioner and, therefore, it would not be strictly possible for him or her to perform his or her functions according to them. We have drafted it quite carefully because the requirement is he or she must have due regard to the listed matters and this is sufficient to ensure the objective of the provision is achieved, that being that the listed matters will be of foremost consideration to a Garda Commissioner when performing his or her functions. It is a slightly technical reason or rationale, but it is the explanation for that from our perspective.

I move to amendments Nos. 32 and 33. The latter was ruled out of order, but this is still an appropriate and important opportunity to discuss the serious issue Deputies Daly and Ó Snodaigh raise, namely, the need to ensure all people can access the Garda in their language of preference and recognising Irish is our national language. Deputy Ó Snodaigh made an interesting point, which I would of course seize on, which is that the debate is about whether we address some of these issues through legislation or management. I acknowledge as Minister for Justice that it needs to be addressed proactively. Now we are back in the era of the annual recruitment campaign, there is an onus on us, which I take from the point the Deputy made, to challenge ourselves even more in what we are doing to ensure those campaigns are reaching out to every part of the community. I am satisfied the Garda is doing quite a lot of this, but we could always do more and we will certainly engage with the Garda on that basis.

On the specifics of the amendment though, I am concerned about putting this into legislation because, without taking away from the important points that have been made and my comments in response, the primary functions of An Garda Síochána are to preserve peace and public order, protect life and property, vindicate human rights and prevent crime. The Garda Commissioner, whomever he or she is, has an absolute obligation to ensure those services provided by members of the force in performing these functions are accessible to all citizens. I accept no one wishes to do this, but we could end up nearly asking the Garda Commissioner to reduce or remove a vital service from a certain area if he or she was not in a position to reach the requirements. That is quite the opposite of what Deputies Daly and Ó Snodaigh wish to do and I fully acknowledge that. There is a balance between putting a primary legislative requirement on the Garda Commissioner of the day versus the genuine need to make more progress on this, which is more an operational management situation and something that should be the concern of the Minister, the Department, the board, the Commissioner and others. That is my thinking on that at the moment.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge that since the 2020 report from an coimisinéir, An Garda Síochána has engaged a bit more. However, there are major fault lines in the organisation's approach. Its representatives have been before my committee with the Department of Justice on several occasions due to the outworkings of the rowing back on the Irish language with respect to the minimum standards and the level required for a Garda member to progress to being a sergeant. One of the reasons there is frustration among people is this is being addressed through management rather than law or ministerial regulation and, consequently, An Garda Síochána is starting to slip again. This is a problem that was identified way back in 1925 when a census was done of Gaeltacht areas. One of the outcomes of that was recognition of the need for sufficient members of An Garda Síochána able to interact with the community they were placed in. People have many languages nowadays and the vast majority of people on this island have English. That does not necessarily mean they are always comfortable using the English language when engaging with officialdom and, in some instances, they may prefer to interact with the services of An Garda Síochána in their native language, which in Gaeltacht areas, in the main, is an Ghaeilge.

Níl mé chun an leasú seo a tharraingt siar ag an staid seo. Tá mé ag iarraidh go gcuirfear é chun vóta le cinnte a dhéanamh de go dtuigtear cé chomh dáiríre is atá mé faoi seo agus cé chomh dáiríre is atá siúd a d’iarr orm an cheist seo a chur chun cinn sa bhealach seo seachas a bheith ag braith ar bhainistíocht an Gharda Síochána atá tar éis teipeadh go dtí seo le déileáil le seo i mbealach atá ceart nó sa bhealach gur chóir dóibh.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ceart go leor.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ceart go leor.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very good. That is amendment Nos. 30 to 32, inclusive, and as we know, No. 33 is out of order. How stands amendment No. 30?

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw it and reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 43, line 4, to delete “with due regard” and substitute “according”.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 43, to delete lines 18 to 21 and substitute the following: “(3) From the commencement of this Act, the Garda Commissioner shall only station members of garda personnel in a part of a Garda Síochána division that includes a Gaeltacht area where they are sufficiently competent in the Irish language to enable them to use it with facility in carrying out their duties.”.

I am pressing the amendment.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 34 is in the name of Deputy Ó Ríordáin, who is not present.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 44, to delete lines 26 and 27.

The Garda Commissioner has, as one might expect, a broad range of duties to keep the Minister informed of certain matters. However, section 36(1)(d) is problematic in that it refers to "any other matters that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, should be brought to the Minister’s attention". The Covid-19 pandemic was a dark chapter for a variety or reasons.

There was a spectacle in which a European Commissioner was, at least according to media reports, pulled over by a member of An Garda Síochána for having a mobile phone in his hand. That information was provided by the Garda Commissioner to the Minister. If a European Commissioner or anybody else was pulled over with a big of Kalashnikovs in his boot, there may be an attempt to subvert the State or one might suspect him of involvement in terrorist activities. At the very least, if a European Commissioner was found with unarmed weapons in his or her possession, it would raise serious questions. I am not saying that having a mobile phone to your ear is not a serious offence; every road traffic offence is serious but I think everybody would agree it is of lower severity in terms of the Road Traffic Acts. I note that a woman pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing serious injury. Nobody could say the two are of equal severity or that having a mobile phone to your ear is as severe, while I would not recommend it or condone it. There is a risk that it amounts to political policing when something like that is brought to the Minister's attention. At that time, there was a concerted effort by the leaders of both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, respectively, to get the Commissioner to fall on his sword as the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine had done after the golfgate incident. He was digging his heels in, it was causing embarrassment and resentment and there was a fear it would undermine the acceptance of Covid regulations by the population at large.

That was just one incident. Regardless of what the Garda Commissioner's motivation was in bringing it to the attention of the Minister for Justice, I point to that incident as an illustration. The phraseology of that section allows for political policing. There was a Garda Commissioner who apparently informed a previous Minister for Justice that a Member of the House - I cannot remember what offence he was alleged to have committed at the Five Lamps in Dublin. It was unrelated to the security of the State. It was Mick Wallace; I think the committee knows who I am talking about. There was no suggestion-----

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we have the gist of it but it would be better to avoid specific incidents further, if we can. We are talking about possible allegations that may have been made that we may struggle to recall ourselves. It is a bit nebulous.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An allegation was made on "Prime Time".

