Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the work undertaken by my dear friend, the late Dr. Vicky Conway, through the future of policing commission. Vicky dedicated most of her professional career to policing and criminal justice reform. It is important we keep Vicky's memory and her lifelong commitment to the pursuit of social justice with us as we consider this Bill and its impact on policing.

This is a massive piece of legislation which will have a wide-ranging impact on Irish society. I hope we will be given the time and space to engage with the Minister and officials on this Bill in a substantive and constructive way in the weeks ahead to ensure that the best possible version of the Bill enacted. On 18 September, we marked five years since the publication of the future of policing commission's report. Notwithstanding the extent of the recommendations made by the commission, we have been waiting a long time for the ensuing reforms. While this Bill does not make legislative provisions that act on all of the commission's recommendations, it is nonetheless quite ambitious in scope. For the purpose of today's debate, I will try to keep my contribution as focused as I can.

The first issue I wish to raise is something that directly contravenes a core recommendation by the commission. That is the retention of prosecutorial powers by An Garda Síochána. The commission was clear in recommending all prosecution decisions should be taken away from police and given to an expanded State solicitor or national prosecution service. The commission also recommended the practice of police prosecuting cases in court should cease. Doing so would create more space between gardaí and the courts and between the processes of investigation and prosecution, while also not hindering gardaí from undertaking front-line duties. I invite the Minister to provide the rationale for retaining these powers in contravention of the commission's recommendations and international best practice.

As an extension of that point but unrelated to the Bill, prosecuting gardaí are being consulted by the Irish Prison Service regarding the terms of release of people serving time in prison, known as the Garda view. It is my understanding that, in many cases, prosecuting guards are invited to give their view regarding the release of a prisoner, having had no ongoing relationship with the person in custody or insight into the rehabilitation. It does not strike me as appropriate that a guard whose last interaction with an individual could have been ten or 20 years ago and in a very different context might have an impact on whether someone who has served their sentence is released or not at any given time. This is something I will seek to come back to another day but may attach to the issue of prosecution.

The Bill provides for the merging of the functions of the Policing Authority and the Garda Inspectorate within a new policing and community safety authority responsible for the independent oversight of the performance of An Garda Síochána. As highlighted on Dáil Stages by a number of colleagues, there is a missed opportunity to include more robust provisions regarding the inspection of places of detention, including those within the remit of An Garda Síochána. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, OPCAT, is an international human rights treaty which aims to prevent torture and ill treatment in places of detention. Ireland signed that protocol in 2007 but is yet to fully ratify it. A key element is OPCAT is that unannounced inspections are facilitated but the Bill as drafted appears to restrict unannounced inspections of places of detention to circumstances where a memorandum of understanding has been agreed. This contravenes the submissions of both the Garda Inspectorate and the Policing Authority during pre-legislative scrutiny. I ask the Minister to explain this decision. Inspection of places of detention under OPCAT should be undertaken through a human rights lens. It is regrettable that references to human rights standards in relation to the inspection of places included in the general scheme have been removed in this version of the Bill.

I welcome the proposed establishment of community safety partnerships but stress the importance of their work plans being decided at a local level and not being entirely justice led. Strategies that work to promote community safety in one area might not work in another. We often hear people say those closest to the problems are closest to the solutions. We have to make space at the table for community representatives that do not necessarily fit the traditional mould. I am thinking of projects like Connect 4 in Tallaght, which does detached street work. It has made great strides locally and employs creative grassroots strategies to tackle grassroots issues. It goes without saying that these safety partnerships will need to be well resourced and we also need a clear picture of who or what body will ultimately have oversight of their work and how we will measure their effectiveness.

I have some concerns regarding the effectiveness and independence of the proposed office of the police ombudsman to replace GSOC. As drafted, the Bill places no duty on An Garda Síochána to co-operate with the proposed police ombudsman. This strikes me as a strange omission. I encourage the Minister and her officials to consider remedying it before Committee Stage.

Other legitimate concerns have been raised by GSOC regarding the independence and jurisdiction of the reformed police ombudsman, which I do not have time to meaningfully address today but which I may come back to on Committee Stage and Report Stage.As I noted in the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022 last week, there are an estimated 3,000 complaints made to GSOC annually regarding the conduct of the gardaí. However, a significant proportion of those are unresolved and only 2% result in sanctions. If we want to restore confidence in policing in Ireland, independent oversight and accountability are essential. The reformed ombudsman must be adequately equipped and empowered to provide this. Before I conclude, I would also like to stress to the Minister the need for increased investment in the reformed Garda ombudsman in order for it to be able to carry out its duties effectively. I know it is late in the day to be making asks of the Minister regarding budget negotiations but it is critical that the reformed office of the ombudsman is sufficiently resourced. Planning for this needs to start now and so I echo the call made by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties for a 33% increase in funding to the ombudsman annually over the next three years based on the estimated need to double GSOC's expenditure in the context of reforms proposed in this Bill.