Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Gannon was in possession when the debate adjourned and had 14 and a half minutes remaining. Deputy Catherine Murphy will take the remainder of that time.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following on from what my colleague, Deputy Gannon, said yesterday, I will move to the subject of the new independent security examiner proposed in the Bill. It is very welcome to see the independent oversight mechanisms being brought into this sphere. We are all familiar with the experience of looking for important information and having the words, “national security”, sometimes waved about like a get-out-of-jail-free card in response.

Of course there is a need for confidentiality when it comes to national security - I completely appreciate that - but no function of the State should be free from oversight. However, the restrictions placed on the independent examiner in this Bill as regards his or her independence and powers mean that it will fall short of the mark. The independent examiner must have access to all relevant information needed to fulfil his or her mandate to assess national security legislation in order to ensure that measures taken in the name of national security are proportionate and compliant with human rights law. Under this Bill, information can be withheld from the independent examiner to safeguard international intelligence sources. A large number of our national security issues - transnational crime, cyberattacks, gang crime and security issues in Northern Ireland, to name just a few - rely on intelligence from outside the State. That is a massive amount of information that could be withheld from the independent examiner using this clause in the Bill. If the Government is serious about the need for an oversight body, it needs to allow it to access the information the independent examiner deems necessary, as is done in the North, the UK and Australia. Obviously, we cannot have a starting point whereby we do not trust the person who will be the independent examiner. Maybe I have not got that quite right, and I would be happy to hear what the Minister has to say about that, but that is my reading of that aspect and my concern about it.

Another important aspect is the need for public transparency in the work of the independent examiner. The Bill states that information from the examiner will not be made public if the information would prejudice international relations. Very little information about national security will not have some impact on international relations, particularly with the UK or EU member states. I do not deny there is a need to be careful as to how information will impact our relationships with other nations, but maybe this clause is too broad. Sometimes making information public is the right thing to do, regardless of whether it annoys a neighbour state.

As for the proposed new policing and community safety authority, formed from the Policing Authority and the Garda Inspectorate, there needs to be more work in the Bill on their powers of inspection. Unannounced inspections are required under the optional protocol to the convention against torture. This Bill, however, seems to leave the detail of that power to a memorandum of understanding between the Garda and the policing and community safety authority, PCSA. I recall having a debate here when the Corporate Enforcement Authority was to take over from the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. A commitment was to be given to gardaí, and a wrangle about that went on between one Department and another for months on end. We were given a guarantee that there would be a memo that would make sure that it happened. That has raised a big question mark for me because this is an essential part of the body's functions and it is too important to be left to a memo. There has to be a degree of certainty in that regard. We have all seen the negotiations on these kinds of memorandums drag out - I have just identified one such example - and for this body to operate without the power of unannounced inspections would be unacceptable.

Another issue missing from the Bill is disaggregated data. There is reference to the obligation on the Garda to collect statistical information; however, this is a missed opportunity to require specifically the collection of disaggregated data. These kinds of data - age, gender, ethnicity, disability, etc. - are essential to keeping track of trends and patterns as regards crime, victims of crime and the use of police powers. The Garda is subject to the public sector duty and is required to assess constantly whether it is complying with equality and human rights standards and to identify areas that can be improved. Understanding what needs to be improved is not possible without those kinds of data being collected and appropriately stored.

The formation of all these bodies will require an incredible amount of effort and resources, which I hope the Government will be forthcoming in providing. I also acknowledge the impact the Bill will have on existing civil servants in An Garda Síochána, who will become public servants. Fórsa has stated that 93% of staff surveyed have grave concerns about the impact this will have on their terms and conditions. This is ultimately an industrial relations issue which should be dealt with through the proper channels. It is important to acknowledge the concerns of staff and to work towards a solution which alleviates their concerns.

Obviously, it is important that the Garda Commissioner has control over resources and deploys those resources, and I do not dispute that, but - and every single time I get the opportunity to say this I do so - I do have concerns about how those resources are deployed. I have talked to about four different Garda Commissioners in sequence about this point. I have met them. We have met them, a Cheann Comhairle, as a group of Deputies from our two constituencies in Kildare. The one thing the deployment of those resources does not take into account is population. It is not the only metric used to deploy Garda resources - obviously, there are the levels of crime in an area, deprivation and a whole lot of other metrics that would be used - but it cannot be ignored either.

For example, Kildare's population doubled between 1971 and 1996. Its population has doubled again since that time. This cannot be done without resources. People say they keep seeing housing estates but they do not see anything else. It is part of the reason people are discontented about those resources being stretched. I have looked at each of the policing plans that are produced - they are produced annually - and, to be honest, the ones I have seen have been copy-and-paste jobs. It is as if the publication of a new census does not matter. The Minister, Deputy Harris, is in an area with a growing population. The Minister who is on maternity leave is in the area of the country that has the lowest ratio of gardaí to the population, and she was until recently the Minister for Justice. Kildare has the second lowest such ratio. There is a sizeable difference, but I suspect that if one were to look at the Dublin area, Fingal would fall into that category too. The growth nationally has happened in that arc, from the Fingal area outwards and through Kildare and Meath. I think I looked at this not that long ago and the population increase was something like 41% in Meath, 39% in Kildare and about 40% in Fingal. Fingal has had 100,000 additional people over the past 20 years, over three censuses. That cannot be catered for without resources. We are giving the Garda Commissioner the authority to deploy resources, but the Garda Commissioner must also recognise that those resources need to match the population. I remember meeting one assistant commissioner and he told us that no divisional commander would voluntarily give up his or her resources and that the view was "what you have you hold". I think we both remember that, a Cheann Comhairle.

The problem is that there is an opportunity cost in that, and that opportunity cost manifests itself in the kind of policing we have. We have a reactive type of policing because we do not have the resources to be proactive. We are also putting gardaí at very significant risk because they are responding to calls, sometimes very dangerous calls, without backup and we do not have the road checks and so on.

The real deficiency is in community policing because we do not have the resources to go into the schools or to do the kinds of things that build communities. That is essential if we are to give the responsibility to the Commissioner. With responsibility comes an obligation. As I said, I do not miss an opportunity to make this point because resources are not just gardaí, as the Minister will know, but other resources too. As the population grows, we are playing catch-up the whole time. Whether it is in the largest class sizes in the country or HSE services, the same pattern is seen, and we have to change that. As I said, it is not the only metric but it has to be considered.

I look forward to the next policing plan now and the new census that is about to be revealed to see if it has made any difference. I have looked at the last couple of censuses - I have a fascination with numbers - but I did not see any difference before or after any of them. One should see that if one has a system that takes this into account. I hope the Minister will relay that point to the Garda Commissioner when they next meet. I will continue to drive both of them mad on this until the matter is dealt with.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill and its four main objectives of strengthening the oversight of An Garda Síochána, enhancing its governance, improving our national security infrastructure, and making the safety of communities a whole-of-government responsibility, which is particularly important.

It is timely that we are having this discussion given the context of the scenes of antisocial behaviour and deplorable attacks on gardaí we have seen and heard about recently. I commend my colleague, Senator Mary Seery Kearney, for the support she has given to her local community. We must call out this kind of behaviour for what it is - it is criminal behaviour. It is also leading to a growing discussion around the need for a whole-of-government and whole-of-community approach to our policing response. This is where the Bill comes in. This landmark Bill takes on the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. It will create a brand-new framework and brand-new approach for policing, security and community safety. It is really welcome that it has been developed with key stakeholders, including An Garda Síochána and the policing oversight bodies, to take into account the experience on the ground.

Gardaí are at the coalface of preventing and responding to crime in our communities. They also play a vital role in preventing harm, particularly to vulnerable people such as those who are homeless, have addiction issues or suffer with severe mental health difficulties. It is probably a lesser recognised role of the Garda but it is a vital one nonetheless. We must recognise, especially when it comes to these more vulnerable groups, that preventing crime and harm cannot be the sole responsibility of the Garda. A wraparound approach with a whole-of-government and whole-of-community response is needed. There must be a collaborative response from Government Departments, social and community agencies, local authorities and An Garda Síochána. This is what is needed. The Bill sets out to achieve just that by making the prevention of harm a clear objective of An Garda Síochána and also by enshrining community safety as a cross-government responsibility.

From my first-hand experience, I believe community involvement and collaboration in local policing is vital. The joint policing committees, JPCs, are a really effective way of having that collaboration between the Garda and community leaders. I am a member of the South Dublin County Council joint policing committee and I value the regular opportunity for collaborative engagement with gardaí, community representatives, public representatives and the council. When it is effective, this two-way engagement can really make change.

The Bill will replace the existing JPCs with new local community safety partnerships, which are already being piloted in many areas. From what I can see, these new partnerships seem to retain a high level of community involvement. I believe some of the pilots have a split of 51% to 49% in favour of community representation, which includes residents, local activists, local business owners, youth representatives and representatives of new and minority communities, which is great to see. The remainder of the representatives are from statutory organisations such as An Garda Síochána, local authorities, the HSE, Tusla and local councillors. I am confident that local representation is very strong in this new model. This is very important. Just last night in Rathcoole, which is in my area, a policing committee meeting was held for residents of Rathcoole, Newcastle and Saggart. Unfortunately, Deputies were in the House until very late last night and I missed the event but I understand it went really well. There was a good crowd in attendance, which shows the value that communities place on collaborating with and having access to An Garda Síochána.

I will make a point about the importance of community safety in relation to public transport. Public transport providers must be consulted on this Bill. The Government must realise the role of public transport providers as key stakeholders in community safety. We have to incorporate their knowledge and understanding of the challenges in this area and ask them for their ideas on how to tackle them. In parts of Dublin, safety on public transport is a major concern for commuters and the transport operators. In some cases the threat to safety is becoming a deterrent to using public transport. This does not bode well for our carbon emissions targets or for us as a society. It leads to an environment of fear in local communities. That has to be addressed and avoided at all costs. There should be a role for public transport providers in the new community safety partnerships. I ask the Minister to use their insights and ideas to shape how we build stronger and safer communities.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to speak on the Bill, which my party will broadly support insofar as it seeks to establish more and greater accountability in policing. We will propose amendments in the future.

The Bill sets out to achieve clear and effective oversight and accountability of An Garda Síochána. Sinn Féin welcomes this. It is clear that policing reform in this jurisdiction is needed and long overdue. I would like to see developments in transparency and accountability taking place here similar to those that took place in the Six Counties following the Patten report. Every modern country needs a modern police force whose work mirrors its standards and aspirations. It is only when policing is done transparently and with accountability that the necessary public trust can follow. This is vital in every modern democracy in the operation of law and order.

