Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am glad the Minister is the present in the Chamber. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on policing, security and community safety for a number of reasons. The Bill replaces an important Act, namely the Garda Act 2005, and legislates for the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Policing from about four years ago. This Bill is not before time. Security and safety are important, and therefore it is important that this debate is taking place.

Before I delve into the Bill I wanted to add my voice of utter condemnation regarding what happened in Omagh last night. It is absolutely outrageous that an off duty PSNI officer would be gunned down in such a fashion, in particular in front of his son and while doing his job of working with the youth and trying to make things better from a sporting point of view. We probably saw the very best and very worst of humanity coexist in Omagh last night. There are reports that the perpetrators may have fled over the Border and may be in this jurisdiction. If that is the case, I urge that we leave absolutely no stone unturned and bring these dastardly people to justice. They have no place in this society.

Turning to the Bill, there are four main objectives. They are all honourable. The first is that community safety should be an all-of-government responsibility. I agree with this concept. Community safety is not just a policing responsibility. It includes local authorities, Deputies, the HSE, social services, NGOs and community workers. While it is not only a police function, it is primarily a police function. This brings us back to the number of gardaí. We are screaming for gardaí. The Minister is taking notes, which I appreciate. We hear with great fanfare in every budget that there are will be funding for 800 or 1,000 new gardaí, but they never seem to materialise. We do not have the exact figures, but I understand fewer than 200 gardaí passed through Templemore last year. The Minister should feel free to give the exact figures in his closing statement.

We cannot get gardaí to join or potential gardaí to pass fitness tests. When they join they leave during training. If they pass out they leave shortly afterwards. There is a reason for it. Being a garda is not the job it was in the past. Any uniformed service is tough work. It is difficult shift work on a 24-7 basis. One of the primary reasons for the current crisis is the pension system. It is not popular to say and there is very little traction from a public perspective because the perception is that public servants have excellent pensions. Some at a very high level do have them, but anybody who joined the public service over the past nine years has a fraction of what their predecessors have. It is affecting morale and the numbers in An Garda Síochána.

My local Garda station is Portarlington and there are only a handful of gardaí there. I am grateful for chief superintendent John Scanlan who provides additional gardaí on request. It again raises the issue of rural Garda stations. I urge the Minister not to repeat the mistakes of the defence apparatus which shut down so many barracks around the country. They now find it difficult to recruit and retain people because the presence of the military in those towns was a significant recruitment tool. The same problem seems to be happening in An Garda Síochána.

I disagree with the divesting of local Garda stations. The major problem is that the ones which remain are very poorly manned. Portarlington has a population of 11,000, yet the Garda station is only open for four hours a day. To pardon the pun, that is criminal and wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient. Portarlington is like any other town. It has drug issues and antisocial behaviour. In recent months there has been a trend towards dog attacks on sheep, trespassing on farmland and antisocial behaviour. Dogs are primarily an issue for dog wardens, but enforcement is also an issue. Extra gardaí and manned Garda stations would make a huge difference from a presence point of view. We need feet on the street. Garda presence is a significant deterrent and is also good from a prosecution perspective.

Security clearance is an issue for the office in Tipperary. Many GAA clubs, societies and hospitals need to get people through the Garda PULSE system. There is a massive backlog. If the Minister could do anything about that, it would be greatly appreciated.

I have been asked to raise some specific issues. The first relates to the Garda Reserve. We very rarely hear about it. Perhaps in his reply the Minister could outline how many reserve gardaí are left and whether the programme has been a success. It is imperfect. Most uniformed services get recognition of their service through medals. The Defence Forces, ambulance service and even the Civil Defence got a Covid medal last year. Garda reservists have received no medal recognition whatsoever. It is something very small which would make a huge difference from a retention and recognition point of view.

Quite a large number of PSNI officers are joining An Garda Síochána, in particular at a higher level. Is there traffic in the opposite direction? Are senior gardaí getting senior jobs in the PSNI? If that is happening I would like it to happen in both directions, if at all possible.

The second main objective of the Bill is external independent oversight. We all know why that is necessary and why every organisation needs it. An Garda Síochána also needs this. Ninety-nine per cent of gardaí are outstanding professionals and model police persons, but there are issues with a small number and it is important that we have external oversight.

I welcome some of the measures in the Bill, in particular the merging of the Policing Authority and An Garda Síochána Inspectorate into the policing and community safety authority, if only to reduce the number of layers and streamline the oversight process. It will reduce duplication and simplify the process.

