Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

It has been an interesting debate. While I do not propose to recap on all the issues raised by the Minister, the model proposed in the Bill does not have due regard to the existence of a national police force in this jurisdiction which is not only the police service but the security and intelligence service and border control authority of this State.

In his opposition to the Bill, the Minister voiced the concern that the proposal to transfer key oversight functions of the Garda Síochána to a separate unelected body would not improve the democratic accountability of the force. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 provides that the Garda Commissioner is accountable to the Minister in the performance of his or her functions and those of the force and the Minister, in turn, is accountable to this House. As Accounting Officer for the force, the Commissioner is also liable to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts.

It is noteworthy that the UK is moving away from the type of structure proposed in the Bill to systems aimed at more democratic accountability linked to elected representatives, in tandem of course with an independent body to investigate allegations of misconduct. The Bill also calls for enhanced Garda measures on human rights. It is indeed appropriate that we debate Garda responsibilities on human rights and the policies developed to meet these. There have been a number of developments within An Garda Síochána in recent years designed to put regard for human rights at the core of policing in Ireland. A function of the Garda Síochána under section 7 of the 2005 Act is to vindicate the human rights of each individual. Arising from this requirement, all Garda policy is drafted in accordance with human rights principles and all operational Garda directives now make reference to the relevant human rights principles. Accordingly, the application of human rights is a core objective of the force. This work is supported by advice from the Garda Síochána strategic human rights committee, membership of which includes NGO experts in human rights.

The Bill seeks an enhanced role for the joint policing committees. A number of Deputies brought their own personal and positive experience of these committees to the fore in their contributions on the Bill. My experience in this regard has also been positive. The Minister awaits the outcome of the review of the JPCs which is under way. I expect that we can look forward to improved operating guidelines for JPCs, providing, in particular, for an enhanced communication role at local and national levels.

In presenting the Bill, some Deputies referred to whistleblowing provisions for members of the Garda Síochána. As members will be aware, the programme for Government contains a commitment to enhance whistleblowing provisions. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform recently published the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013, which provides for robust protection to whistleblowing employees generally across the public and private sectors. Section 19 of that Bill provides for the making of regulations relating to protected disclosures by members of the Garda Síochána. This provision provides for enhanced procedures for members of the Garda Síochána who wish to raise matters of concern.

I would like to comment on two issues in the Bill. First, a number of Deputies commented that certain forms of harm, including torture and rape, are not covered under section 102 of the 2005 Act. Section 102 requires the Garda Commissioner to refer to the Ombudsman Commission any matter in which it appears the behaviour of a member may have resulted in the death of, or serious harm to, a person. The term "serious harm" is comprehensively defined. It is important to understand that this is an automatic referral mechanism. In other words, the Commissioner does not have to decide whether any wrongdoing might be involved. For example, a death arising from a straightforward car accident would be covered under this provision. The scenarios outlined by some Deputies, concerning incidents of torture or rape, are of an entirely different order and would fall to be investigated as serious criminal allegations. In this regard, the other provisions of the Act relating to the Ombudsman Commission would be relevant.

Second, the Bill seeks the extension, from six months to one year, in the time within which complaints must be made to the Ombudsman Commission. Section 84(2) of the 2005 Act provides that the Ombudsman Commission may extend the time limit if it considers there are good reasons for so doing. For practical reasons, including the public interest in investigating incidents as soon as possible, there must be a reasonable timeframe within which a complaint can be made. It is also the case that proposals from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission for amendments to Part 4 of the 2005 Act are under consideration and these proposals are the starting point for any revision to its oversight role.

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate on the Bill. I agree with the Minister's acknowledgement yesterday of the genuine objectives behind the Bill but conclude that the Bill cannot, for the reasons stated during the debate, be supported.

See this speech in context