Our gardaí deserve much more support than they seem to be getting from this Government, which talks law and order but is not delivering enough in terms of supports, resources and personnel. I speak as the daughter of a garda. No matter his rank when he retired, my dad was always just like those ordinary gardaí on the front line serving their communities. My father loved his work and the communities he worked for. I grew up being really proud of my father's job. He and my uncle Morgan called it "the job". I remember only once being really worried about him when he was out of work, which was the day of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. I remember sitting on a pillar swinging my legs as I waited for him to come home, unlike the 33 people who lost their lives that day. I was only ten years old at the time. It does not bear thinking about to imagine what the children of members of An Garda Síochána worry about when their mammies and daddies go out to work.

This brings me to the contemptible shooting of Detective Inspector John Caldwell in Omagh, County Tyrone, in front of his son yesterday. This is an attack on the young people he was coaching in football. It is an attack on his young family and on the whole community of Omagh, where a PSNI officer, Ronan Kerr, was murdered in 2011. It is utterly reprehensible. I do not know the full extent of Mr. Caldwell's injuries but they are very serious. I wish him a speedy recovery and send my solidarity to his son and family, and the whole community.

With the rise in blatant hostility towards our gardaí and the violent and thuggish behaviour they face, we must acknowledge that we have a real crisis on our hands. In this State, gardaí face increasingly violent and thuggish attacks. One recent incident was life-changing and in another incident this week a garda was struck in the face with a bottle. Morale in the force is at an all-time low. I note the Minister will meet Garda representatives this week. I hope he will listen to them because nobody knows what ordinary rank-and-file gardaí need more than their representatives do.

We support, broadly and in principle, the Bill before us. If the people decide, as I hope they will, that Sinn Féin will be in government after the next election, we will be able to show them that we value our gardaí in more than just words.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The objectives of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill seem fairly laudable. The main purposes of the Bill are, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, to "recognise the prevention of harm to individuals, particularly those who are vulnerable or at risk, as an explicit objective of An Garda Síochána; provide a new coherent governance and oversight framework for policing that will strengthen both the internal management of An Garda Síochána and independent external oversight supporting clear and effective accountability; make community safety a whole of government responsibility by ... placing an obligation on Departments of State and other public service bodies to cooperate with each other in relation to improving community safety".

They are fine objectives. They may not be so easy to achieve but they are certainly good. If we are going to achieve them, the last couple are probably the most important. There are many things gardaí have to deal with, which often put them in situations of jeopardy, horrendous situations such as we saw in Ballyfermot recently and, even more appallingly and without any justification or rationale, what happened in Omagh. There are circumstances that put gardaí in jeopardy and consume much of their energy and resources, which they should not have to deal with. If we understand that all of government has a responsibility for creating the conditions where those things can happen, where public servants like gardaí or others find themselves in difficulty, sometimes in jeopardy or at the wrong end of unjustified abuse, then we need to take that notion seriously.

One issue central to that is the question of how we deal with drugs. It seems that the entire strategy that has been pursued for decades has failed abysmally. The Garda, communities and society generally end up picking up the pieces for that, with ever-worsening criminality and violence and young people being drawn into a world of underground criminal violence, with all the horrible impacts that has on the young people themselves, communities and, indeed, the gardaí who are fighting what is frankly a losing and unwinnable battle. It is long past time, for the sake of gardaí, communities, young people and society in general, that we recognised that the approach we have taken to this issue has failed and we need a fundamental rethink.

I strongly urge the Government to learn a lesson that society should have learned after the disaster of prohibition in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s. Whatever one may think about alcohol consumption, whether good, bad or indifferent, it was an utter disaster. It criminalised, at a stroke, two thirds of the American population. By definition, the criminalisation of something that half or two thirds of the population does makes half or two thirds of the population criminals at a stroke. Everybody who took a drink was a criminal. Everybody who produced alcohol was a criminal. They had to be because state laws said they were criminals. There had to be a criminal underground and once there was a criminal underground, there could not be regulation or oversight. Criminality, violence and the dark underworld that goes with all that became an immediate racing certainty. It is exactly the same with the approach of criminalising drug use. That is not to advocate for drug use or to make any comment about it but to state that it is a fact that it is not going away and that it is about time that governments woke up and recognised that fact.

Does anybody seriously believe that drug use will stop? If they do, they are entertaining a dangerous fantasy. It will not stop. If we think about alcohol consumption or cigarette consumption, any impact on those has been made through public health education and, arguably, although I do not agree with this, through pricing policy, which the Minister would probably have put more store in. It is certain, when we consider all the health damage that smoking does and the damage that alcohol does, including domestic violence, antisocial behaviour, issues the Garda has to deal with and the damage to individuals themselves, I do not think any serious person is contemplating prohibition as a response. It is long past time that we took the same view about illicit drugs because I think it is a war that cannot be won. At a stroke, it criminalises huge numbers of young people. It draws them into, and even adds an attractive mystique to, the underground world of criminality. We need to de-romanticise it by decriminalising it, bringing what it is into the open and educating people about the dangers and realities of it, and so on, so that we can have an adult conversation about these things.

Without being simplistic about it, because it is a complex problem with many complex issues tied into it, I believe we are going nowhere with the issues the Garda has to face, issues of community safety and so on, while we continue down the road we are on. It is obvious that the situation is getting dangerously worse. I do not want to dwell on this point too much, other than to say that it has been noted in communities around Dublin that some of the people behaving pretty shockingly towards immigrants and refugees have been tied into some of that stuff in an alarming way. That is a really dark and sinister development.

We urgently need to grow up and treat this matter in an adult way rather than driving it underground and simplifying it by saying there are criminals in some places. People are not born as criminals. They do not come out of their mothers' wombs as criminals. Situations, circumstances and Government policies ultimately produce those sorts of distortions, criminality, violence and antisocial behaviour. There are many other issues, including housing, lack of services, the alienation of young people and communities. To my mind, it would be the beginning of wisdom to move on from a failed policy and start to treat these things as health and societal issues and use the best tools, education and reaching out to the young people involved, if we are going to solve those problems. That is joined-up thinking. It would be doing the Garda, society, young people and neglected communities a favour so that we can start to focus on the things people really need.

I have spent a long time speaking on this but I feel strongly about it. I hope and believe, going by past experience, that the citizens' assembly will take these matters seriously. In some ways, the Government does not need to wait because, to me, the argument is a slam dunk. The beginning of wisdom is to say that the current strategy has failed and is failing in a dangerous and disastrous way. That is the first point I wanted to make.

I also want to make a point about housing, especially where people, kids in particular, are living in appalling housing conditions and uncertainty with the threat of being evicted, or they are living in homeless accommodation. I cite a particular case very often that is particularly poignant to me of a woman who says that, while not in danger of criminality, her teenage child's mental health is deteriorating week on week because she has been living with that child for four years in one room in homeless accommodation because they are over the threshold. Does the Minister know what her job is? Ironically, she works for Tusla looking after vulnerable children. Her child is a vulnerable child, let down by the State and living in emergency accommodation for four years. It is shocking. She is a very conscientious mother and I am sure she will do her absolute best to protect her child, but if we do that to a lot of children, do we expect good results? Do we expect anything other than things will go wrong for some of those kids, that their attitude towards authority, towards the system and towards the State may not be the best if they are treated like that? That is just one example but we need to think seriously about it.

Even the Ukrainian refugees are now being left on the streets. Despite all the declarations of solidarity with the people of Ukraine, we now have dozens of Ukrainian refugees, who are fleeing war, being put out on the streets of Dublin. That is another issue for the police to deal with. We solve these problems by basic things like housing, equal access to education, equal access to health, giving people a decent start and not putting obstacles in the way of some that are not put in the way of others. If the Minister wants to garner a certain loyalty to society, that is how he will do it, and if he does, he will save the Garda and communities a lot of trouble.

One of the problems for the Garda is that if it does not do those things, it ends up in a confrontational situation with communities rather than assisting them. Through no fault of its own, the Garda ends up in a confrontational situation, and that produces its own problems. We witnessed one example of this at the demonstration on Saturday where activists, who had helped build a demonstration against racism and against the lies of the far right and who were handing out leaflets arguing against racism and for solidarity with refugees, were harassed by gardaí and had their leaflets taken from them. What sort of waste of Garda resources and time and energy is that? If we are talking about governance structures and Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, governance and so on, it will be interesting, given we have lodged a complaint with GSOC and written to the Garda Commissioner, to see the progress of that, how it all works at first hand and whether what the Minister is proposing here will improve all of that.

Certainly, looking at the George Nkencho case, it does not bode terribly well. It is now two years since George Nkencho was shot and we still do not have the GSOC review that was promised. This was an horrendous situation where a young man with mental health issues was shot and we still do not have the GSOC review, thereby producing suspicion on the part of his family that there are other motivations, that he is being treated differently because he was black and so on. I do not know if any of those things are true, but his family deserve justice and truth and they have not got it to the extent that, as I understand it, they have had to take legal proceedings against the Garda Commissioner. That is not necessary if, first, bad things do not happen because we do not have that confrontational situation between the Garda and the community and, second, we actually have structures that allow the processing of complaints without any prejudice and where there is a genuine determination, if you like, to get to truth and to justice.

I want to use my last few minutes to give a particular shout-out for the civilian staff in the Garda who have made their views very clear, and the Minister should be in no doubt about this. The 3,000 civilian staff in the Garda, who are also members of the Fórsa trade union, do not want to be re-categorised as public servants from being civil servants. They have said, by a margin of 98%, that they want to remain civil servants. They did not join the Civil Service to be permanently part of An Garda Síochána. They get deployed to An Garda Síochána, but as civil servants they also have the right to seek transfers elsewhere, and many of them do want to go elsewhere. Everybody else in the Civil Service has the right to move around different Departments, and these staff are a different category within An Garda Síochána. They are not sworn members; they are civil servants. They have a different relationship, if you like, with the State and with the community than the sworn members of An Garda Síochána and they do not want that to change. The Minister should respect that.

One of the points the staff representatives make is that, rightly or wrongly, gardaí may end up in confrontation with trade union members in situations of industrial action and, as Fórsa members, the staff do not want to be in that situation. As civilian members of the Civil Service they wish to have the right to strike, to support our fellow trade unionists if there is industrial action, and not to be put in a situation where they are in any way in a confrontational situation with other trade union members and with other workers. They are absolutely right to wish that and assert that and the Minister should respect it.

The Fórsa representatives say there was no serious consultation with them and certainly there was no acknowledgement of the concerns they raised. They believe the re-categorisation from being civil servants to being public servants will be seriously deleterious to the conditions of employment of staff and possibly to their pay, and in the long term they do not want that and that is perfectly okay. They want the distinction between sworn members of An Garda Síochána, if you like, the front-line Garda Síochána, and the Civil Service role they play to be maintained. There is absolutely no difficulty with that and the Minister should respect them, engage with them and accede to their wishes and concerns in this regard. They point out that with the provisions of GSOC investigations and so on, they as civil servants are already subject to very significant oversight and investigation for doing things wrong. They can lose their jobs, be dismissed and so on and so forth. They do not feel it is right or necessary for them to be subject to some new regime when they are fundamentally a different type of employee from front-line gardaí. That is absolutely reasonable, so I hope the Minister will listen to their pleas. I am sure he has heard them and I am sure he has read their concerns. They are very clear in what they want and do not want. It seems to me unnecessary, and an amendment of section 54, I think, should be made to take on board their concerns.