I welcome the changes to GSOC. They are not perfect, but creating a new office of the police ombudsman makes sense. Reducing three commissioners to a head and deputy makes sense. Giving them their own budget makes sense. Putting all of the appointments through the Public Appointments Service and, crucially, allowing it to investigate without a formal complaint from the member of the public also make sense. I welcome the suggestions and proposals from an external oversight point of view.

The third objective of the Bill is internal governance and oversight, which is a massive issue. Having a Garda Síochána board of management is a good idea. The Garda Commissioner is described in the Bill as a chief executive. It is very clear that management consultants have asked how An Garda Síochána will be structured and have decided on a board and chief executive. I understand the logic of that, but I caution that we be mindful of resisting that a small bit. An Garda Síochána is not a business or corporate entity; it is a police service. Anybody in the Chamber can establish a company in the next 24 hours and become a chief executive officer, but we cannot become a Garda Commissioner.

We should be protective of the traditions of An Garda Síochána. It has served us well over the past 100 years. Policing by consent is a vital component of what it does and it is not a business or corporate entity.

I would like to echo some of the comments on civilian members of the Garda force who are currently civil servants. The Minister has read the same correspondence I have received. Having a single force comprising those in uniform and civilians working in unison makes some sense in theory. However, I am concerned about the culture of the Civil Service whereby people are moved between Departments. Confining someone unexpectedly to a particular agency or Department does not sound very fair. A lot of consultation is required from that point of view.

Another point I will raise in relation to the internal governance is the number of suspension. This issue has been raised with the Minister in the past. The numbers fluctuate. I am hearing about 160 and 170 gardaí who might be suspended on full pay. I totally accept that there could be reasons for a number of those to suspensions, but I sometimes wonder if it is proportionate. Are we talking here about potential criminal offences or minor misdemeanours that can be dealt with through an internal disciplinary process? In my last line of work, if you made a bad decision, it was reflected in your annual appraisal. For example, an such an appraisal could state, "In 2022, I displayed very poor judgment on two occasions when I did the following ...". Internal disciplinary issues should be maximised and explored here, rather than suspending people on full pay. We need as many gardaí as possible on the street where that is appropriate, although I totally accept that suspension might be warranted in some circumstances.

I do not think my final point was raised by any previous speakers. It relates to the fourth goal, which is the oversight of the national security framework. The latter is extremely important. I very much welcome the provision in the Bill which states that while An Garda Síochána has a role in national security, it is not the sole provider of it. While the Garda co-ordinates, the Defence Forces, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners are also involved. All these agencies should be feeding into an entity that has not been mentioned at all, namely, is the national security analysis centre, NSAC, which is being run by Dermot Woods. We heard a lot about it three years ago, but we have not heard a great deal about it since. It seems to be a back-room office inside the Office of the Taoiseach. I do not think they have the resource they require. Dermot Woods is an excellent person. While I have never met the man, I have heard nothing but positive reports about him. However, he should really be functioning as the national security adviser to the Taoiseach.

I was grateful for the Taoiseach's honesty last week but I was also concerned about it. Deputy Bacik asked a question in relation to whether members or leaders of Opposition parties should get national security briefs on a regular basis. The Taoiseach, to his credit, was very honest and said that even he does not receive regular briefs in that regard. To me, that is a matter of concern. From a national security point of view, I welcome the appointment of an independent examiner, but we have a lot of work to do in that regard. We really need to empower the NSAC. We also need to empower Dermot Woods to carry out his functions properly. It should be his role to collate information from all the various agencies and keep senior decision-makers up to date. One of the big absences here - and I reckon I know why it is not mentioned - is that we do not have a national security strategy at all. We are probably the only EU country that does not have a national security strategy. One was attempted approximately three years ago, but efforts in that regard never really came to fruition.

On balance, I think the Bill is good. I look forward to debating the various amendments that will be tabled on Committee Stage. The key issue is that while we have a pretty okay Bill, it is matter of having resources to implement its provisions. I am not convinced that we have allocated the correct resources to An Garda Síochána to allow it to carry out its functions. I know it is not easy and it is not just money; it is really about people and boots on the ground. We desperately need more gardaí, and the best way for that to happen is to improve the remuneration package to keep in the people who are already in, and to encourage quality people to join thereafter.

See this speech in context