Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----and then removed our ability to engage. Senator Malcolm Byrne referred to engagement at the level in question rather than just talking. I am glad Fianna Fáil took the space to engage because, right now, I stand here with amendments I withdrew earlier on so-called Committee Stage on the basis that I could resubmit them on Report Stage, during which the Minister and I were to engage. Now I cannot do that. I do not have that privilege right now. It is wrong for a party in government to make out as if it had to fight for power or to be at the table. It is in government with the Minister. Our opportunity to have engagement at the same level is between Committee and Report Stages. If the Members opposite were a bit more mindful of what they are saying, they would realise it is quite insulting to other Members of the House who are trying to engage but whose engagement has been made that bit more difficult through decisions of the powers that be. The Minister knows we agreed to discuss amendments because there were amendments that she was considering accepting. I withdrew them in good faith and with the intention of resubmitting them on Report Stage after giving the Minister time to figure out whether they were appropriate. I cannot do that now. Therefore, I take issue with the comments made. They really dismiss the work of the other House.

I have over 100 amendments. They do not all relate to local councillors but relate to many varying sections of the Bill. The Bill's scope is much wider than the issue that has taken up the majority of the time and energy in the Chamber.I just wanted to put that on the record.

Amendment No. 69 seeks to amend section 114(1) by inserting a requirement that prior to making regulations concerning the establishment and operation of local community safety partnerships, a review of the effectiveness and resourcing of the local community safety partnerships would have to take place. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that legislation does not pre-empt the outcome and evaluation of the piloting of the local community safety partnership model. The piloting of this model in the north inner city is currently under way. It seems that despite people welcoming the model of the CSPs, there are a number of issues with the implementation of the overall design. From talking to councillors in the area, it is clear that the partnership is poorly resourced. In the north inner city, NIC, there are only two staff members. It is next to impossible for such a small team to make progress on the difficult and diverse issues impacting safety in the area without clear support of other State and community organisations.

The partnership model cannot succeed without buy-in from State agencies and the community, including their representative organisations and, most importantly, the Garda. It is hard to see why State agencies would invest resources when there is no obligation on them to do so and there are few outcomes visible from this forum. This is a major barrier in the north inner city, as is the lack of engagement from the Garda. Ideally, this would be a forum for the community policing model to come to the fore and for the community gardaí to attend and work with the community. However, that is not how it currently works and it seems quite clear that the Garda does not support this model.

Finally, community will not buy in while there is no evidence of progress and it remains purely another talking shop. The NIC LCSP was part of a two-year pilot project. The evaluation of the pilot has not yet been published or concluded, so it is pre-emptive to roll this out further at this point.

Regarding community gardaí involvement and Garda diversion, let us keep in mind the following. Outside the NIC model, some communities, especially in the west of Tallaght, are being progressive and proactive in how they engage with young men in the communities on the streets in terms of detached street work. To the best of my knowledge, the local garda involved in the Garda diversion projects said he does not believe in the model of street work. Whether people are actually on board with the models we are implementing needs to be taken into account when looking at community policing and safety. I do not know why gardaí would not believe in the model of street working and engaging with young men where they are within their communities. That is just a side note to the previous point I was making on the NIC.

Amendment No. 70 is an alternative to amendment No. 69 which would give the Minister discretion to not make regulations, thus allowing for more time to evaluate the result of the pilot project.

Amendment No. 74 seeks to ensure that regulations made by the Minister may provide for the memberships of the CSPs to include a diversity of interests and perspectives under section 114(2)(c). The reason for this amendment is to ensure that CSPs are a multi-stakeholder forum based on the idea of community engagement and empowerment and are not solely law-and-order type forums dominated by the same voices. If we truly want a new approach, we need to ensure that the membership of the CSPs are diverse and representative.

I may come back with an amendment on Report Stage. As Members can see, my notes were prepared for the last session, in which we did not get to these. I will not have the privilege of coming back on Report Stage. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that because there are parts of the Bill we have discussed that the Minister could, if she wanted, bring amendments to in the Dáil. The Government has introduced amendments here, so the Bill will go back to the Dáil.

Amendment No. 76 will insert a new paragraph into subsection (2)(c)(iii)(I) which would require the appointment of members of the relevant local community to the safety partnerships. If we are to move community safety policy to a participation model, we need to make it absolutely clear that ordinary members of the local community should be entitled to be members of the safety partnerships. To not include this provision would indicate an unwillingness to move away from a top-down approach to community safety.

Amendment No. 78 seeks to clarify that elected members of the relevant local authority will be able to serve as members of the safety partnerships. I am happy to listen to the Minister’s response on this. Can she clarify that “member” is construed as an elected member and not the staff or chief executive of a local authority?

Amendment No. 79 seeks to insert a new paragraph into subsection (2)(c)(iii) which would provide that representatives of other local committees, partnerships and task forces, including local drugs and alcohol task forces and any other local structures working to enhance the lived experience within their communities, would be appointed to the CSPs. If we want the safety partnership model to work, it is vital that committees, task forces and groups that work daily to improve the lived experience of their communities have a dedicated place in this process.

Amendment No. 86 is similar to amendment No. 85, which was ruled out of order. Amendment No. 86 provides for the same as amendment No. 85. Amendment No. 85 sought to address the issue I raised around buy-in to the CSP model but it was ruled out of order. It proposed to insert a new subsection (3) into section 114 which would oblige relevant public authorities to engage with and provide resources to the safety partnerships. Amendment No. 86 was not ruled out of order. It has the same intention but does not contain an obligation to provide resources. The reasoning for the difference is simply to ensure that the issue would be raised.

Amendment No. 87 would insert a new subsection requiring that within one year of the passing of this Act, the Minister would lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas detailing a review of the safety partnership model, particularly looking at the issues of community engagement, resourcing, engagement of public bodies with safety partnerships and the overall effectiveness of the model in respect of empowering and strengthening local communities and furthering public safety.

Amendment No. 88 would insert a new subsection providing that the Minister shall not commence this section prior to the completion of an evaluation of the north inner city safety partnership pilot. This is another alternative amendment I urge the Minister to accept because it would ensure that we are not pre-empting any sort of evaluation of the pilot.