Very lastly and with the slight indulgence of the Minister and the Chair, I will mention another group of Fórsa workers who are not a million miles away, namely, the service officers in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am not quite sure who is their boss but I will say it anyway. They have very low levels of basic pay and they do not get much in the way of allowances for the often very significant additional hours they have to put in providing a service to Members in various respects. I believe there are ongoing negotiations about all of that but they are not very happy with what has been offered to them. I ask the Minister and the Government or whoever is up there deciding these things to engage in a more proactive way with the service officers and try to listen to their concerns in terms of the improved pay and conditions they are seeking.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas to engage with the service officers.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe they were listening.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas are not one and the same thing. Maybe we might remember that when we are scheduling business. If all of us are genuinely concerned about the service officers, we might not stay here until midnight as often as we do.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take that opportunity to give a shout out to my Aunt Lorraine who agreed naively yesterday to mind my kids until 8.30 p.m. yesterday evening and ended up being there until the best part of 00:40 a.m. I think family friendly arrangements would definitely be beneficial for everyone in this House.

I will start my contribution in an area I had not planned. This is to follow Deputy Boyd Barrett’s point on the issue of drugs. So much of crime and safety, my experience of it and the experience of the places I represent, and those places that I do not represent, revolve around the illegal drugs industry. It has agency capture of huge chunks of my estate. I made a controversial statement here that I felt that the drugs industry probably employed more people in my constituency, as an industry, than some of the big employers. That sounds like a controversial thing to say. It sounds as though I am running down my own area. I am not. I am trying to give a picture of the scale of the number of people who are actually involved in it, sometimes at a really young age. The way we all approach the Citizens’ Assembly is in many ways the same as we approached the debate around the repeal of the eighth amendment. Everybody will have different views on this. We may make value judgments about whether we think something is positive or negative. We know that drugs have a negative impact on your body. Everything you put in your body has a negative impact.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Except water.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Except water perhaps, but we know the negative impact drugs have. However, similar to that debate about the issue of the eighth amendment, we also know the reality and complexity of life and what is in our control and what is not in our control. Rather than us fleshing it out in full today, because it is not really the principal focus of the debate, and I do not often agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett, but on this issue we do need a mature discussion.

Whether you believe taking a particular substance that is currently illegal is a positive or a negative thing, there are many people out there in dire places of addiction. The Minister referenced this in his comments. They need our support. They need a doctor, nurse or counsellor. They do not need a barrister and a garda to help them to solve their problems. There is also that middle bit about what is acceptable use and is it acceptable, and all of the issues around regulation. However, the first step of decriminalising the person is going to be the ultimate foundation of how we help people in addiction.

We have to be very careful that we do not allow international lobby groups on behalf of synthetic substances to become involved in influencing what the legislation would be either. They are not necessarily the friend of anybody with addiction either. I will not focus on that but literally from aggressive begging outside supermarkets to small burglaries in people’s homes, the dealing happening on corners where it would not have happened on in the past, to very serious gangland shootings, the drugs industry is the bane of the Garda’s life. It is the bane of the safety of communities. It has a massive impact. We should be directing more of our resources towards the industry and less towards those people who find themselves in problematic drug use.

The Joint Oireachtas Committee report is a valuable resource. I encourage everybody to examine it because there is a great deal of evidence in it. Many people are talking about this issue. It is going to be a challenging discussion for Irish society. We need to give people the space perhaps to not know about it and to come to it and learn more. There are plenty of places where they can do that. Fianna Fáil published a three-episode podcast that has a range of different people’s views. If you do not feel you know enough about the subject, have a listen to those three episodes of 40 minutes and you will come to the conclusion that we need to change what we are doing.

In regard to community safety, the governance structures and the community input are two key elements. This Bill is a big step forward. However, there are a couple of areas on which I have concerns. The first is the structure of joint policing committees, JPCs. Dublin city has four sub-committees which effectively act like a county JPC in any other county, but they are technically sub-committees of the city-wide JPC. In my area the city-wide JPC really concentrates on the inner city or the city core and the sub-committees are effectively joint policing committees for my area. I want to make sure that is not lost in the transfer. The joint policing committees are really important in regard to scaling up a problem. For example, the scrambler bike problem was coming up time and again at the local policing fora. Gardaí love the local policing fora which are technically sub-committees of the JPC. For that to become a policy solution, it came up through the local policing fora, onto the JPC. There were Oireachtas Members on that JPC. When the Oireachtas Members worked together it became legislation. I know that Bill will be passed. I want to make sure that there is a connection between the Oireachtas and the JPCs. I am not certain that Deputies are guaranteed to have a place on joint policing committees in the new community safety partnership. I know that will be dealt with by regulation.

I also want to make sure that every councillor gets an opportunity because it is a responsibility of councillors to listen to community safety issues and to be on JPCs. In some cases it is suggested that there might be a selection of councillors from the area. It is very difficult to get a selection of councillors to represent the full range of views that are offered among a group of councillors.

The last concern is about youth services, Tusla and the other agencies, particularly the HSE. They all play into the area of community safety, mostly the HSE because of the drugs issue, but they should be at the table. Unfortunately, partnerships were set up by my party in the early 1990s. There was a strong commitment to local area partnerships but they have been diluted over time because organisations such as the ETB and the HSE have withdrawn from them. This was mainly because they had become service level agreement, SLA, contract deliverers for Government services rather than the previous partnerships which, in many ways, is what the Minister is setting up here. If we compel them to be on these bodies they have to turn up. They have to send senior people and they have to make sure that they are following up on directions. It is unfortunate that currently on the JPC, An Garda Síochána is left holding the can for all the State agencies.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to add my voice to the expressions of revulsion at the shooting of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell, who was shot at the sports complex on the Killyclogher Road just outside Omagh as he was involved in coaching with his son there, as well as other kids. We see this as an attack on him, his family and the wider community. Those who did it have nothing to offer anybody within the community. Our thoughts at this time are with John and his family. Hopefully we will have better news into the future. There is no excuse for what happened. There is absolutely no place for it. I just wanted to voice that.

Many of my colleagues have already spoken about the support they have for this Bill. We will be bringing amendments. We have all spoken many times in regard to the necessity and the importance of governance, oversight and accountability. We have heard many gardaí speak about this. I spoke many times to a number of superintendents and chief superintendents in County Louth. They have always said that they always wanted to know if there were issues that needed to be put on their agenda in regard to how the community was interacting with gardaí and anything that could be improved upon. Therefore I think that is a benefit across the board. We have seen attempts at streamlining the service. We obviously find that useful, whether it relates to civilianisation or beyond that, to some of the thematic policing such as giving responsibility to certain superintendents in relation to crime, disciplinary proceedings or traffic. Everybody can see the logic in that. However, I want to raise the issue of joining the Louth and the Cavan and Monaghan divisions. That is like having huge urban areas such as Dundalk and Drogheda in this huge geographic area that also includes such places as Mullagh in Cavan. I am not so sure that it will work perfectly. It needs to be revisited. All plans that have been put together need to be revisited.

In regard to community policing I can only speak in the highest, glowing terms on community policing in Dundalk and the interaction that there is with many communities that are suffering anti-social behaviour and so on, with the community policing unit. The problem is there is not enough of them. That is the situation we are in at this point in time. We need to get real about that.

I add my voice to what has been said previously. If we are talking about crime and the issues we are dealing with, we need a citizens' assembly to be braver than we have been - by that, I mean the political class in general. We need to take on the twin issues the Minister has spoken about, namely property and drug criminality. The Minister's comments were useful in the sense of the conversation.

We all know this needs to be health led. An attitude of "Just say no" is not going to work, but that does not mean we cannot say every thing has an impact. I could probably go on for another 20 minutes, but I do not think the Ceann Comhairle will be that indulgent today.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think you read my mind.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I add my voice to those of previous speakers who condemned the attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell during a brutal shooting incident in Omagh last night. This was an attack on his community, on the people of Omagh and on peace. We cannot go back to the bad old days of violence. My thoughts and prayers are with Detective Chief Inspector Caldwell and his family and colleagues.

I welcome this debate. I will be supporting the Bill. It marks a new departure for policing in Ireland, giving effect to the recommendations made by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. It provides a comprehensive and robust framework of accountability, governance and oversight of policing and security, and a new approach to community safety. The Bill embeds a key principle from the commission’s report that preventing crime and harm and making our communities safer does not just rest with An Garda Síochána or with the Department of Justice. It will be most effectively achieved as a whole-of-government responsibility, with Departments and agencies, such as the Departments of Health and Social Protection, social services, education authorities, local authorities and the Garda, and the wider community working together to prioritise and support the overall objective of safer communities.

In line with this, the Bill will establish local community safety partnerships. These will develop local safety plans that are tailored to the priorities and needs identified by communities. The partnerships will provide a forum for State agencies and local community representatives to work together to draw up plans to improve community safety in their own areas. The Bill also strengthens the oversight and governance of An Garda Síochána and provides for the establishment of a new policing and community safety authority, incorporating its own inspection function. It provides for the complaints Ombudsman to be given greater independence and expand its remit, as well as a new role of independent examiner of security legislation to further strengthen independent review of security legislation and the delivery of security services.

Deputy Berry just raised the issue of national security, and I agree with him. There has to be a wider examination of that whole aspect from a national perspective. The Bill was subject to extensive engagement with stakeholders, including the Garda Commissioner, the policing oversight and complaints bodies, the Oireachtas and civil society.

I am a member of the joint policing committee, JPC, in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. The JPC provides a forum for the public to engage with senior gardaí on a regular basis about issues of concern to them and to highlight issues impacting their communities. It is hoped, though, the new local community safety partnerships will provide a forum for State agencies and local community representatives to work together, to listen, to prioritise and to act on those concerns. Having been on the drugs and alcohol task force previously, I raise the issue of the attendance of some of the State agencies. If an agency is assigned and required to attend, they should be in attendance on a regular basis. I compliment the senior gardaí within our district, as well as senior management within the councils, on the time they dedicate to this.

The partnerships will build on the structures of the JPCs, in order to develop and deliver a modern dynamic forum for the future. Local community gardaí provide an invaluable service to community across this House. We hear of that time and time again in this Chamber and elsewhere where people compliment the work of their local gardaí. On that point, it would be remiss of me not to single out a community garda in Dún Laoghaire, John Paul Durkan, who is set to retire in the next few weeks. Garda Durkan has worked with the local community in Dún Laoghaire for more than two decades, working with sports clubs, community groups, other organisations and community events. He, along with his community garda colleagues, is ever-present there to assist and support those community organisations. I pay tribute to him for his dedicated contribution to policing in the Dún Laoghaire area. I wish him and Dympna all the very best as they move on to the next phase of their lives.

The Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill is a significant piece of legislation. It will modernise and update current legislation. This is welcome, but we must also be conscious of the need to support gardaí with more than just legislation. Budgets need to be increased, equipment, transport and premises need to be modernised and gardaí must be given the tools they need to effectively police our communities. Earlier today, we spoke about housing and the need for bigger communities and more housing. This will obviously put more demands on gardaí, and we need a new station in Cherrywood.

I want to support Deputy McAuliffe in what he said about the need to ensure that Deputies and councillors have the opportunity to serve on those policing fora. I hope the Minister can provide those assurances in his reply, and I look forward to hearing about his plans in respect of that matter.

Denise Mitchell (Dublin Bay North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. This is a complex Bill to which there are many moving parts. There is a significant change involved here, with the Government seeking to completely replace the Garda Síochána Act 2005 with the legislation before us. While we are supportive of the Bill, it is important to note that it is not without its critics. I know that matter will be discussed on Committee Stage.

One focus of Sinn Féin's submission in 2018 was the need for reform of community policing. Restoring the number of community gardaí back to 2010 levels was one key suggestion.

They are key figures when it comes to a community-based approach to policing and their absence is notable in many communities across Dublin. In the Dublin metropolitan region, the number of community gardaí has almost halved from the 510 who were in place in 2009. In my constituency, Dublin Bay North, there are 22 fewer community gardaí than there were a decade ago. We all agree that a good community garda can make a fantastic difference to our areas.

This did not happen by chance. It represents a policy shift that has left communities without much-needed resources for too long. It is also the reality of a force that is facing a recruitment and retention crisis, and we need to get a handle on that. We need to get on top of the reasons gardaí are exiting the force. The Garda Representative Association stated earlier this week that it is witnessing a new wave of young trained gardaí resign rather than serve in certain parts of Dublin. As I think we all agree, that is damning.

We just have to look at the appalling scenes in Ballyfermot the other day, but this is not unique to Ballyfermot. We have all seen the increase in antisocial behaviour in all our communities. In my community, people are being intimidated daily. There is open drug dealing and there is the issue of scrambler bikes running rampant around residential areas, as can be seen throughout the city. In my constituency, three people were seriously injured by those on scrambler bikes. Please God, there will not be any more, but I will not hold my breath. I see these bikes being driven daily in packs on main roads, zigzagging in and out of traffic and up on one wheel. I acknowledge that the Road Traffic and Roads Bill 2021 is on Committee Stage in the Seanad, but I plead with the Minister to get that passed as a matter of urgency.

My party colleague, Deputy Martin Kenny, will bring forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will be open to suggestions in that regard. This is important legislation that will oversee the Garda for decades, so it is vital that we get it right.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the aftermath of the financial crash, as part of the Government's attempt to balance the books through wide-ranging austerity measures, a staggering 139 Garda stations were closed between 2012 and 2013. It was a Fine Gael-Labour Party Government that closed these stations. Five of those properties were sold between 2021 and 2022, which raised more than €1 million for the Exchequer. This averages out to more than €200,000 per property. Most likely, they were sold off at below value given the prices that properties are going for today. Not only were there closures of Garda stations, some stations were downgraded or subsumed into larger stations. This left ordinary citizens of this State without a Garda station in their local subdistricts. Stations that had been open for 24-hour periods were downgraded and opened for only a few hours in the daytime. All in all, the then Government's downgrading of Garda resources amounted to a colossal attack on all rural communities in particular.

What rural communities lost when their local Garda station closed or was downgraded was the physical presence of their local Garda members. Now they get the odd passing patrol car, with no community garda involvement. This decision by the Government of the day was a mistake. The lack of proper consultation with the public was glaring, similar to that which happened when decisions were made to close our local post offices and banks. While some would say some of these stations were unproductive, others would argue they gave a sense of security to the local population and impacted on how safe a community felt. Locals, especially those in rural areas, must now travel further to gain access to their local Garda station, whether to make a complaint or get a form stamped or signed. While some stations were not fit for purpose due to the lack of proper investment, many were upgraded, only to be closed by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. Although those in government maintained this type of restructuring was needed, many rural communities were exposed to the dangers of increased criminality and antisocial behaviour. Rural communities were left exposed and vulnerable. The decision to close these stations was short-sighted, with no consideration for the drastic impact on local communities.

Let us take, for instance, even a county as close to Dublin as Wicklow. More than half of Wicklow's 17 Garda stations have fewer gardaí to tackle crime in 2023 than they did in 2013, while more than one quarter have fewer staff than they did 12 months ago. Ten years ago, a total of 328 gardaí were working in Wicklow stations. In December 2022, there were 308, representing a drop of 6% in the Wicklow Garda workforce. An analysis of more than 560 Garda stations found that almost one quarter had suffered a drop in Garda numbers in the 12 months to the end of December 2022. The lack of a Garda presence in rural areas is leaving people living in fear. Even farmers living in low-crime areas are fearful of being targeted in the form of theft, coercion, illegal dumping or trespassing.

The closure of rural Garda stations during the recession was identified as a significant contributor to the exacerbation of social isolation in rural areas, according to a 2019 report released by the then Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice and Equality, which suggests community policing has been undervalued and marginalised by successive governments. The report recommends the deployment of more community gardaí to the affected areas and the establishment of a rural Garda task force to tackle specific issues. Community policing must be at the core of Irish policing and should not be viewed as a marginal or specialist activity. The report made several other recommendations, including more funding for text alert schemes, a review of policing and other agencies along the Border and the creation of a new rural crime classification to track trends and rural crime overall. It called for proactivity in addressing problems within communities to become the organising principle of police activity, rather than reacting to crimes committed.

Another issue relating to criminal activities includes the need for a dedicated State solicitor for west Cork to replace Malachy Boohig, who retired recently and whom I wish the very best. Jeremiah Healy, of Healy-Crowley Solicitors, in addition to his role as State solicitor for north-east Cork, has been acting as State solicitor for west Cork. As the Minister knows, there are 500 km of coastline in the south west. The former State solicitor in west Cork, Malachy Boohig, in his 36-year stint, was involved in prosecuting some of the country's biggest smuggling cases, with a combined street value of more than €1 billion seized. It is very important that a State solicitor be put in place for west Cork, and it is astonishing that a system is not in place whereby, when we know somebody is going to retire soon, the area would be given prior indication that a replacement would made. The issue is causing great disappointment in legal circles in west Cork.

I am the secretary of a local community alert group. I appreciate that the Minister cannot inject life into everything, but somewhere along the line, those groups will have to get some serious consideration. I acknowledge there are Neighbourhood Watch and business associations, which are important elements involving the Garda working with the local community, but many community alert groups have almost died off since Covid emerged. I pay tribute to those who have spent years of their lives going out on long, cold nights, fitting in calls and keeping people happy in their homes. They may have had a two-year break and, having spent the past 30 or 40 years doing this, they might have felt it was the right time to pass on the job to someone else. Unfortunately, however, it is not easy to find others to replace these good people.

An injection of life needs to be put into community alert, and that might have to come via Muintir na Tíre. There was a meeting recently in west Cork, although I missed it because I was in the Dáil, and one of the members of the community alert group, who was a chairperson or a secretary, pointed out how a replacement garda was needed in the community. She was informed that there had been a garda there for two years, so something is wrong somewhere. A disconnect is starting to appear in local communities. There was a significant drive previously to get community alert groups to the forefront and, in fairness, they delivered in a voluntary capacity, with the Garda, of course, given it is always with the Garda. Gardaí attended the meetings and worked with the local community and, if there were any concerns, whether they were raised by young or old, they nipped them in the bud. I often say that if young people go wrong, they can easily be brought back around if the appropriate effort, care and kindness are shown to them.

No one in this world is perfect.

I mentioned the text alert scheme earlier. It was actually a brainchild of mine about 15 or 20 years ago. People thought I had two heads on me when I first mentioned it at the time. It has become a very important scheme now. Communities are concerned. In fairness, I have to admit that crime rate in my area is fairly low. There is no point in saying any different. At the same time, cattle are being stolen in other parts of west Cork. It is concerning if that is the type of activity that is creeping in. There was a vehicle down in Mizen Head recently and in fairness to the local community, it moved pretty quick. When the Garda went to the people in the vehicle, they said they just wanted to walk around and have a look at people's land and property. West Cork is approximately 70 miles west of Cork city. It was very nice of them to come down in the night to take a walk around - it was night-time, too. We have a fair idea of what was going on there. Thanks to the alertness of the local community people were on top of the game.

Carrigaline Garda station is outside by constituency. Independent Councillor Ben Dalton O'Sullivan has been fighting bravely. Imagine a Garda station as big as Carrigaline not manned most of the time by day and by night. It is an astonishing situation that the population of Carrigaline is left without a garda at very important time. I was just saying to Councillor Dalton O'Sullivan that independent councillors brought that to the fore and continue to do so. Others are following suit now. There needs to be an understanding that Garda stations offer a lifeline to local communities. Whether it is in Schull, Castletownbere, Clonakilty, Cork or Carrigaline, it is important that they are manned. It is important that they link up back to the community. I always believed in the Garda. That is gone well and truly now but there was a big fight years ago that the garda who was appointed to the community lived in the community. In those communities they were very safe when that was the case long ago. Unfortunately now they could be 60 or 70 miles away. That is not for me to argue now, however. It is an argument for another day. It is very important that Garda stations are manned continuously and that community gardaí are not taken away from particular areas. They should be there working continuously with communities, community alert groups and neighbourhood watch groups, which keep people safe in their homes. I plead with the Minister to take a serious look at the community alert groups. I am concerned that these groups, which are a lifeline for rural communities, are starting to slip away.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The complaints body of An Garda Síochána, GSOC, will be renamed the office of the policing ombudsman, with redesigned processes and greater financial independence. The body itself will be restructured and the current three-person commission will be replaced with an ombudsman and a deputy ombudsman. Glossy Bills are not going to fix the serious problem we have in this country. Ar an gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil do na ghardaí go léir. I want to thank the vast majority of the members of the Garda Síochána. There is a very fine line between the wrong people and anarchy. We saw what happened last night in Omagh, and we must condemn that out of hand, a sordid attack.

Our Garda Síochána have been welcomed, but they have not been supported by successive Governments. The Bill is all fine and dandy. It contains lovely flowery language. The Minister probably got consultants to design it, write it up and everything else. We are told that the Bill will establish an office of an independent examiner of national security modelled somewhat on the UK equivalent with extensive oversight and adjudicative powers. I do not have any faith whatsoever in it. We have had systems. We have had An Garda Síochána which has served us well.