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy could not remember it himself a minute ago. I cannot either.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot either. In any event, it was an allegation that former Deputy Wallace took umbrage at being raised on "Prime Time", as well as the fact that the Minister for Justice had been informed of it by the Garda Commissioner. I am not saying there is political policing very often in this State but the Bill allows for it. The current Garda Commissioner will not be in place for much longer - which there are mixed feelings about in the force - nor will there be a law and order Fine Gael Minister for Justice, such as Deputy Harris, in the position forever. I worry that something like this is inherently open to abuse. I do not see what benefit it serves because there is a similar reporting provision to the Policing Authority in which the Commissioner can provide information that might be of relevance to the Policing Authority, which can decide to pass it on to the Minister. That at least provides a filter for what the Garda Commissioner thinks is of interest or relevant. If it goes to the Policing Authority and from there to the Minister, that is fine because there is a filter to ensure there is no political policing. As it stands, it facilitates, inadvertently or otherwise, political policing, or at least information about one's political adversaries being provided to a Minister for Justice. I have the utmost regard, perhaps more than many members of Fine Gael, for former Deputy Alan Shatter and his performance as Minister for Justice and Equality, as I have for Mick Wallace, but nobody could regard them as anything other than adversaries. When information about one, which is not hugely relevant to the security of the State, finds its way into the hands of the other via the Garda Commissioner, it raises serious concerns. We do not think it should be facilitated by law or by a new law being enacted, one anticipates, in 2023. That is the purpose of the amendment. If that amendment was to be made, there is still a possibility for information to make its way to the Minister but it would be via the authority.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have the utmost respect for former Deputy Alan Shatter too. I do not say this to be overly provocative but some of the phraseology used, which I will not repeat, is just not what I recognise in any way, shape or form as how An Garda Síochána carries out its business. Our Garda, regardless of the Minister or the Commissioner, is entirely independent in its investigations, which I am beyond satisfied of. Our prosecutorial system is also entirely independent, which I know the Deputy would not disagree with. Given my position, I am not going to comment on any individual case other than to say that beyond any individual case and what any individual decides to do with any piece of information at any time, there is the discretion of two people involved, that of a Garda Commissioner of the day and of the Minister, as to what a Minister decides to do with the information he or she has been given. Even in the brief time I have been in this role, I think the Garda Commissioner having that ability, which is not overly prescriptive in law, in terms of what he or she can tell the Minister for Justice, is an extraordinarily important provision. It is one I know is used on a regular basis. I certainly would not like to be the Minister for Justice or wish for any of my successors to be in a situation in which the Garda Commissioner nearly has to take out a sheet of paper to see if he or she is allowed to tell the Minister for Justice. At the end of the day, the Minister of Justice, whoever he or she is, whatever party is in government or not, is a constitutional officeholder accountable to the House for the security of the State and policing, not for individual policing investigations but for overall policy. To give my honest appraisal of the situation, I think there would be quite significant unintended consequences because this practice has been in place for a long time and it is one I believe is quite important to our democracy. Even though I am bringing forward many suggestions about new structures and oversight, I am very carefully trying to guard, as this legislation goes through and as my colleagues in the Department know, the important relationship between the Minister and the Garda Commissioner and ensure it remains intact. Anything that reduces it reduces democratic accountability to these Houses. I somewhat get the Deputy's point, though I disagree with some of the language. Subsection(1) of section 36 requires that the Garda Commissioner keep the Minister for Justice informed and the Secretary General of the Department of Justice fully informed of certain enumerated matters relating to significant developments in policing and security.

It also relates to public confidence in An Garda Síochána and matters relevant to the accountability of the Government to the Houses of the Oireachtas. We spoke earlier about the issue of public confidence and the importance of maintaining it. The proposed amendment would remove the requirement on the Garda Commissioner to keep the Minister fully informed of any matters beyond those I have already mentioned which, in the Commissioner's opinion, should be brought to the Minister's attention. This is about trusting that the individual who is Commissioner uses that discretion regarding what other matters are and that the Minister of the day uses his or her discretion regarding that information. The provision is just a restatement, as the Deputy acknowledged.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know the Deputy wants to change it but he did not suggest it is new. It is a restatement of section 41(1)(d) of the 2005 Act previously passed by these Houses. The amendment would significantly limit the necessary communication flow between the Commissioner, the Minister and the Department. I am strongly of the view that the line of communication is required.

This is essential to facilitate the Commissioner and the Minister in discharging their respective functions and responsibilities in respect of policing and security in the State.

Chapter 12 of the commission on the future of policing report, noted that an Garda Síochána and other criminal justice services are and should be accountable to the democratically elected Government of the State. The role of holding An Garda to account is exercised through the Minister for Justice and there is no change to that proposed in the legislation. In turn, the Minister for Justice is politically accountable to the Oireachtas for policing matters.

Given the very wide range of functions and responsibilities, but also the way our democracy works, the variety of different and sensitive issues, and indeed issues which the Deputy or I may not think of that could happen - and that one could then say that that is not allowed for in primary legislation - I therefore think it would be very unwise to fetter the professional discretion of the Commissioner to provide such information to the Minister or the Department, as he or she deems appropriate.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has given a number of recent, contemporary, political entanglements but I am also reminded of such things as Peter Berry and the Arms Trial where information was passed on and which perhaps changed the course of the State. There have been so many significant interventions at certain times that I can see the logic behind the line taken by the Deputy. Did the Deputy wish to come back in?

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes I did. It is fair to say that the Arms Trial information referred to by An Cathaoirleach would already have been clearly covered by the legislation.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well, it may or it may not be because if one looks at section 36(1)(a)(i), it refers to “the preservation of peace and public order in the State,” and in the instance of the Arms Trial it was the Northern Ireland state, which arguably is a different state. This is the point. We do not want to end up in a situation where a Commissioner cannot tell the Minister something because he is unsure or has his or her hands tied and that is why it is important to preserve a discretion about it. In any event, it is only for the committee-----

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a bit, respectfully-----

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the point, where it can be debated either way.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a bit fatuous, in that the arming of certain groups in the State, even though their target was not this State but was the British involvement in Northern Ireland, was considered a threat to this State. Hence the Offences against the State Act and all of the apparatus that is around that.

