James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the introduction of the legislation that, as far as I can see, sets out to streamline the process of Garda compensation claims and, in effect, bring them in line with other litigation of a similar nature that goes through our courts. It also seeks to apply some of the improvements and efficiencies this Government has brought in for other similar areas to the process and streamline it in a similar way. It is a very welcome and commonsense provision. It is great to see the Government doing this and bringing it through.

I note the new PIAB guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council last year are now applicable to Garda claims, which makes eminent sense, because an injury in one walk of life, in effect, has the same impact on somebody's day-to-day operation and prospects etc. as an injury sustained in another walk of life. It makes perfect sense if the same guidelines were to apply. I note what is often called a cost deferential order will be applicable if a claim is initiated in a higher court than the court it is ultimately found to be merited in. If somebody brings a case in the High Court, when it is really a District or Circuit Court case, and incurs additional cost on both sides for doing so, the norm is that person is penalised for doing that, in the sense he or she would have that taken off the award ultimately. Again, it makes perfect sense and is designed to encourage people to litigate in the correct jurisdiction and correct court. That is already done in many other walks of life in the courts. Again, it makes sense to apply those rules here and they are in this legislation.

PIAB will have an increased role in the system. Rather than the historical authorisation granted for a Garda compensation claim, I understand PIAB will now process it in the same way as it processes any other personal injuries claim. Again, that makes perfect sense. I note if the assessment is accepted that will be taken on board, which avoids the need for litigation altogether. That is something that has worked quite well in the personal injuries sphere over the past 20 years and this legislation brings it in line with that.

While I am on this topic, I will look at the efforts of our Government colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Troy, to reform PIAB further. The Minister of State is looking at making PIAB a quasi-judicial body analogous to the WRC, the Residential Tenancies Board, or some of those bodies that exist that process claims, where oral evidence is submitted and submissions made, but perhaps in a slightly less formal way than in a courtroom and certainly less expensive than a courtroom situation. I commend the Minister of State's efforts in that regard. He is experiencing resistance in some quarters but it is a good idea and maybe something that could be looked at in this context. That would be another way to take some of the cost out of personal injury claims since some of these will also be coming into this process.

I also note that the State Claims Agency will now be nominated as the official liaison, or the driver, of these claims from a State point of view. Again, it makes perfect sense. That would be the norm with all other litigation against the State, that is, that the State Claims Agency would take carriage of those, rather than the Minister or the Commissioner or somebody being empowered to do so. There may be historical anomalies that are being tidied up in this and it is bringing it into line.

As many speakers have, I want to salute the work members of the Garda do in terms of putting themselves in harm's way and going into the community. They are very much rooted in the community. We have largely an unarmed force that derives its defence from the respect it enjoys among the population, by and large. They are unarmed, as has been said. They put themselves in harm’s way for our protection, which is something we cannot take for granted. We must respect the role they play.

The 2020 report told us 200 gardaí were injured in the line of duty. In 2021, it appeared to be 243, so there was an increase last year. That is 243 too many and 200 too many the year before. Unfortunately, this is a pattern. In a way, it goes with the territory, which is not to in any way excuse it or play it down. They are people who for the greater good and to serve the public, the State and this Republic put themselves in harm’s way to defend all of us. We enjoy the protection they grant us. I commend and salute the force for that.

While it is just and right that any member of the Garda who is injured in the line of duty should be eligible for compensation, is there an argument for extending that to other areas? I refer to people such as prison officers, who have been mentioned, and the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, officers. There is the concept of authorised officers in much legislation where people may be involved in law enforcement-type activities that may be outside of the scope of this legislation as it is currently constituted. Perhaps they could be brought back in.

However, I would even go outside the traditional law enforcement bodies. What about teachers, for example? Teachers in a classroom can come up against harm, be that physical or psychological. Unfortunately, it happens. Those experiences are there. There are people in other emergency services, be it ambulance personnel, hospital porters, those in the fire service and in many other areas who put themselves in the firing line in the line of duty. They are not covered by this Bill and I am not sure whether they are covered by any legislation. Without in any way taking from the fine work our Garda do, I wonder why there is a special process for Garda that does not exist for teachers, those in fire services and other emergency personnel. Even in this House, there have been many reports of constituency offices coming under threat. I am thinking of staff in our constituency offices who man the front lines every day, some of whom have been threatened. Thankfully, none have been assaulted to date, touch wood. There are people in many walks of life who serve the public by making themselves available and could face harm doing so. Should we look at broadening this device? If we are going to have a scheme, perhaps it should be a little bit wider. I ask the Minister to consider that.

It would be remiss of me, as others have done, not to mention the situation in my county, County Kildare. Unfortunately, for a long time, it had the dubious distinction of having the fewest number of Garda members per capitain the country in terms of the number of personnel serving in Kildare. We have, thankfully, received additional recruits. However, we need that sort of stellar leap. In terms of the pro ratanumber every other county gets, we are still behind. We were traditionally resourced as a sort of outpost of Dublin. There were a couple of rural barracks back in the day of Robert Peel and beyond. We are now very much in the greater Dublin area with possibly the third highest population of any county. We are very much a built-up urban conglomerate, but we have not had that injection of resources to match that in terms of the demographics and population. I know it is an operational issue for the Garda Commissioner, but I would ask the Minister to take note of that. In any discussions where it might arise, it is something I continually beat the drum on.

See this speech in context