Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus roimh an mBille chomh maith. Tá a fhios agam nach mbeidh gach aturnae agus gach abhcóide sa Stát sásta leis an mBille ach, ag an am céanna, feicim an fáth go bhfuil sé ann. I understand the relevance of this Bill and the reason it is being introduced. In my profession, I have seen instances in which gardaí have had to react to violent circumstances, such as when a melee breaks out. Where members of An Garda Síochána are present in such situations, people turn to them, expecting them to react and solve the problem. There is no amount anyone could pay me to be the person to whom people turn to resolve the melee, the violence or whatever it is. I put on the record my extraordinary admiration for the work An Garda Síochána does and for the harm in which ordinary members put themselves while doing their job. It is not to be underestimated by any of us here.

That said, it always has seemed strange to me that there was a separate stream for compensation for gardaí. There was a list in the High Court that was set apart from other personal injuries matters, whereby gardaí had to go through a different process from that applying to ordinary citizens to get recompense for injuries they may have suffered, particularly in the course of what amounts to a workplace accident, albeit in extraordinary circumstances. "Incident" might be a better word than "accident" as the Bill refers to a "malicious incident" in one of the earlier sections. It also seems strange that there are so many Acts governing this issue and even this Bill to undo all of that is very weighty. It is substantial legislation and, as I said, I understand the intention behind it.

Notwithstanding that, there are parts of the Bill with which I have a difficulty, one of which Senator McDowell has outlined. An issue we have pushed in this House and as policy of Government is the civilianisation of certain functions of An Garda Síochána. We want to do away with a situation where a garda who might be very experienced, who has gone through the training regime of Templemore and all the other things that go with that and who, having put himself or herself through all of that to be a qualified person on the street, in a detective role or whatever it might be, ends up filling out passport forms or something like that. This is a terribly wasteful use of the resource that is members of An Garda Síochána. We all agree that we should move towards a situation where those roles are civilianised and there are administrators within An Garda Síochána who carry out that work, thereby reducing the administrative burden on the members who have gone through the qualification process.

It is difficult to say to a person sitting behind the desk in a Garda station when somebody comes in, kicks off and the person is assaulted, that he or she, sitting behind the desk, is somehow not in the same category as the person wearing the Garda uniform who is sitting 3 ft from him or her in the public office or another office inside the station. How can we ask people to be part of a civilian administration within An Garda Síochána while telling them they will not be accorded the same minium standards we are giving to gardaí in protecting their rights and providing compensation in the event of a malicious incident that resulted in injury to them? It does not make sense that any person working within An Garda Síochána, whether in a front-line role or otherwise, would not be covered by this legislation under the definition of "member" in section 2. Will the Minister of State give consideration to whether the scope of the Bill can be expanded to include all of those people?

It is welcome that the definition of "malicious incident" in section 2(1) includes former members. That is very important because it gives full scope to the Bill in terms of those who have worked as members of An Garda Síochána. I welcome that the definition goes beyond the strict parameters of someone who is wearing a uniform or whatever it might be.

We should not underestimate the effort that has gone into the Bill. The Minister of State has indicated that it will save costs, which is, of course, important. Notwithstanding that I am a practising barrister - the Minister of State is not currently practising but we have been in court together in the past - I do, of course, endorse the effort to reduce the State's legal bill in whatever way is practicable, not with a view to penalising people but with the aim of streamlining the process. This Bill undoubtedly does that. Effort, time and expense went into the generation of the legislation by way of the time given by officials and all the other processes that had to be gone through. I may be straying slightly from the subject of the Bill here but it strikes me as incongruous, therefore, that we have a situation whereby criminal legal aid has not been restored. I realise this comes under the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform but it is a justice issue. It is a matter the Department of Justice should highlight because it is creating problems within the criminal justice system that are equally important to tackle as those addressed in these provisions. Legal practitioners are still dealing with a massive cut, of more than a third in almost every case, in the legal aid that is available to them under the criminal legal aid scheme. This means that barristers and solicitors, both new and existing practitioners, are leaving that area of the law in favour of other areas in which they can make a sustainable living. It is incongruous that this problem persists given all the effort, time and attention that has been given to the issue on which the legislation focuses. I am not denigrating its importance, which I recognise, but there are other issues that are equally important to address. As someone who practises in the criminal area, I would even say they are more important. This is an area in which the Department of Justice should equally say to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

The streamlining process set out in the Bill reduces the time and cost to the State. There is no benefit to the people who are injured in having a lengthy, more complex or more expensive legal process. It makes sense to engage the services of the PIAB in addressing these issues. Previously, a Garda compensation claim had to go through the list in the High Court, thereby raising the level of that case beyond what it might necessarily warrant. It is appropriate now that the full spectrum of court jurisdictions are available to people who seek compensation. On the whole, therefore, I welcome the Bill. Its provisions make sense. I hope the Minister of State will take on board what I said about criminal legal aid and other gaps there may be in the provisions. I look forward to the passage of the Bill through the House.