This section is so broad that it is inherently open to abuse. I want to be very clear when I posit this idea that I am not talking about either the current stand-in Minister or Deputy McEntee, but if the Minister for Justice espouses cheating on these sections, in the media age in which we live, it would be clearly detrimental to the stability of the Government, etc. In Britain, this is a big thing where one has all of this nonsense. Is that something where a Garda Commissioner might just say that he or she has a bit of information? This section is so broad that it could mean anything. That is quite damaging. I apologise to the Minister because I want to be very clear that I am not talking about him, Deputy McEntee, or about any particular Minister for Justice but this is just so broad that it could, I would think, be a charter for political policing in the wrong hands and we have to legislate for eventualities. To be clear, I am equally not talking about Sinn Féin's ascent to power but we have had Ministers for Justice in the past who have abused the machinery of the Department and we know that. We have had phone tappings and all sorts of things. If it has happened once, it can happen twice. I feel quite uncomfortable about that legislation in that context which is why I will be pressing the amendment.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment is being pressed.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 47, line 16, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 47, lines 20 and 21, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 47, line 34, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 49, to delete lines 5 to 13 and substitute the following: “(a) Coimisinéir na nGardaí;

(b) Leas Choimisinéir na nGardaí;

(c) Coimisinéir Cúnta na nGardaí;

(d) ard-cheannfort;

(e) ceannfort;

(f) cigire;

(g) sáirsint;

(h) garda;

(i) garda cúltaca.”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 49, line 25, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 49, line 27, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 54, line 29, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are related and will be discussed together.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 54, to delete lines 33 to 38, and in page 55, to delete lines 1 to 5.

The purpose of these amendments is to continue to facilitate the Garda Commissioner in appointing persons as members of Garda staff. However, they also remove the effect of civilian staff of An Garda Síochána who are civil servants of the Government immediately before the coming into operation of this section and who are designated by order of the Minister automatically becoming members of Garda staff. The Garda Commissioner can still employ these people and they can still move over, but it will be a more voluntary process as opposed to the idea of them going from being civil servants to employees of An Post at the flick of a pen. We are not discussing An Post in this instance, but what is envisaged is a similar process to the one that occurred when An Post and Telecom Éireann were separated from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

Being a civil servant has advantages and disadvantages. Many low-ranking civil servants will say that they are not particularly well paid. In fact, they are not well paid at all on the bottom rungs. However, they have mobility when entering the Civil Service and can hope to work in any part of the country or in any Department. That there may be considerable flexibility in being a civil servant is an important consideration for many people who join the Civil Service. In this section, though, that is being removed from them.

Many members of the Civil Service who are working in the Garda signed up to be civil servants. They joined the Civil Service, but now they are being told that they will not be civil servants anymore and will be limited to the civilian staff of An Garda Síochána. Once that order is made, the possibility of moving to other Departments is gone and the mobility that being a member of the Civil Service entailed is removed from staff and is no longer an option. That seems inherently unfair. Obviously, people are free to move and the Garda Commissioner is free to make them offers that are attractive, but treating them in the manner envisaged, or in the manner the Minister is empowered to treat them, is inherently unfair and something with which I would have a problem.

Just to be clear, the second amendment means that Schedule 3 will still apply to the person being moved pursuant to an order but after a more voluntary process is engaged in. That is the purpose of these amendments. I should say that previous guarantees given by governments - the Minister will be relieved to hear I am not talking about governments he has supported but about governments that were in place perhaps before he was born - at the time of the establishment of An Post and Telecom Éireann and when employees in the Department of Transport were moved into air traffic control with regard to parity of pensions, conditions and so on were not fully adhered to. Obviously, there are technical arguments between actuaries about the import and impact of these measures but, ultimately, those in Vodafone and An Post who were once employees of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs were placed in different PRSI classes to those who were not and are still in those classes to this day. That is something else we have to look at. The State has a history of not honouring its agreements with people in these positions. It is more about moving people who joined the Civil Service out of it against their will. I have no problem with people leaving the Civil Service if they choose to but it should be their choice.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Mullen and another representative of the trade union Fórsa came before the committee on this point. They lobbied for amendments on Committee Stage. I am not sure if all of their concerns about transferability have been addressed but it is important that staff maintain the rights they have worked so hard for over the years.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies McNamara and Daly. Before I share my briefing and thoughts on this matter, I will say at the outset that there will be further engagement with the staff associations and trade unions. I intend to meet with Fórsa very shortly. The deputy secretary general of the Department of Justice intends to meet with the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants by the end of the month. I am conscious that we are on Committee Stage of the legislation, that there is still Report Stage to complete and that the Bill needs to go to the other House of the Oireachtas in due course. The staff bodies and trade unions have concerns and I will not misrepresent their position by suggesting they believe these concerns have been addressed. They have concerns they want to discuss with me and with the Department. There will be such engagement and there will be an opportunity for them to update their members on how they feel that engagement went. That is the first thing I want to say.

After Deputy McNamara's comments, I do not need to repeat the purpose of the amendments but I will provide the rationale. The number of Garda staff has increased substantially in recent years and it will continue to grow. This is in the context of a long-standing policy over many governments to increase the civilianisation of Garda functions where this approach is appropriate. That is something nobody disagrees with. In the context of increasing civilianisation, Garda staff are performing a much wider range of roles, now including front-facing roles in Garda stations and roles on blended investigation teams in areas such as crime analysis, cybercrime and economic crime. These are areas that are only likely to grow further and take on more importance into the future. In addition, the increasing civilianisation of roles further facilitates the redeployment of Garda members to more appropriate operational policing duties for which they trained. This redeployment is ongoing and will continue to increase in the future. I am advised that this trend can be expected to result in further wide-ranging career opportunities, including promotional opportunities for Garda staff, that is to say, civilian staff within An Garda Síochána. While I do not mean to speak for any union, one of the concerns I hear is that Garda staff may view the Civil Service as having more opportunities for promotion and mobility. What I am outlining here is the clear direction of travel. As we expand and grow Garda staff numbers, there will be more promotional opportunities and career pathways.