We have at the moment a community policing structure. I will be attending a meeting of Tipperary JPC committee tomorrow morning. What does the Government do to us? It sends our chief superintendent to County Limerick and go dtí an Clár, in Ennis, no disrespect to an Teachta McNamara. He is probably two and a half hours away from most parts of Tipperary. We always had a chief superintendent in Tipperary. It is this new grandiose plan again, which is a disaster. We are so scarce in gardaí in Tipperary it is not funny any more. I would not want to be saying it here a lot of the time because we would be telling the wrong people and they would find out. Take Carrick-on-Suir, which is located in Clonmel district. There are three rosters operating since Covid, which the gardaí will tell us has been a successful roster. There are thoughts of putting it back up to four. As it stands with three, they do not have enough members in Carrick-on-Suir, which is a 24-hour Garda station, to fill one roster. I pay tribute to Garda Pat Kelly, who retired recently. That is an alarming situation in a town that has plenty of problems and, never mind the town, the district covers a huge geographical area as well.

We can have all the purpose of this Bill, to strengthen the governance of An Garda Síochána including through the creation of a non-executive board of An Garda Síochána. I will put the paper away because I will get annoyed reading it. I know it is all lovely, designed like the super plans the Government has for different building developments. It is not worth the paper it is written on because it is not going to happen. What we needs are boots on the ground and support for them. Where there are wrong boots on the ground that are offensive and do things wrong, they need to be weeded out and they are there as well. They are a tiny minority but they are pernicious. Look at Limerick, where we have allegations against gardaí who have been suspended from duty for so many years. It is totally unfair to them and their families. Either they should be brought to court or let back working. They are being paid at home because they have allegations against them, which is enough of a suffering for them. It must be dealt with and not pushed under the carpet, going on and on, back and forward, hither, thither and nowhere.

I have experience of GSOC and its forerunners, and I have little faith in them. I was contacted by a constituent who made a complaint about intimidation from a member of An Garda Síochána 13 months ago. His complaint is still languishing there 13 months later. There was a superintendent appointed to investigate it and the member the complaint was made about objected and said he was acquainted with some of the people. That is no excuse for it not to be dealt with. There were two young men who lost their lives off Helvick Head 13 or 14 years ago. The Garda investigation, it was with the Marine Casualty Board, who were unfit and unable, had no investigative powers really and did not do it. The Garda Síochána stood idly by. We had more meetings with the Garda Síochána in Dungarvan, and with chief superintendents and assistant commissioners, all for nothing and the families are waiting for answers. It is going on that length of time now and no answers. The anguish and the suffering, no closure. How long is a piece of string? That is what has happened them. They have been left languishing there. I salute Anne-Marie O'Brien and her family for persisting with this case. There are hundreds of other cases like it.

It is a pity the Minister, Deputy Harris has gone because I was going to ask him to meet with a family from his own constituency, the Temple family. Lisa Temple and her daughters were mercilessly dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night by a large number of men a year ago under cover of darkness. There were two gardaí sitting in a patrol car outside who refused to help. They were supervising the visit. Something similar happened out in Balbriggan as well. There have been other evictions and other horrible takeovers and repossessions where the Garda should not be there at all. They are a peacekeeping force and should not be aiding and abetting bailiffs and marauding gangsters who are acting as security men with no proper security, nothing short of thuggery being carried out. We need that weeded out completely. In the Balbriggan case, those involved parked all their vehicles in the local Garda station. Just imagine. In the Temple case they refused to intervene. I want the Minister for Justice to examine that case and root out the wrong. A small number of gardaí are doing so much damage to the reputation of the force. It is not funny; it is quite shocking. All these glossy Bills and proposals are useless.

Australian police commissioners advertised in recent times for Irish members of An Garda Síochána and equivalent members in England to join the forces out there. Most of our gardaí have degrees. The Australian authorities got 800 applications in 24 hours. Does that not tell us something? We are standing up here the past three or four years telling the Taoiseach and the Ministers that there is something wrong and that gardaí are exiting the force. They are beaten, battered, bruised and intimidated. I refer to the good gardaí. The wrong ones I have no truck with. They should be rooted out because they are only tarnishing the name of the force. They should not be supported. There are excellent gardaí in Tipperary. In Cahir, we have an excellent community team of Jenny Gough, Judy Davern and Philip O'Sullivan. They held a fabulous community event in Cathair an Iascaigh three weeks ago tonight and brought in 250 people. This was the 24th year of it. They are excellent people who do tremendous work.

That night was worth its weight in gold ten times over, but we do not have the numbers. Garda John Walsh is replacing the late, great Sergeant Niall O'Halloran, who served us so well. He succumbed to cancer and lost his life at a young age. People such as Garda Walsh are doing well but have no backup or support and are isolated. Recently at the Moyle Rovers premises in Clonmel, Tipperary, people stated marauding gangs were terrorising them. There may be but one bean garda or male garda driving a squad car down a road at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock the morning. The criminals know well what is going on. There is no one there; there is no one in the station, and people are waiting for calls. People are trying to get passports verified and losing out on their hard-earned holidays because there is no one to answer the phone in a 24-hour Garda station. The passport officers ring three times. We need root-and-branch reform and to support the gardaí, not tie them down with red tape. We need to let them out on the beat.

There is something in my notes about establishing the secretarial side and not having gardaí doing that kind of work. I welcome that also because we need boots on the ground. I do not know how many recruits are in Templemore at the moment. There are very few, a fraction of the number who should be there. Every time we ask a question here, we are told how many are in the force, but they are leaving with injuries and stress and are retiring early. A female garda who came to Clonmel some years ago was a top achiever but she ran out of the force. I understand she made allegations of bullying and other issues but she left the force. Imagine losing members with her potential. They have degrees. When they have degrees, they climb the ladder pretty fast, which is good, but it leaves the squad cars with one member in them. It leaves Garda stations with one member or no member. The Government tells me the vagabonds, rogues and villains do not know this. Of course they do. I totally condemn what happened in Finglas and other areas. There are many such areas.

The North Face shop on Grafton Street, just over the road, has been burgled four times in the past three months. It is shocking. In Dublin, we do not have the numbers to deal with this. Anyone can see any night of the week what is going on in our city and town centres and the lack of respect. Housing, mental health and all the other issues are not being dealt with either, so we are aiming for a perfect storm. We are in the teeth of it and will be unless the Government does something about it, not pile platitudes, and gets the Commissioner to acknowledge that his members are not being properly and safely supported. I put this to the Garda in Thurles three years ago and I was treated with disdain by the present Commissioner. Gardaí are unsafe on their own in squad cars and Garda stations. I know of a case in which a garda was told to stay in the Garda station, lock the door and just answer the phone instead of going out on the street on her own. There were no members to go with her. Gardaí are held up with court cases and everything else.

The Prison Service leaves an awful lot to be desired. There is significant blackguarding and skulduggery going on in sections of the Prison Service and a blind eye is turned to it. The intimidation of good prison officers by rogues and mobs is rotten, especially within Limerick Prison. It is disgraceful. People's lives are being destroyed and wrecked and we turn a blind eye to it.

We opt for certain investigation channels but the fox is investigating himself. The fox is minding the chickens here. We need proper people with teeth to have proper investigations and support their gardaí.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the information of the Dáil, the Minister had to step out to deal with an issue to do with the shooting in Omagh. He gave his apologies ahead of doing so.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was going to refer to that because I wanted to begin my contribution by unequivocally condemning the attack on Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell last night in Omagh. It was a cowardly attack and an attempted murder of a senior officer in front of his son and other young people, as I understand it. I am pleased, however, that the PSNI has made several arrests. I am equally pleased that our Minister is involved with his British counterpart as we speak. I know all Members of the House will join me in wishing Detective Chief Inspector Caldwell a speedy recovery and in desiring that his family be supported at this time. The attack reminds us of the fact that, despite 25 years of peace on this island, that peace is fragile and requires all our efforts to maintain and preserve it. It also reminds us of the risks members of An Garda Síochána the PSNI take every day in the course of their service to our communities.

This Bill will provide for significant changes to the method of policing in Ireland and will be a milestone when passed. I commend the Minister, his Department and his officials on their drafting of this comprehensive Bill, which reflects key recommendations stemming from the report published by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. Among the changes it will introduce will be the development of a new policing oversight body, reforming the way allegations against gardaí are handled, and the introduction of a new non-executive board of An Garda Síochána. Having sat in the 31st Dáil during an especially difficult time for An Garda Síochána, particularly when it came to whistleblowers and allegations about this, that and the other, which matters found their way into this House, the Committee of Public Accounts and indeed the justice committee over the years, I believe it is important to continually reform the methods of oversight, not just of An Garda Síochána but also of all State institutions.

These changes will modernise the operating structures within the organisation and bring gardaí closer to how other public bodies operate. The changes will ultimately allow for an enhanced mechanism to aid in the governance of the Garda. They will allow for a more dynamic model of organisation for members at all levels while, I hope, striking a balance between oversight and support – for example, through the non-executive board – and not overreaching or interfering in security operations. In particular, I welcome the new office of community safety, which will support local community safety partnerships and facilitate what I hope will be an improvement on the joint policing committees. These local partnerships will allow for tailored responses to issues affecting individual communities – an important step in the efforts to prevent and tackle crime. These will, I hope, build momentum behind our goal of delivering stronger and safer communities.

The Minister rightly recognised in his opening remarks yesterday that a large amount of Garda time is spent on matters not related to crime, including responding to events involving mental health issues. It is appropriate that resources be given to members of the Garda and that they have the means and support from other State bodies to deal adequately with these circumstances. This should include a greater linkage between the Garda and the relevant service providers, such as addiction services, mental health services, and healthcare providers. I hope that in the months and years ahead, we will improve the supports we provide to members of An Garda Síochána at an individual level. As a member of the justice committee from 2011, I believe continuous professional development and support courses for members of the Garda are imperative.

The professionalisation and civilianisation of the force are very important, but equipping individual gardaí with the tools they require to do the best job possible in our communities is almost as important as the structural changes we hope to make to the force itself. Therefore, we should provide greater resources for mental health supports, peer support networks and other mechanisms so as to recognise the impact that the work of gardaí can have on their personal well-being.

This is underscored by several high-profile attacks on members of An Garda Síochána in recent months. We must never allow these attacks to become regular or to be tolerated as part of the job. An attack on the Garda is an attack on the State itself and all its citizens. It must not have a justification, and the perpetrators of such crimes should face the full rigour of the law each and every time.

We are living in a time when a small minority is emboldened with a sense of impunity, and this manifests in acts of antisocial behaviour, the targeting of minority communities and, as I have mentioned, attacks on An Garda Síochána. This is a societal problem, one that requires a response from the whole of society. It is not just the job of the Government, Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, local authorities or gardaí themselves because the issue is a societal one with a societal solution.

