Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

While we are specifically speaking to amendments Nos. 61 to 63, inclusive, I will respond to some of the comments more broadly.

I, too, am an advocate for councillors and absolutely support the work of councillors. Not only that, I champion the work they do. I personally think we have some of the finest councillors in County Meath, and I am sure that everybody here will say that they have the finest councillors in their own county. I wish to acknowledge that the work done by councillors cannot be overstated. I also acknowledge the work that councillors do not just on joint policing committees but more broadly on a day-to-day basis. It is not the intention, nor has it ever been the intention, to exclude councillors from any new role, position or body and nor it is the intention to diminish anybody's role compared with what he or she currently has.

What are we talking about more broadly? At the moment we have joint policing committees, which have served us extremely well but they are limited to an extent in the scope and variety in which they can look at community safety. The Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland rightly pointed out that community safety should not just be a role for An Garda Síochána. Absolutely, the force has a vital role but for us to be able to really focus on community safety, there is a responsibility on the part of our State agencies, communities as a whole and our elected representatives working with organisations to come together and make sure it is a priority for absolutely everybody. That is really what we are trying to achieve with the community safety partnership. It is building on the work that is done whereby councillors will able to engage with State agencies. We are talking about two State agencies, namely, An Garda Síochána and the local authority. We will expand that out even further.

The objective is that in each partnership, we will have 30 members. As part of that you will have a set number of membership that will be set out, and they will have to be on the committee. That will include a chair and at least seven members from the local authority. That figure was chosen simply because that is the number we have on many of the other committees. There will be a member from the local authority, the HSE, Tusla and An Garda Síochána. There will be a representative of a youth organisation and one from education. There will be five representatives from community groups, including minority groups. As we have discussed before, that can include the drug and alcohol task force. Finally, there will be ten members who are not allocated. Thus there is the potential for up to 17 of 30 members to be local authority members, if that is wished by the community organisation or by the partnership or there may be fewer. I am not aware of any JPC with 17 councillors on it at the moment but obviously, there is flexibility within partnerships to make sure that anybody who is currently on a joint policing committee can be on the community safety partnership. It is about making sure that there is flexibility. So if somebody wants to be in the partnership, if community groups want to be represented on it and if there is a specific need in a specific area, then, yes, we have the main statutory bodies that we have to hold to account and we must make sure they are committed to from the educational, health and well-being perspectives. In addition, there is the opportunity for many others to be represented on the community safety partnership. It is not in primary legislation because nothing like this would be set out in primary legislation. The joint policing committees have not been set out in primary legislation. This will all be worked through in the regulations. As I committed to before Christmas and said all along, I will engage with all Senators here, my own colleagues in the Dáil and with representative groups that have an interest in this before the regulations are completed and set in place.

On the specific amendments, section 106 specifically talks about a national strategy to improve community safety. Consequently, the reason that I cannot accept amendment No. 61 is that this is about community safety and the plan for community safety.The amendment speaks about a specific role for councillors as part of community safety. We are not going to be doing that for any other membership, but it is very clear when we look at other elements of the Bill that the role of the councillor is included. It is clear and it is defined. There are least seven members and that can go up to 17. The role of the councillor is actually enhanced because we now have an opportunity for councillors, through the partnerships, not just to engage with the Garda on a regular basis but to hold to account the HSE, Tusla, and education providers in their area, as well as many other organisations. That opportunity is not currently available in that format, specifically focused on community safety.

In terms of timelines, the regulations will not be put in place so the partnerships will not be fully stood up until the Bill has commenced. We do not have a set timeline for that but it will be later on in the year. All of this will be worked through. It will actively be the case that there will not be a gap, so it will not be the case that joint policing committees will not be stood up by the local authorities. If there is a delay in any setting up of a partnership the joint policing committee can continue so that there is absolutely no gap and no situation where local elected representatives cannot engage with the structure that was there prior to the new structure being put in place.

From listening to everybody here, I think they support what we are trying to achieve, so that safety in our community is not just a role for the Garda or local councillors but that everybody should have a role in keeping people safe. There will be a statutory obligation on all of those involved here to engage and to be part of this.

I have a separate fund that was established, the community safety innovation fund, which takes money directly from the proceeds of crime and invests it back into communities. This will be available to the community partnerships also. That fund stands at €3.75 million. It has increased year on year. It is only in place two years so I anticipate that every year that money will be larger and that it will be available to the community safety partnerships. We are bringing through legislation on the CAB and its role, which will shorten the length of time - from seven years to two years - whereby we can have access to proceeds of crime. I hope that pot will continue to get bigger and that, through the partnerships, communities will benefit from that in many ways.

I appreciate everybody's comments. I will engage further once the regulations are being developed. Specifically in response to amendment No. 61, this is very much about the strategy of community safety itself, not any individual members on it, and it is for that reason that I am not accepting it.

On the second amendment to which Senator Ruane spoke, amendment No. 62, I think it is necessary for the Minister to consult with the Policing Authority or any person or group representing community interests prior to preparing and revising the strategy. Obviously the way it should be done is to prepare the strategy after having done the necessary consultation, but it is ultimately the Minister who is responsible for presenting this to the Government for publication. The amendment would change that and I do not intend to change it because I think it should be the role of the Minister to present this strategy, having obviously consulted all of the relevant people, many of whom have been mentioned here already.