Where did this rationale come from? A central tenet of the report of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland was that An Garda Síochána should be seen and treated as a single organisation with a single workforce that shares a common loyalty and mission. That is where this came from. I do not mean to be flippant but it did not drop from the sky. It was a central tenet of the report that there should be a single workforce and a single organisation. The report also found that a more integrated workforce structure was required to leverage the different skills and perspectives of both Garda members and Garda staff, thereby contributing to enhancing the capacity of the organisation to deliver better policing outcomes. The intent is to promote and foster the idea of a rewarding and varied career for all Garda personnel, members and Garda staff alike. Rather than seeing An Garda Síochána as sworn gardaí with Garda staff separate, it should be seen as one singular organisation with one single workforce.

While some views on this matter have focused on the impact of the approach on Civil Service mobility and interdepartmental opportunities for Garda staff, which I have alluded to, it is the intention that, by being recruited directly into An Garda Síochána and training in areas more closely related to policing matters, Garda staff will see themselves as part of that single Garda workforce, will wish to progress their careers with An Garda Síochána and will avail of the expected expansion in the number of promotional opportunities within the organisation. Importantly, those who wish to seek promotional opportunities elsewhere in the public service and Civil Service will not be precluded from doing so through open recruitment competitions. That is important and I will say it again. Those who wish to seek promotional opportunities elsewhere in the public service and Civil Service will not be precluded from doing so through the open recruitment competitions those services run.

It is important to reaffirm that the Bill makes it clear that there can be no change to the Civil Service status of existing Garda staff without prior engagement with any trade union concerned and consideration of the representations made by any such union. I will also address some of the concerns raised regarding the manner of the consultations that have taken place, and will continue to take place, on this matter. It should be noted that as part of the deliberations that informed its report and recommendations, the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland engaged in extensive consultation with unions and representative bodies, including those representing Garda members and Garda staff. This Bill derives from the work of that commission. I reassure Deputies and current Garda staff that dialogue has taken place, and will continue to take place, between Department officials, Garda management and staff trade unions in this regard. I will meet with Fórsa as part of an ongoing engagement envisaged in section 54 and Schedule 3 of the Bill, which was also subject to a public commitment by myself and the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, on Second Stage of this legislation. I am not in a position to support these amendments. There is ongoing engagement. There will be further engagement with representative bodies before Report Stage.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has given commitments. In fairness to him and to his officials, I will not call a vote or press this amendment further at this stage but I reserve the right to come back to it on Report Stage. There is one point I wish to raise, however. It relates to this idea that we will have a single organisation and everybody will just work for An Garda Síochána without differentiation between members and staff - that there will be a corps of civilian staff and members of An Garda Síochána working arm in arm and hand in hand for the betterment of the State. There is a fundamental difference, however. If you join the Civil Service at any level, such as the level of administrative officer, you can hope to become the Secretary General of a Department. People do. It is fanciful to suggest that a member of the civilian staff of An Garda Síochána will become Garda Commissioner or an inspector in An Garda Síochána or join the upper management of An Garda Síochána without having to go through a separate entry process and through Templemore or without being from Northern Ireland, which seems to be the essential prerequisite for being a member of Garda management at the moment.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is factually incorrect.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It seems to be the case both to me and to the few serving members of An Garda Síochána who talk to me.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite people to look at the composition of the management structure of An Garda Síochána.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In any event, I am not pressing the amendment but I reserve the right to return to it on Report Stage.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to respond to one more matter on the off-chance that people follow these debates. I need to refer to one more point, the very fair point the Deputy makes with regard to promotional opportunities with An Garda Síochána and the question of whether you need to be a sworn member of An Garda Síochána as distinct from a member of Garda staff.

I meet these people on a regular basis. There are very senior members of the Garda senior executive team today who are not sworn members of An Garda Síochána. I take the point that the Garda Commissioner must be. I also make the point that I tried to make in my opening comment that there would be nothing precluding anybody from applying for promotion opportunities within the public service and Civil Service in open competitions. I will check myself in case I am wrong on this, but there certainly have been a number of serving Secretaries General, for example, who have come not directly from a Civil Service post or have been a principal officer, assistant secretary general and then the Secretary General. I say this to be - I hope - helpful to the unions and representative bodies. There is no preclusion from applying for any open competition in the Civil Service or public service. As of today, there are members of the Garda leadership and executive team who are civilians. I know we will return to this on Report Stage.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not withdrawing the amendment; I am just not pressing it. If I withdraw it I cannot raise it on Report Stage.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy can. He can withdraw it and flag that he wishes to return to it on Report Stage. That is the procedure.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Once that is indicated I will withdraw it. I thought there was something in the so-called salient rulings of the Chair. They are sort of a dark-----

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a lot in the salient rulings of the Chair, but I am not going to resort to that right now.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would not recommend it for an evening's reading.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, but I am also conscious that we have 300 items on the clár for today.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will press the amendment without calling a vote.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You do not have to do that; the choice is yours. What I might suggest, respectfully, is that you withdraw the amendment now and flag that you want to return to it on Report Stage. That allows you to re-enter it on Report stage, which is what I would do in your position, but it is obviously your call.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 55, lines 6 and 7, to delete “pursuant to an order under subsection (5)”.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a general point to all present, we have several items to get through, so I might have to curtail remarks. I do not want to truncate democracy but I do want to get through this Bill today. I am conscious that staff are sitting late to facilitate that. We will try to move quickly through as many sections as we can.

Amendments Nos. 45 to 49, inclusive, have already been discussed, so I will move through them quickly.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 55, lines 9 and 10, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 55, lines 18 and 19, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 55, lines 21 and 22, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 55, lines 28 and 29, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 55, lines 33 and 34, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 58, to delete lines 15 to 18 and substitute the following:

“(2) Before determining policing priorities, the Authority shall consult any such persons as the Authority considers appropriate.”.

This amendment is almost symbolic in nature. It makes the point that we would like to see the authority have more power, and not be beholden to the Commissioner entirely.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. The amendment seeks to remove an obligation placed on the authority to consult specifically with the Commissioner and with the national office for community safety before determining policing priorities and to replace this with a provision which only obliges the authority to consult with such persons as it considers appropriate. It does not appear to me to be unreasonable to require that the proposed new authority consult with the Garda Commissioner before determining the policing priorities, given that An Garda Síochána is obviously a key stakeholder in that matter. Indeed, it would seem to me to be essential. I have no doubt that regardless that the text that is settled on, consultation with the Garda Commissioner will be both prudent and necessary. The addition of the national office for community safety is also appropriate in light of the new authority's role in community safety, and in keeping one of the key messages of the Bill that community safety is not only a matter for An Garda Síochána. It is simply a requirement to consult with the Garda Commissioner, which I would imagine is absolutely going to happen anyway. It would be essential that it would happen, so I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 51 is in the name of Deputy Costello. Are you still will us, Deputy Costello? No.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 66, to delete lines 6 and 7 and substitute the following:

“it for the period to which an annual service plan relates, so inform the Board, the Authority and the Minister.”.