We have seen the emboldening of certain groups, including gangland actors, who feel they operate on a different legal plain from the rest of us. Let there be no doubt that the Government will support An Garda Síochána in its efforts to crack down on criminal gangs and all those who participate in their activities.

In my remaining time, I want to touch upon a matter that many Members are raising, namely having gardaí available on the beat, on the street, in their communities.

We must ensure that the ever-increasing numbers in An Garda Síochána nationwide are reflected on our streets. The constant churn and fluctuation in certain communities is extremely problematic because local knowledge and personal contact and relationships are hugely important assets for individual members of An Garda Síochána.

Unfortunately, as policing needs are identified in certain communities, other communities suffer a reduction in numbers. This can have a detrimental effect, not just in terms of the statistics but also in terms of how safe people feel in their homes. That is particularly applicable to older communities or where older individuals are living.

As part of this Bill, it is ever more important that we emphasise the continuity with An Garda Síochána. How members are allocated and retained in communities should really form a core part of our mission for the future of An Garda Síochána.

Chris Andrews (Dublin Bay South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The need for reform has been acknowledged for years. This was further highlighted in the Report of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland published in 2021. The Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023 is a move in that direction.

This Bill was dealt with extensively in the pre-legislative scrutiny stage with many proposed reforms criticised by many stakeholders in the committee. That being said, there are many positive steps in this Bill that will bring about long overdue reform and create effective oversight and accountability for An Garda Síochána, which both gardaí and the public will welcome.

This Bill sets out to abolish local policing partnerships and introduce local community safety partnerships. These new local community safety partnerships will have more defined powers, including setting priorities locally. While this is a welcome improvement, important detail of how this will look in practice is lacking. Like everything else, the devil is in the detail and so we need to see the detail. We need to see an acceleration in the freeing up of An Garda Síochána members for administrative and office work in order that we can have more members out in the streets and engaging with the local community.

I have raised in this Chamber on many occasions the concerns of inner-city residents around street violence and other street crime, with City Quay and the Cabbage Patch being prime examples of what strong community engagement from An Garda Síochána and Dublin City Council committee can achieve. These are two positive examples in the south inner city.

Much work needs to be done and increased resources are needed. To keep up this work, however, local gardaí will need to be given proper resources. When it comes to policing our communities, we cannot allow the scenes that were witnessed at Ballyfermot to be repeated. To see gardaí surrounded and assaulted by gangs on scrambler motorcycles was chilling and stark. It is important to acknowledge the commitment and work of the gardaí who were there on site. Their professionalism is to be lauded. To be able to carry out their duties with the pressure they were under is a credit to them and the force. This animal-like behaviour by the individuals on scramblers was completely unacceptable. These individuals feel untouchable due to the Garda policy of do not engage and do not pursue. Front-line gardaí run the very real risk of being prosecuted for dangerous driving should they feel the need to pursue and engage these criminals. The policy of do not engage and do not pursue in my view and from speaking to gardaí is having a demoralising impact on rank-and-file gardaí. It is not hard to understand that when there is an incident like what happened in Ballyfermot or the many other incidents. If a garda tries to intercept a particular person on a scrambler, they will be in more trouble than the person on the scrambler. It is hugely frustrating for gardaí. Like I said, it is not hard to see why it is getting increasingly difficult to get recruits for the Garda when they feel that they are being held to account whereas the people on the scramblers are not. The policy of do not engage and do not pursue has to be changed. It was changed in London and it is it much more effective than to let these thugs on scramblers do what they want.

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

I welcome the Bill. It is maybe not quite as revolutionary as it is being portrayed but it does nevertheless mark advances. One issue in particular that was discussed at pre-legislative scrutiny, which I am glad to see addressed, is the current statutory provision whereby the Commissioner is required to bring certain matters to the attention of the Minister. However, there is also a vague reference to "any other matters that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, should be brought to the attention of the ... [Minister]".

I would have thought that was inherently open to abuse. It would seem to me that it has been abused. I was very surprised by the manner in which a relatively minor road traffic offence, which is not to say that road traffic offences are minor but this was a minor one on the scale of road traffic offences, that was alleged in respect of a former European Commissioner ended up being brought to Cabinet and from there into the media. That does seem extraordinary by any stretch. I am glad to see that clarification was provided as to how it made its way to the Minister and, of course, from there to Cabinet. However, it does certainly suggest that political policing would be possible under the old statutory regime. I am glad to see that has changed to the extent that section 133 of the Bill now states:

the Garda Commissioner shall keep the Authority fully informed of the following: (a) matters relevant to the functions of the Authority;

(b) any other matters that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, should be brought to the attention of the Authority having regard to its functions.

The Commissioner shall report such matters to the authority, which one would hope will depoliticise it to some extent, or at least remove the possibility for politicisation of An Garda Síochána.

I also have reservations about another section, which previous speakers have recited. I appreciate I am not the last speaker and that there are others to follow, but other Members have raised the appointment of members of Garda staff. In particular, section 54 states that:

Every member of the civilian staff of An Garda Síochána who is a civil servant of the Government immediately before the coming into operation of this section and who is designated by order of the Minister for the purposes of this section shall, on being so designated, become a member of garda staff.

I would have thought that is very problematic from the perspective of those who are affected by it. I have spoken to constituents who told me they did not join An Garda Síochána; they joined the Civil Service with normal mobility. I appreciate that we are accompanied in the House today by civil servants. Like all civil servants, they are open to mobility; it is a feature of the Civil Service. It is open to them to apply to move to other Departments and positions within the Civil Service. There are many disadvantages, of course, to being in the Civil Service but one of the advantages is that there is mobility across the Civil Service. That will effectively be removed from the current civil servants who are working in An Garda Síochána. Its personnel will be affected by this. That will have a very serious impact, and one that is extremely unfair. As I said, those people joined the Civil Service.

The other issue of concern is section 55, which discusses superannuation and provides that:

The Minister [which is the Minister for Justice] and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, [may] make a scheme or schemes for the granting of superannuation benefits to or in respect of any person appointed as a member of garda staff or any person who, on becoming a member of garda staff, does not become a member of the Single Public Service Pension Scheme.

That is only an enabling provision. It does not mean it will happen but, of course, based on past experience, such provisions are there for a reason. I would be shocked if it is not availed of so that members of the current civilian staff of An Garda Síochána who are civil servants do not end up with a different superannuation scheme to persons who are now their colleagues in the Civil Service.

That would be unfair. Of course, promises will be made and unions will be consulted, but it is noteworthy that Fórsa, the union that represents the majority of these staff, has not been consulted so far. It is a mistake that the Bill has reached this stage without a far greater degree of consultation. In any event, consultation will take place, staff will be assured that they will not be treated any less favourably in future, guarantees will be given and so on, but we should recall that similar guarantees were given to civil servants in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs who became employees of An Post and Telecom Éireann, respectively. Their experience would suggest that guarantees are worth little. Over time, they have been treated entirely differently from civil servants, particularly in terms of pension benefits. A different PRSI rate is also applied to them. One assumes the rationale for the latter is that it compensates those companies for the greater pension burdens they took on. The staff are not getting greater pensions, though, which begs the question as to whether the different PRSI rate amounts to state aid, which would be contrary to EU law and is an issue that may or may not arise in future. The benefit that the Government has in this regard - by "Government", I do not mean the Government of today, but successive Governments, which have adopted similar policies - is that there is an ageing staff and people are no longer in receipt of pensions because they are dead or are at an age where they are not able to conduct what I am sure would be heavily resisted litigation that would take a long time and could have to make its way through adjudication beyond these shores. These are significant concerns.

The Bill essentially creates Garda personnel comprising two different categories – civilian staff members of the Garda and gardaí. There will be a certain claim about levelling the playing field and everyone being treated equally, but that will arguably not be the case. Indeed, I hope it will not be the case when it comes to the right to strike. One of the Bill's more troubling aspects is that section 59 of the Garda Síochána Act is replicated in full in section 98 of the Bill, whereby a person "is guilty of an offence if he or she induces, or does any act calculated to induce, any member of An Garda Síochána to withhold his or her services". This essentially amounts to a ban on the right to strike for members of An Garda Síochána. As the Minister of State will be aware, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI, through the European Confederation of Police, EuroCOP, to which it is affiliated, was successful in taking a complaint to the European Committee of Social Rights. It was found that there was a right to join a trade union, to engage in the normal industrial relations machinery of the State and, fundamentally, to strike. A similar complaint was made in respect of members of the Defence Forces through its European affiliate. That complaint was also successful, with the exception that it was found that members of the Defence Forces did not have a right to strike. Both of these findings have been studiously ignored by successive Governments. Before the Minister of State was a Deputy, I tabled a Private Members' Bill and was slightly disappointed that my colleagues in the Labour Party were not in a position to support it at the time, but they were in government with the Minister of State's own party.

In any event, it has been portrayed that decisions of the European Committee of Social Rights are not binding on Ireland and, therefore, do not have to be applied. That is a fundamental misconception of the rule of law and how it operates. If Ireland signs up to international legal norms, then it accepts that it will be bound by them. In debating legislation that is about policing, the rule of law and so on, to disregard blatantly a finding that Ireland was in breach of international law and its international legal commitments is problematic from a rule of law perspective.

From the perspective of industrial relations and ensuring morale in the Garda, it is even more problematic. While the ban on the right to strike in the Garda, insofar as it exists, is replicated from the 2005 Act into the Bill, there are also provisions in the Offences against the State Act that would make it difficult for gardaí to go on strike. They are also removed from the Industrial Relations Act. It appears that this provision will not apply to Garda staff in future, but it will remove them from the protection against civil liability in the event of withdrawing their labour.

No one, and least of all Garda representative bodies, is suggesting that gardaí should be able to stop working en masseand create a situation where there is no policing in the State. What I am suggesting is what is required by Ireland's international legal commitments, subject to adequate measures being put in place. I believe the Garda is a highly motivated group of men and women across the State and none of them would want to abandon their roles and leave Ireland without policing, but that does not mean that they should not be able to withdraw their labour in an organised manner that ensures that the policing function in the State continues to some extent. There is a constitutional right to withdraw your labour. What else do you have to bargain with if the Government will not listen? There is a perception within An Garda Síochána that successive Governments and Garda managements have not listened. There is also a morale issue in that regard, and one that the Government needs to address. One way to do so would be to bring Ireland into compliance with its international obligations. This is not a significant request and I will table amendments to that effect on Committee Stage.

