Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCeann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I have read all of the documentation and have taken the trouble to read the reports of the Policing Authority, which is now on its sixth report, not to talk about the other reports that the authority has produced. The Minister in her speech said that this is short and relatively simple legislation. I would not agree that it is simple in any sense of the word. It has the most serious consequences and implications for rights and for the pubs in question.

The advantage of speaking towards the end of the first round is that I get a chance to listen to all of the other contributions. I could not possibly improve on the speeches given by Deputies Howlin and Catherine Murphy.

I do not know how they can go from the two wonderful speeches that they made to supporting the legislation. I certainly could not do any better than Deputy Murphy in highlighting the defective process from start to finish, including having no pre-legislative scrutiny and no regulatory impact analysis. Deputy Howlin has gone through the legislation and shown how faulty it is in not setting out the offences in a criminal justice Bill of this nature. I have the most serious reservations about this Bill, both with the manner it has been brought before us and with regard to what evidence there is to support such draconian powers.

I was part of the consensus in this Dáil from the start in supporting each emergency Bill that came before us. Like my colleagues, I took the trouble of reading the legislation on every occasion and there were very good parts to some of the legislation, including the temporary wage subsidy scheme, the pandemic unemployment payment and many other good things. Side by side with that were draconian powers regarding committing somebody to a mental health institution. They have serious implications. I gave my support to all that legislation for the common good and I realise the threat that this virus poses to the common good in Ireland. I have come to the point where I can no longer do that having read this legislation.

The Garda receives almost universal praise, and rightly so, for the way members of the force have dealt with the public. The public also deserve our praise. They have tried their best to comply with all the various rules and regulations that we brought out, that were contradictory more often than not. We advised those over 70 to stay in and made them feel that they had no choice about that, but that was never accurate at all, and there were many other contradictions. They and the Garda deserve our praise.

The Policing Authority repeats that praise in its sixth report, which I looked at. Reviewing the previous reports, a number of elements stand out as being of enduring importance. They are significant in themselves but have significant potential implications for future public policy and policing. This is of course the extent and the quality of the service provided throughout the country by the Garda Síochána. It has been immensely important in bringing the community through this difficult time. It goes on to talk about the extraordinary response from the people in their appreciation of Garda work. Page 8 of that report talks about the comfort and confidence that the Garda presence has brought to communities, and states that it is functioning as an anchor. Another part of the report talks about that being a blueprint for future community policing. I could not disagree with any of it.

Remember that this new image for the Garda has followed the most recent report from Mr. Justice Peter Charleton, a former Supreme Court judge. In that report, he told us about the importance of the visibility of gardaí, how gardaí should stand proudly in their uniform and put loyalty to the common good ahead of loyalty to the force. Gardaí got the chance to do that during Covid and have risen to the challenge, and I praise them. However, we have put them in an increasingly difficult position, asking them to go into pubs to check whether people have been eating a substantial meal. We have built in hypocrisy and deception and I could not possibly continue to give that type of role to the Garda Síochána.

I want to build on the trust and the confidence that the Garda has given back to the people. We should do that by recognising that we have a problem with the continued closure of all our pubs. I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for its note. Given the speed with which the Bill has progressed, it did not have time to do a proper digest. I see nothing in it that tells me the consequences for public health of going into a pub if one is complying with regulations.

I see no connection between actual breaches and public health problems in the Policing Authority report. The Policing Authority refers to 165 potential breaches, not to breaches. Its report outlines the powers that the Garda already has. There are five powers which I will not go into. One is the power of arrest. This is its sixth report. It has repeatedly asked the top management of the Garda, with no reflection on gardaí on the ground, for a disaggregation or a breakdown of how those five powers have been used. There have been 353 breaches generally. How have the five powers been used? As of the sixth report, we still do not know that. Surely that would be the most basic information or evidence that the Department and Minister should have if they are going to increase Garda powers? Surely we should know the problems on the ground and how existing powers have been used? Five are listed. Has one been used more often than the other? Has No. 4 used? Have none of them been used? Surely that should guide us when we go to bring in more draconian legislation.

I despair that we are back for the first day and are talking about extra powers for the Garda with no evidence of a need for that draconian legislation, with all the pitfalls that Deputies Howlin and Murphy have outlined. We are not talking about the increase in domestic violence or the Government's actions in providing extra refuges for women, children and men, on occasion, who are the subject of domestic violence. There is no plan relating to opening up the pubs that are closed. In Galway city, many pubs remain closed and people are losing their livelihoods. It is disingenuous to tie in this legislation with the promise of opening the pubs in future. This legislation has no bearing on the closure of those pubs and it is an insult to say that if we pass this legislation and they are good boys and girls, we will allow them to open their pubs. That is no way to treat people whose livelihoods have been deeply affected by the closure of the pubs with no rationale behind it.

I have no difficulty with guidelines and I think most people have no problems. There is a problem with the contradiction and internal inconsistency, and then what happened in Clifden. People apologised, and rightly so, but this is not about apologies or mistakes. We are all far from perfect. The day we go down the route of expecting politicians to be perfect, we will be in serious trouble. This is not about mistakes or apologies but about a vulgar sense of entitlement in Clifden. Commentators who tell us that we have gone too far, and that they have apologised and we should forget about it, have missed the point that this was a vulgar display of arrogance and entitlement. It contradicted the messages that we have been given for six months. On that basis, I have serious difficulties. I will reflect on it but this is no way to bring legislation of this nature before us. There has been no pre-legislative scrutiny or referral to the Policing Authority reports, and there has been no disaggregation of when the five powers in existence have been used.

See this speech in context