Currently, where the Commissioner feels he or she will exceed his or her resources for the year, he or she is only obliged to tell the Minister and the board. This amendment seeks to introduce the added obligation to tell the authority, again, adding to its powers.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just for the record, the intention here is separating the governance of An Garda Síochána and the oversight of the organisation. There should be clear lines of responsibility between the different actors in the policing area. Under the current legislation, the Policing Authority has a role in approving the policing plan. This was removed in order to ensure that an oversight body had no role in the governance of a body that it had oversight responsibility for. The responsibility is now appropriately in place with the Garda board, which must adopt the annual service plan prior to its submission to the Minister. Considering that it is the board and the Minister that will have 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.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 53 has already been discussed.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No: 53:

In page 66, lines 9 and 10, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 71, line 36, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 55 is in the name of Deputy Costello. Is Deputy Costello online? No. He may be otherwise engaged.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 74, line 31, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 75, lines 9 and 10, to delete “Member States of the European Union other than the State” and substitute “Member States of the European Union other than the State, and the United Kingdom”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 83, line 25, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 60 to 62, inclusive, and 104, are related and will be discussed together.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 86, line 20, to delete “Garda Síochána Compensation Acts 1941 to 2003” and substitute “Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 2022”.

As Deputies are aware, I recently signed the commencement order for the Garda Síochána Compensation Act 2022, and it came into operation on 10 April. The purpose of this technical amendment is to replace references to the Acts repealed by the Act of 2022. I propose similar corrections in amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 104.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 88, line 5, to delete “Garda Síochána Compensation Acts 1941 to 2003” and substitute “Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 2022”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 88, lines 28 and 29, to delete “Garda Síochána Compensation Acts 1941 to 2003” and substitute “Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 2022”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to assess whether there is the need for further amendment to this section to deal with transitional issues and if there is, I will return to it on Report Stage.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Which section is that?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 97.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will note that in regard to section 97.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 63 and 153 are related and may be discussed together.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 90, line 16, to delete “to withhold his or her services”.

Amendments Nos. 63 and 153 are similar. In 2014 or thereabouts, the European Confederation of Police, EuroCOP, to which the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI, is affiliated, took a case to the European Committee of Social Rights and was successful. The Committee determined that it was contrary to the European Social Charter that members of An Garda Síochána were not permitted to join a trade union and that the Garda representative bodies enjoyed fewer negotiating rights than trade unions and that gardaí did not have the right to strike. A Bill went before the Dáil and was voted down by the then Government. Notwithstanding that, some progress was made with regard to that in 2016 or 2017. However, that does not change the fact that Ireland has been found by the European Committee of Social Rights to be in breach of the European Social Charter.This would essentially give gardaí the right to strike, however I suspect they would not utilise that right. In reality, there could be something like what Professor John Horgan recommended, which would be a negotiation whereby members of the Garda might agree to forego the right to strike, or the right to strike in what we would normally understand to be a strike, in return for certain procedural rights they do not currently enjoy.I am conscious of the ongoing dispute between the AGSI and the Garda Commissioner and that is a matter for the industrial relations machinery of the State. This is about remedying the situation whereby Ireland was found to be in breach of its international obligations. If we talk about policing and the rule of law etc, regardless of whether something is domestically enforceable or not, it does not change the fact that the law is the law and Ireland has been found to be in breach. This is why this amendment, together with the linked amendment, would give members of the Garda the right to strike.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the Minister responds, I might seek clarity on something. Am I right in saying that this section effectively covers the scenario where somebody attempts to bribe a member of An Garda Síochána and makes that an offence? It seems to quite generally worded in terms of to commit breach in standards of professional behaviour. Is that what is being talked about here?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I speak to the section or the amendment?

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Speak to the section and to the amendment also.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 98 provides for an offence of causing dissatisfaction among members of An Garda Síochána. It provides that a person who causes or does any act calculated to cause dissatisfaction among members of An Garda Síochána or does any act calculated to induce any such member to withhold his or her services or to commit a breach of the standards of professional behaviour will be guilty of an offence, and it sets out the penalties which will apply following conviction of such an offence. It restates section 59 of the 2005 Act, subject to amendment, to align with the wider Bill. With regard to Deputy McNamara's amendments, I will clarify this matter for him before Report Stage. One would imagine that the 2019 legislation would have been cognisant of the European Social Charter rulings but let me-----

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It might have been expected.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One might, so I agree to revert to the Deputy on that in advance of Report Stage because I think that would be useful to do so. The Deputy rightly outlined that in 2019, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2019 gave members of An Garda Síochána full access, for the first time, to the State's industrial relations mechanism, including the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and the Labour Court. It was an important step forward that allows Garda representative associations to represent their members in national pay talks and puts them on a par with trade unions in this regard. However the Deputy is also correct that at that time, certain aspects of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2019 were not applied to the Garda associations, including protections which apply to registered trade unions that engage in legitimate trade union action. The concerns outlined in the Deputy's amendments were examined during the Oireachtas debates on the 2019 Act and the landing zone was that the unique role Garda members have relating to the protection of the security of the State was acknowledged. It was recognised that they are not simply workers in the everyday sense of the word and that they have unique powers regarding protecting the peace and our security and so it would not be appropriate to provide all the protections contained in the industrial relations Act. In any event, I consider that any revisiting of these issues would be perhaps broader than the scope of this Bill.