I will turn to one or two other matters. Actually, that is the main thrust of what I had hoped to say. I ask that the Minister of State consider the industrial relations aspects of this Bill, both in terms of members of the Civil Service who are currently civilian staff in the Garda Síochána and the impact that the Bill will have if foisted on them without consultation, and in terms of the impact of continuing what has been found to be an unlawful restriction on the social rights of gardaí. For the latter to be enshrined in legislation in 2023 would be regressive, damaging to Ireland's international reputation and, most of all, damaging to the morale of the Garda. I ask that the Minister of State consider this matter ahead of Committee Stage.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a separate matter, I condemn in the strongest possible language the reprehensible and cowardly attack on and attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell yesterday in Omagh. It is difficult to think of a more cowardly attack than persons hiding in wait for a man who had devoted his leisure time to coach children playing soccer and then, when he was putting the soccer balls into the boot of his car, the cowards sneaked out and shot him. It was a disgusting and reprehensible attack. I hope he recovers. I hope the perpetrators are arrested, prosecuted and convicted and serve very lengthy sentences.

As regards the legislation before the House, I start by looking at the legislation we are repealing rather than at the Bill we are seeking to enact. The effect of the Bill, when enacted, will be that the Houses of the Oireachtas will have repealed the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and the Garda Síochána (Policing Authority and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015, both of which are excellent legislation. The 2005 Act put in place for the first time formal architecture for the operation and governance of An Garda Síochána. It established bodies such as GSOC and played a significant role in modernising An Garda through the past 20 years or so. That Act served the country very well for the period it lasted. The Government that was in power in 2015 deserves to be commended on the excellent decision made back then to enact legislation establishing the Policing Authority. One of the real successes of the past ten years in the context of policing has been the establishment of the Policing Authority, which has been very effective in ensuring the standards of An Garda are rising as it and members of the public want them to rise. However, there is a benefit in seeking to amalgamate and codify in one Bill all the laws that operate in respect of Garda governance, operations and inquiries, and that is what this legislation seeks to do. For that reason, I welcome it.

The major difference the Bill will introduce in the area of Garda governance is the establishment of a Garda Síochána board. It is an interesting development, one that was considered previously. In effect, the Commissioner will be accountable to the board of An Garda Síochána. Like the board of any public or private company, the Garda Síochána board will seek to supervise the operations of An Garda Síochána to ensure effective policing is being carried out. I note that, under the legislation, the board will be appointed on foot of a competition to be run by the Public Appointments Service, PAS, and persons will be recommended for appointment by the Minister. I could predict the type of well-meaning and well-qualified people who will ultimately be appointed to the board as a result of the PAS competition process. However, I urge the Government and the Minister to ensure the board membership includes representatives of communities that are directly affected by policing and criminal activity. We need to be honest in recognising that certain groups in society are more sheltered than others from the effects of crime. We have seen recent examples of certain groups and communities having experienced a torrid time as a result of criminality and antisocial behaviour in their communities. They are the people who are very much in need of direct policing to ensure they can live their lives in peace, as they are entitled to do.

Under the legislation the first board will include people whom the Minister appoints directly; it will not have to go through the PAS. I ask the Government and the Minister to include on the board people who are directly affected and who represent communities who are directly affected by the scourge of antisocial behaviour and criminality. I note that, throughout our legislation, the one thing that is completely verbotenwhen a new statutory body is established is that any member thereof would be an elected representative. We need to reflect on the fact that, in other countries, they have elections to police boards. Some countries even have elections to become commissioner of police forces. I am not suggesting we go down that route here but it is important there is community representation on the board of An Garda Síochána. I know there will not be direct elections to it but we need to reflect the fact that people within communities need to have their say in respect of policing.

An interesting point in the legislation relates to the appointment of the Commissioner. There is a new provision in the Bill for when a Government wishes to get rid of a Commissioner. Section 31 provides that when a Government wishes to get rid of a Commissioner or believes there are issues that may justify the removal of a Commissioner, it may seek the appointment of a judge to inquire into a certain type of behaviour by that Commissioner. That is an interesting and novel approach but I am not sure it is a very sensible one. It is not a good idea in general to use members of the Judiciary to engage in processes or functions that are not their primary function, namely, the administration of justice. We may find ourselves in a situation down the road where a Garda Commissioner facing removal from office may go to the courts, as he or she is entitled to do, to seek to challenge what the Government is doing. If there is an inquiry that has been initiated by the Government and which involves another senior judge, I do not know if that will be beneficial for the Judiciary in the long term.

Deputy McNamara raised an interesting point in respect of sections 35 and 36, which replicate sections 40 and 41 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and relate to the duty of a Garda Commissioner to account to the Government and the Minister and to provide information to the Minister. In effect, section 36 replicates exactly the old section 41. Section 35 is slightly changed from section 40 in that it elaborates on the circumstances in which the Commissioner is to account to the Government. The Commissioner must now account in respect of matters connected with the provision of policing services and security services by An Garda Síochána, whereas previously he or she was required account for any aspect of his or her functions. Like Deputy McNamara, I am concerned about the way that matters are sometimes reported by a Garda Commissioner to a Minister. Obviously we do not know the vast amount of information that is provided by a Garda Commissioner to a Minister, nor should we, but there have been situations where information has got out into the public domain as a result of it being provided by a Commissioner to the Government in the form of the Minister. It seems to have been suggested that minor transgressions that did not even result in prosecutions but were allegedly committed by politicians were reported to the Minister. That should not be happening. The Minister needs to reconsider whether a provision needs to be inserted into the legislation to ensure information on minor transgressions is not provided. I know a broad ambit is given to the Commissioner with regard to what he or she thinks appropriate to bring to the attention of the Minister, but it cannot be political gossip that may be of interest to the Minister. The only information that should be brought to the attention of the Government is material the Commissioner believes is important and necessary for the Government to know.

In the time remaining, I will refer to other aspects of the legislation. I am pleased section 80 replicates the fact it is a criminal offence for a member of An Garda Síochána to leak information. It is important for that to be expressly contained within the Bill.

Chapter 8 provides for special inquiries. All legislation is reflective of political issues that have arisen preceding the enactment of the legislation. Only a person who has been living under a rock would not be aware that, in the past five or six years, there have been many controversies associated with An Garda Síochána that resulted in commissions of investigation and a tribunal of inquiry. I welcome that the Bill provides for a special inquiry procedure.

I also welcome that we will have the police ombudsman, as it is to be known. In effect, the Policing Authority is going to remain. Part 4 provides for the establishment of the policing and community safety authority, and that seems to include the functions that were carried out by the old Policing Authority but also by the Garda Inspectorate.

I will conclude on the complaints procedure. I welcome the fact that frivolous and vexatious complaints made about members of An Garda Síochána will not have to be heard by GSOC but, rather, should be dealt with where they belong, that is, as an employment issue with An Garda.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I welcome the Bill, which seeks to set policing on a 21st century footing. Some of the things enshrined in it are probably long overdue, but it is very important they are now there. It is vital for any organisation to have a clear set of purposes set out in law, in addition to good management structures, strong external oversight, and a code of ethics. It is particularly important in an organisation that still tends to recruit members at the age of 20. People continue in that organisation, with very little new blood coming in, until they are aged 60. That creates the risk of a very inward-looking organisation that thinks about promotion and progression in very internal ways. The element of the Bill that clearly states the purpose of policing is prevention and community safety, especially safety for vulnerable people, is very important. I like the new modern management structures that are being put in place, the code of ethics and so on.

I will focus my few remarks on the new approach to community safety partnerships, which is very important and welcome. In my experience, community policing has been honoured more in a nodding way rather than through a genuine commitment to transform the way communities interact with An Garda. There has been too much staff rotation. Internally, community policing has not been valued sufficiently. People who are in community policing are not seen as the people who are on the fast track to promotion. It is not valued in the same way as other parts of policing and has suffered as a consequence. In this Bill, we are seeing a major shift in the way the Oireachtas is thinking about the role of police as regards communities and other public bodies.

This Bill represents a major change management project. It will be difficult. In the first place, it will be difficult to get Garda buy-in. It will be extremely difficult to get prioritisation by other bodies, be they local authorities, the HSE, education and training boards, ETBs, or higher education institutions, in seeing their role as supporting effective, safe communities that are properly policed, with opportunities and an order that allow people to progress. It will struggle to get organisations that traditionally think about things in a way that almost takes forever, such as getting a public light or CCTV put in or fixing things that have been broken. There has to be a cultural change whereby those things are done quickly and swiftly to show that things have changed.

Anyone who has worked in the private sector will tell you three things are needed to deliver serious change management: a clear mandate, effective authority and a budget. No private organisation would consider delivering change management without entrusting the leader of such change management with all those things. We in the public service put far too much faith in a few statements, perhaps put into law or regulations, driving serious change in the way people think and act. The Bill deals quite well with the first element, namely, the mandate. It is clear what the Oireachtas wants. It is also clear it is imposing statutory obligations on the HSE, the ETB or the local authority to get involved in this. However, I do not see either the authority to drive change or the budget to drive the innovation that will be necessary if this is to happen.

A commitment to a high-level strategy document and a programme is coming from the steering group and the national office. That sort of approach is fine if we have a well-worked out programme, are talking about implementation, and have a fairly clear idea of the timelines and the delivery requirements. However, if we are talking about path-breaking change that will require people to step out of their silos and look in a new way at communities and their need to be safe, secure and progressive, we will need much more than that. There needs to be a commitment by the Government to give both the authority and budget to drive change. When I look at the steering group, I very much see a senior officials' group, or SOG, as it is called. I do not see a dynamic, pioneering group led by someone with a passion to change things and with the sort of authority to break down barriers. I do not see the members of that group coming from individual Departments as pioneers of change. I see them described as officials from X or Y. The way those sort of organisations will think is to continue to defend the mandate of the host Department, not the mandate of the new organisation that is being set up. I have seen time and again that people will come and defend their silos. They will give a limited amount of attention to the subject but their attention is elsewhere. We could quickly see this become more box-ticking than the pioneering driving of change we need.

We need to think afresh about this group. It should have a short-term mandate. It should not last ad infinitum.It should have a short period to get a system that will be different up and running. It needs to be absolutely certain it will get the status of community policing in An Garda elevated to one of the top things it does. Key performance indicators need to be built in from the outset to show this will be different. We need to see priority given to breaking cycles in areas where we need to break those cycles. That needs priority from organisations such as education bodies, a commitment to support innovation, and a substantial budget that will fund the innovation we need to see. The innovation could be in many different forms. We have seen many of the very successful initiatives, such as those in Darndale in my constituency, are things like sport, culture, festivals, youth outlets, diversion programmes and access programmes. These are quite different from the line management that could easily go into this steering group and will think of it in much narrower terms. That is why there has to be a substantial fund to allow communities to bubble up with their own ideas and be creative in the approach that is taken.

The proposed local structure is good, as is the idea of having a plan, having wide consultation in the community, setting key performance indicators, and requiring collaboration and co-ordination. That will not happen at local level, however, if there is no pioneering, innovating scope to draw down funds to do new things at national level. This will be as good as the creative energy we can harness within the community and public bodies. We will create a much better environment for that sort of creative thinking if there is money to fund the initiatives and if there are leaders of this regime who are willing to go down the road with unconventional initiatives. Certainly, any unconventional initiative has to have tests. It has to prove itself and be given a short period to do so, but we should be willing to innovate in communities.