The second amendment is somewhat related. It is an amendment to Schedule 1 to the Bill and relates to the proposed repeal of the certain Acts and parts of Acts concerning industrial relations legislation as it applies to members of An Garda Síochána. The issues involved are similar to those dealt with in amendment No. 63. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to remove certain restrictions on the operation of industrial relations legislation as it applies to members of An Garda Síochána and again, for the same reasons I am not in a position to support that amendment now but I will get a detailed updated position regarding the European Social Charter ruling for Deputy McNamara, which I would be happy to consider myself also.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw the amendment while reserving my right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were amendments to section 107 from Deputies Daly and Ó Snodaigh but it was being indicated earlier that they would both be withdraw. As there is nobody here to move them, they would fall anyhow. This is to note that the Deputies had indicated at the outset in a block discussion that they were withdrawing them, so I do not think anyone is being done a disservice.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 99, lines 18 and 19, to delete “or, in the English language, the National Office for Community Safety”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 99, line 19, to delete “National Office” and substitute “Oifig Náisiúnta”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 100, lines 17 and 18, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 102, line 10, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 102, lines 15 and 16, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 102, line 19, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 102, lines 22 and 23, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 102, lines 31 and 32, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 102, lines 34 and 35, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 103, lines 1 and 2, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 103, lines 6 and 7, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 103, line 22, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 108, lines 8 and 9, to delete “or, in the English language, the Policing and Community Safety Authority”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 108, line 10, to delete “Authority” and substitute “Údarás”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 80:

In page 108, lines 15 and 16, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 81:

In page 109, to delete line 14 and substitute the following: “(d) to carry out at its own initiative or at the request of the Minister inspections in relation to any particular aspects of the operation and administration of An Garda Síochána relating to policing services (including in relation to adherence to human rights standards and cooperation with other public service bodies to enhance community safety) and make recommendations to the Garda Commissioner or the Minister as the case may be for any action that the Authority considers desirable;”.

This amendment was recommended after discussions with some groups, including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, in order to strengthen the inspection role of the authority. In our submission, we opposed the abolition of the inspectorate and this attempts to give the authority more powers once the inspectorate is folded in under the authority.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I do not propose to support this amendment on the basis that I do not believe it is necessary. The section already provides for the general function of the new authority to carry out inspections. Sections 142, 148 and 149 provide further detail in terms of the carrying out of such inspections, either by the authority of its own volition or at the request of the Minister and also cover the submission of recommendations as proposed in the Deputy's amendment. In addition, section 142(1) provides for these inspections as long as they are in the furtherance of the authority's objective, which is to oversee and assess performance by An Garda Síochána of its function relating to policing services under the section. In light of the fact that the proposed amendment is covered by existing provisions setting out the detail of the functions of the authority and its role in carrying out inspections, I regret that I cannot support this amendment.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How stands the amendment?

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pressing it.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 82:

In page 113, lines 33 and 34, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 83:

In page 114, line 16, after “offence,” to insert the following:

“or is convicted outside the State of an offence consisting of acts or omissions which would constitute an offence triable on indictment if done or made in the State,”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 84:

In page 116, lines 21 and 22, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 85:

In page 117, line 15, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 119, lines 17 and 18, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 87:

In page 119, lines 22 and 23, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 119, line 31, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 89:

In page 119, lines 38 and 39, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 90:

In page 132, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “(6) If the Authority believes that in relation to subsection (4)there has been undue delay in a report being laid before the House, or in relation to subsection (5)if there has been an undue exclusion of material, the Authority may refer such refusal to the Independent Examiner in writing for the purposes of a review of the refusal under section 240.”.

Thanks and apologies for missing some of my previous amendments but I was stuck in another committee meeting.

We have a situation at the minute where a whole bunch of reports done by the Inspector of Prisons on the Dóchas Centre have not been published. What I am trying to do with this amendment is to prevent a situation where reports that may be embarrassing are not published. The aim is to provide a level of appeal but it is putting that appeal into the hands of the authority and the appeal would be submitted to the independent examiner. I am trying to do this within the existing structure and the existing safeguards provided for in the Bill. It is simply a minor tweak to add a very minor safeguard to prevent the lacuna that we see in terms of the Inspector of Prisons' reports at the minute.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. It may be helpful to note that the approach taken here, as with the approach taken throughout the entire Bill, originates from the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland, which recognised that An Garda Síochána and other criminal justice services are and should be accountable to the democratically elected Government of the State. The role of holding them to account is exercised through the Minister for Justice who, of course, is in turn politically accountable to the Oireachtas for policing matters.

Section 122 sets out the objectives, functions and powers of the authority and include at section 122(1) a provision confirming that the authority shall oversee and assess, in an independent and transparent manner, the performance of An Garda Síochána. Furthermore, section 149(4) already provides that the Minister shall lay a copy of any report of the authority before the House as soon as is practicable, subject to the need under section 149(5) to exclude any material that might facilitate the commission of an offence, prejudice a criminal investigation or jeopardise the safety of any person. This is a necessary provision, as I am sure the Deputy will agree, given the wide range of sensitive issues that may be encompassed by such reports and the responsibility of the Minister for Justice for policing matters, law enforcement and the security of the State. The section must proceed on the basis that the Minister will comply with the requirement under subsection (4) that he or she will publish the report as soon as practicable. This is standard drafting language relating to the publication of reports. I do not see any need for this section to address a situation where there is an "undue delay" in publishing a report, particularly where the term "undue delay" is not defined.

In addition, the amendment seeks to assign a role to the office of the independent examiner in reviewing any content that is not included in a report under section 149(5), which refers to a concern that material may facilitate the commission of an offence, prejudice a criminal investigation or jeopardise the safety of any person. This proposal does not have any link with the intended function of the independent examiner. The primary function of the independent examiner will be to keep security legislation under review to ensure it remains necessary, fit for purpose and contains appropriate safeguards for protecting human rights. The independent examiner will also have a general examination function in relation to the delivery of security services as set out in detail in Part 7. I respectfully suggest that the independent examiner has quite a separate and distinct role in our security legislation. The broader piece relating to the removal or exclusion of material in a report in advance of publication or laying before the House may not relate to that but may relate to the commission of an offence, prejudicing of a criminal investigation or jeopardising the safety of a person. There are safeguards here in the role of a Minister to lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas and indeed, to lay any report of the authority before the Houses, as soon as is practicable. I would be concerned with the amendment not defining things like "undue delay" and the link with the independent examiner.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to flag that I am considering further amendments to this section and to other sections in this chapter to deal with any transitional issues relating to the dissolution of the Policing Authority and, if necessary, I may return to this on Report Stage.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 91:

In page 140, lines 11 and 12, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 92:

In page 140, line 14, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies may wish to note that I am considering whether there may be a need for further amendments to this section or other sections in the chapter to deal with transitional issues in relation to the dissolution of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate. This may include a new section for the purpose of designating one or more of the three members of the inspectorate, whose term of office would otherwise end on the dissolution of the inspectorate, as members of the staff of the policing and community safety authority, PCSA as inspectors of policing services. The purpose of this would be to ensure that the PCSA has the expertise and experience to undertake its inspection functions from its establishment. I just want to flag to the committee that I may return to this on Report Stage.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 93:

In page 143, lines 15 and 16, to delete “or, in the English language, as the Office of the Police Ombudsman”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 94:

In page 143, lines 21 and 22, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 144, lines 20 and 21, to delete “or, in the English language, as the Police Ombudsman”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 144, lines 23 and 24, to delete “or, in the English language, as the Deputy Police Ombudsman”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 97:

In page 147, line 15, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 98:

In page 148, lines 14 and 15, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 99:

In page 148, lines 20 and 21, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 100:

In page 149, line 31, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 101:

In page 151, line 24, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 102:

In page 151, lines 33 and 34, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 103, 119 to 121, inclusive, 123, 126 to 128 inclusive, and 143 are related and will be discussed together.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 103:

In page 152, lines 17 and 18, to delete “or a joint investigation (within the respective meanings they have in Part 6)” and substitute “(within the meaning of Part 6)”.

As this amendment requires the deletion of section 205, I want to give the committee all of the information in the round. We are basically proposing the deletion of section 205, which provides for the police ombudsman to have the option of establishing a joint investigation with An Garda Síochána in relation to an incident of concern where the incident relates to the commission of an alleged offence. The consequential amendments, which is how we have arrived here, flow from this proposed deletion and these are outlined in amendments Nos. 103, 109, 120, 121, 123, 126 to 128, inclusive, and 143. By way of background, I note that during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, An Garda Síochána highlighted concerns that joint investigations would curtail the independence of the police ombudsman in the eyes of the public and lead to a lack of clarity regarding investigator roles and the lead agency in such investigations. In parallel with the legislative process, my Department is working with both An Garda Síochána and GSOC on planning for the implementation of the Bill, including with regard to the protocols for the conduct of joint investigations. Through these discussions it has become apparent that GSOC has now arrived at a similar view to An Garda Síochána on the matter. Now neither body can see operational benefits in this approach and the approach being taken. In fact, both now see significant complexities in how these joint investigations would operate in practice. This goes against the key objective of this part of the Bill, which was to simplify and streamline the GSOC investigation process. I am conscious that the concept of joint investigations is not an end in itself. It has to be workable in practice. Given that the Bill will otherwise still provide for an improved and more efficient framework for the handling and investigation of complaints, I am tabling these amendments in line with the expressed wishes of both An Garda Síochána and GSOC. This will allow for the completion of all outstanding planning for co-operation between both the police ombudsman and An Garda Síochána and a more efficient and effective system for the handling and investigation of allegations of Garda wrongdoing when the Bill is enacted and commenced. I should say that both agencies have emphasised their ongoing commitment to continuing to work together, both under the terms of the Bill and at an operational level. It is for those reasons that I am proposing these amendments.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 104:

In page 152, line 29, to delete “Garda Síochána (Compensation) Acts 1941 to 2003” and substitute “Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 2022”.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a bloc of amendments here. Amendments Nos. 105 to 117, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 105:

In page 153, line 31, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

These are grouped together. While I am not sure where amendment No. 118 is, essentially it is the same idea, that is, that we and some other organisations want the police ombudsman to be directly accountable to the Oireachtas, as with other ombudsmen or ombudspersons, rather than to the Minister. These amendments delete various references to the Minister, replacing them with the Oireachtas as the body to which they need to be accountable.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister want to respond to the amendments?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not take too much time but for the record of the committee I will outline my rationale here. I thank Deputy Daly. The approach taken here, as with the approach taken across the entire Bill, originates from the recommendation of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland report, which recognises in chapter 12, as I have said a number of times this afternoon, that An Garda Síochána and other criminal justice services, are and should be accountable to the democratically-elected Government of the State. The role of holding them to account is exercised through the Minister for Justice, who in turn is politically accountable to the Oireachtas for policing matters. Such an approach is consistent with the general code of practice in governance for State bodies in terms of the relationship between a State body and the relevant line Minister. This is no way interferes, nor could it interfere, with the police ombudsman's independence. I note in this context that when this committee did its pre-legislative scrutiny report, it recommended clarity regarding the police ombudsman's accountability "as a body under the aegis of the Department of Justice, in terms of its performance and other functions". I emphasise that the police ombudsman is expressly independent in the performance of its functions as set out in section 169(8) of the Bill and its institutional operational independence has been further reinforced under the Bill, which creates an expanded remit and the receipt of its own Vote under the Bill for the first time. This is not inconsistent with the proposal that the body has an obligation to account for the performance of its functions and I believe the Bill strikes the right balance in this regard. Some accountability arrangements are appropriate and necessary and regard must be had to the unique public safety security role of the Minister for Justice.

In the case of the governance framework, which is the concern of amendments Nos. 105 to 108, inclusive, I consider that the requirement in section 179 to submit the document to the Minister is consistent with the overall responsibility the Minister for Justice has for the justice system and policing issues and in no way cuts across the institutional and operational independence of the office. Once the framework is submitted to the Minister, the office is obliged to publish the framework on its website or in some other manner. These arrangements are appropriate, given what I have outlined. I have the same considerations with regard to amendments Nos. 109 to 112, inclusive, which refer to the submission of the strategy list of the office to the Minister. The Minister is simply obliged to receive this strategy statement for the office and lay it before the Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable. This no way cuts across the institutional operational independence of the office. Again, I take the same approach to amendment Nos. 113 to 117, inclusive, concerning the annual reports and the special reports as well. There is a unique role or a difference here in relation to the role the Minister for Justice has regarding policing and security matters and their accountability to the Oireachtas for that. There are enough, in fact, very clear, safeguards built in that protect expressly in legislation the independence of the office and the obligation, once something comes to the Minister, for it to be laid before the House or also in some cases, the office being obligated in terms of governance frameworks and the likes to publish on its website or in some other manner.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 106:

In page 154, line 9, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 107:

In page 154, line 12, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 108:

In page 154, line 14, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 109:

In page 154, line 19, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”. 