The structure at local level will have to have an independent chair, chosen for his or her creativity and the confidence he or she has within the community. It must also have champions coming from the local organisations, not just officials. They have to be champions who want to see something different done, similar to the broken windows strategy that was famously applied in New York. It was about people doing their jobs in a different way. We need to make sure this initiative triggers that sort of creative thinking.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to contribute. I commend the Minister on the Bill. This is a very worthwhile direction of travel but a little more thought has to be put in to make sure it realises its potential.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill. It has the potential to be important legislation. I note that among the stated objectives of the Bill is "to provide for clear and effective oversight and accountability of An Garda Síochána". It also includes provisions to restructure GSOC. In all these matters we have to be informed by the experiences to date, including the experiences of our constituents and our communities, and recognise and accept where deficiencies have clearly been identified.

With the Minister here, I will refer again to one case that has formed my views as to where improvements to the transparency and accountability of policing and judicial decisions should be made, that is, the case of Shane O'Farrell. So many questions have arisen from that case that it should be very much formative in addressing how we create a policing service that is not only fit for purpose but also accountable to those whom it must serve. As I mentioned to the Minister last week, Shane was 23 years of age 12 years ago, when he was killed by a man who should have been imprisoned. That man, a short time before Shane was killed, was stopped by gardaí while he was in a car. He was actually moved from the passenger seat to the driver seat by the gardaí who stopped him. He was in a car without tax, insurance or NCT. The car was clearly not roadworthy. The man was in breach of several bail conditions. We can go back months and months previous to that point and we see failure after failure that have led to serious questions as to how somebody in that position could be at large.

Subsequent to Shane's killing, we have found revelations as to how the perpetrator in this instance was treated for a long time. All those revelations, however, were found by Shane's mother through her diligence. The State investigations and reviews of the case have been blocking tactics as opposed to facilitators of truth and justice for the family.

I wish to refer in particular to the GSOC investigation because what it meant for the O'Farrell family was simply a number of years of delay because it did not provide any answers. In fact, Shane's family are still looking for the GSOC section 101 public interest report, which was prepared by GSOC in 2018. It was produced on foot of a request by the then Minister for Justice in 2014 to carry out a public interest investigation. GSOC produced its report after four years, but the family, even to this date, have received a summary version only. They have not received the complete report. This is called a public interest investigation, yet the people among the public who have the most interest in it still have not received it. There is also the section 97 GSOC report into minor discipline, which was provided to the Garda Commissioner on 29 January. That has also been refused to the O'Farrell family.

GSOC claims to be independent. The question the O'Farrell family and many others have raised is, if this is the body that is to provide oversight and accountability of the actions of the Garda, how it is that so many families come out of the process feeling they have suffered a second injustice.

Furthermore, this Dáil, as I have previously mentioned to the Minister, alongside the Seanad, voted in favour of the establishment of an independent public inquiry into the circumstances and the issues I have raised. Instead, a scoping exercise was conducted by the former judge, Gerard Haughton. We know that that report has now been compiled. Again, however, the number of questions that have arisen as a result of the diligent work Lucia O'Farrell has done in memory of her son Shane, in pursuit of justice for him, and in pursuit of the truth that will and should assist us all in deliberating Bills such as this one, must be and can only be answered through an independent inquiry.

I again urge the Minister to pursue that line. If we are to give clear and effective oversight and accountability of An Garda Síochána, and if we want that to happen in order for the Garda to continue to be held in the esteem in which it is held in communities across this State, we will need to learn from previous mistakes.

I will leave it at that, but I will keep raising this issue, as will others, until we get to a point where the demands and requests of the O'Farrell family are heeded.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I send John Caldwell my best wishes for his recovery. Our thoughts are with him and his family.

At a meeting of the Committee on Public Petitions last April we were joined by representatives of GSOC. During their contribution the chairperson recognised the level of changes this Bill provides for, especially in the composition and mandate of GSOC. It was noted at the time that, following on from the Bill, what is planned to replace GSOC, the office of the police ombudsman, will have additional powers and functions. The increasing complexity of cases was pointed out, as was the fact that a particular challenge faced is not only in constantly replenishing staff but also in getting staff who have the specialist expertise needed. That is a challenge the wording of a Bill alone cannot resolve. It is a matter of engagement, recruitment plans, the attractiveness of positions advertised and, ultimately, how this Bill is put into effect once finalised.

It was also noted that adequate technological backup will be needed if the Bill is to be fit for purpose. Such are the complexities of carrying out investigations in a world where technological advancements, both commercial and civilian, are progressing so quickly. If we are to address the many concerns we have heard about as regards lengthy investigation times, addressing those shortfalls must be a priority.

I would like to find out more about the establishment of the national community safety steering group and the national office for community safety. We have seen local areas fearful of criminal and antisocial activities. Gardaí are doing their very best, but the flow of information from the gardaí to the communities and vice versais crucial in delivering clarity on issues and not leaving concerns open to misinterpretation or vulnerable to misinformation. I note the comments the Minister made yesterday on Part 3 of the Bill in which he spoke of the various strands of community engagement. There is a lot here, and there is potential for a lot of good here. I would be interested to see the finer details that will emerge as to how these bodies will function, their remit and the type of community engagement that will come out of this. If this is to be a success, we need to go back to real community policing, whereby a garda is left in a community long enough to build up a relationship with it and trust can be built up between both.

I wish to point out the need for a particular focus on rural crime and farmyard theft. Rural communities face enough challenges at the moment with changes to farming practices. They must be protected from further financial obstacles through a focus from top to bottom on rural communities and the protection of rural businesses, including farms and agricultural contractors, from the targeting we have seen in recent times.

I appreciate the roll-out of the property marking scheme. It is one important measure to take. Given the increased costs of doing business right now, however, I call on the Minister to ensure that an adequate focus on farms and the rural communities they keep going will be given particular attention as these community strategies are devised.

Finally, there is the matter of civilian staff. Civilian staff have expressed concerns to me as to how the proposed changes may affect their work conditions and entitlements. There is dissatisfaction with the lack of consultation with unions on this matter and what is seen as the unilateral imposition of these changes. Civilian staff fear that their terms and conditions of employment will be changed by legislation without proper agreement or negotiation with their union, Fórsa. This cannot be left unaddressed by the Minister like it has been to date. I call on the Minister to engage with staff and unions further and to heed their fears and concerns.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin welcomes any change which will ensure clear and effective oversight and accountability of An Garda Síochána. In particular, we welcome the restructuring of GSOC to an office of the police ombudsman. The complaints system has long needed reform, but the proof will be in the implementation of these changes. GSOC is understaffed and does not always enjoy the co-operation of An Garda Síochána as it is currently constituted.

An updating and streamlining of the existing system for the handling of allegations of wrongdoing concerning members of An Garda Síochána is welcome, including the extension of all of this to Garda personnel.

A number of speakers referred to the incidents that happened in Ballyfermot. I am from Ballyfermot and that is not the Ballyfermot or the people I know. That is not my relatives, not my aunt, not my uncle, not my cousins, and not the people I know who live there. The vast majority of people in Ballyfermot have no time for this but there is a need to look to areas where there has been consistent underfunding, consistent deprivation where communities feel they are being left behind, and every time they open the paper they only ever see something negative about them and about their community. That is not reflective of the people of Ballyfermot. That is not who they are. They do not want this. What they do want is more gardaí. It is the same in my own area. More gardaí are desperately needed.

In 2009, the Dublin metropolitan area north Garda division, which includes Balbriggan, Swords, Malahide, Lusk, Rush, Skerries, and a number of other areas, had 832 gardaí. According to a reply to a parliamentary question I asked last week, there are only 767 gardaí currently in the division. That is 65 fewer gardaí in the division since 2009. All the while, the population has grown by close to 100,000 in those 16 years. It will not be lost on people that when the population grows, they will get more Deputies. The likelihood is that we are going to have more Deputies in my area. With the greatest of respect to all Members present, myself included, I respectfully suggest that my constituents would rather see more gardaí than more politicians in their area. Yet, while the number of Deputies is going in one direction, the number of gardaí is going in the opposite direction, which is worrying.

There is only one superintendent covering a massive area. The position is based in Balbriggan and we are lucky to have him. He does a fantastic job but he is stretched to his absolute limit. Swords only has one inspector, according data I received in response to a parliamentary question, despite the town having a population of more than 40,000 people.

The Minister, Deputy Harris, will be aware that there is a big difference between being safe and feeling safe. At the moment, the people of north County Dublin tell me they do not feel safe. With the low numbers of gardaí, I cannot doubt their feelings on this. None of these problems are due to the gardaí themselves in the Dublin metropolitan area division; they are due to Government decisions and the inability to recruit and retain the numbers of gardaí needed throughout the State. Gardaí are, as we know, working incredibly hard and are doing their best. It is not lost on me that I now see members of An Garda Síochána in housing distress in my clinics in my offices in Swords and in Balbriggan. When I do my constituency clinics, I see members of An Garda Síochána in insecure accommodation with wages that cannot match the rents being demanded in north county Dublin. It is simply unacceptable.

In the few minutes remaining, I want to share with the Minister an email sent to me by one of my constituents who is a civilian Garda employee:

I enjoy the important role I play in ensuring that our local communities are kept safe and accessible for the public. However, the proposed changes to my terms and conditions, which would come as part of this Bill, are unacceptable to me and to my colleagues, specifically relating to the proposed change of civil service status to that of public servant. The justification given from the Minister is that this will unify the Garda workforce. This view, however, does not align with those of my colleagues and I. Additionally, our trade union Fórsa has undertaken widespread consultation, which shows that the overwhelming majority of Garda civilians do not want this or understand the need for this change to occur. It is worrying that my Civil Service status, along with the terms and conditions and protections that are associated with that, can be changed by legislation, without agreement or negotiation with the relevant trade union. Our union has strongly communicated through the industrial relations forums that this change is unacceptable and inexplicable. Unfortunately, however, my employer will not listen to our union on this. Because of this, I have been forced to approach my local TD.

Everybody knows that things have to change. The world of work changes for people all of the time. At the heart of that and central to it is negotiation, consultation and agreement. They cannot understand why this has been completely bypassed and why they are being told that their terms and conditions are going to be changed by virtue of legislation being brought in. There is widespread confusion. There is no understanding as to why this is necessary. There is no understanding as to how they are going to continue to be protected. If we consider the numbers that have applied for mobility - and they have closed what was known as "mobility" within the Civil Service for this particular group of workers - we see that it is panic. One can close off the mobility and one can say that they cannot go anywhere, and that is fine, but the fact that they are applying shows that they are gravely concerned.