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 110:

In page 154, line 35, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”. 

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 111:

In page 155, line 2, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 112:

In page 155, to delete lines 3 to 5

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 113:

In page 155, line 12, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 114:

In page 155, line 17, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 115:

In page 155, line 19, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 116:

In page 155, line 22, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 117:

In page 155, to delete lines 23 to 25.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 118:

In page 155, to delete lines 30 and 31 and substitute the following:

“(6) The Police Ombudsman may, in consultation with the Independent Examiner, exclude from the copy of a report under this section to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas any matter that, in his or her opinion—”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope this is the right place to do it but Deputies may wish to note that in conjunction with the ongoing planning for the implementation of the Bill, I am assessing whether there may be a need for further amendments to this part of the Bill concerning the police ombudsman, to ensure that the structures proposed maximise the potential of the reformed body. I flag that I may return with further amendments on Report Stage in relation to parts of the Bill regarding the police ombudsman.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that the whole of Chapter 2?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I just wished to flag that we may.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 119:

In page 160, line 16, to delete “or joint investigation”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 120:

In page 164, to delete line 10

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 121:

In page 165, to delete lines 20 to 32.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On section 194, I am assessing whether there may be need for further amendments to this section for the purpose of clarifying its objectives and may return to it on Report Stage.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 122:

In page 173, lines 34 and 35, to delete “having consulted with the Garda Commissioner”

It reads currently that the police ombudsman "shall in receipt of a notification under subsection 1, having consulted with the Garda Commissioner and in accordance with the protocols, decide to take any one or more of the following actions".

We do not see why the police ombudsman should have to consult with the Garda Commissioner when deciding what to do in reaction to an incident of concern. It undermines its independence by including "having consulted" in section 200. It seems to be an obligation to consult with the Garda Commissioner. We do not see why that should be there.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this consultation is to ensure this new incident of concern process is practical and operable. Section 200(4) also provides that having notified the police ombudsman of an incident of concern, the Garda Commissioner may still take lawful actions to prevent the commission of offences or breaches of the professional standards of behaviour, including commencing or continuing a criminal investigation. This is a necessary power to prevent any delay while waiting for the police ombudsman’s decision as to what action should be taken and to avoid the risk of being unable to deal with a criminal matter in line with best practice. Time is of the essence and there is also an obligation placed on the police ombudsman to inform the Garda Commissioner of his or her decision without delay. In the context of live investigations, clear communication is key.

The current workload of GSOC, which will become the police ombudsman under the Bill, comprises predominantly retrospective complaints. That is to change with its expanded remit under the Bill. Incidents of concern could be matters that require immediate investigation or that are already the subject of live investigation. It is important the police ombudsman and Garda Commissioner develop processes to ensure these concerns are addressed and dealt with efficiently and effectively. Protocols will set out and support these processes but, in light of the intention of the provision and its necessity in the broader process, I would be worried about the benefit of removing something that encourages and requires good communication between both organisations. It is not to cut across the independence but when you are in the space of moving from retrospective to live and potentially ongoing criminal investigations, I would see harm in removing that obligation to consult or inform.

Amendment No. 124 relates to the notification from the Garda Commissioner to the police ombudsman of incidents of concern. Section 241, relating to the annual report of the independent examiner, includes in subsection 2(d) a requirement to include in that report a general statement regarding any notification he or she has received under section 200(7) during that period. Under section 242, the independent examiner may of his or her own accord prepare and submit to the Taoiseach a special report on any matter relating to his or her activities and include in that report any recommendations he or she considers appropriate. These provisions are sufficient to allow the independent examiner to record and review under the Act the incidents mentioned. In light of that fact, I do not support amendment No. 124.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister happy that, if the Commissioner can refuse to notify the ombudsman about an incident if he feels security is jeopardised, it can be reviewed by the independent examiner?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am and that is the balance we are trying to get right. The role of the independent examiner and its reporting mechanism to the Taoiseach is a further remove from the Department of Justice, which is important for oversight.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 123:

In page 174, lines 6 to 8, to delete all words from and including “offence” in line 6 down to and including “determine” in line 8 and substitute “offence determine”

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 125:

In page 192, line 18, to delete “18 months” and substitute “24 months”.

Sometimes in preparing a file for prosecution, GSOC feels under pressure within the 18-month timeframe because complaints are often close to the wire and received late within the 12-month window. That is why the amendment has been tabled.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The original Garda Síochána Act 2005 provided for a time limit of 12 months for the taking of such proceedings, extended to 18 months by section 51 of the Garda Síochána (Policing Authority and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015. The new section 218 reinstates the time period of 18 months which was approved by the Oireachtas and which is a relatively recent period in legislative terms of around eight years. No. 179 of the general scheme of the Bill proposed the same time limit. The general scheme was considered at length by An Garda Síochána, GSOC and the DPP. I am not aware of any concern raised by any of those organisations that would give rise to a need to extend the period from 18 months to 24. I will satisfy myself further on that but I strongly believe that to be the case. For that reason, I do not support the amendment. The overarching intention of the police complaints system is to streamline the investigation process to lead to shorter investigations, which I hope will further reduce the concern giving rise to this amendment.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 126:

In page 193, to delete line 14.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 127:

In page 193, to delete lines 30 to 38.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are reviewing further legal advice on the operation of the section and may return to it on Report Stage.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The same applies to this section regarding the reporting provisions concerned. We may return to it on Report Stage.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 128:

In page 196, line 27, to delete “an investigation, a joint investigation” and substitute “an investigation”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 133:

In page 205, line 23, after “offence,” to insert the following:

“or is convicted outside the State of an offence consisting of acts or omissions which would constitute an offence triable on indictment if done or made in the State,”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 135:

In page 206, line 23, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 136:

In page 206, line 27, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 137:

In page 206, lines 34 and 35, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 138:

In page 207, lines 19 and 20, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 138:

In page 208, to delete lines 8 to 19.

Subsection 239(5) allows anybody to withhold any document from the examiner if they feel it would jeopardise sources. This is not the case, I understand, with similar examiners in the UK and Australia. That is why we suggest deleting lines 8 to 19.