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

I want to make sure I respond to each individual amendment. We are talking to quite a number of them. As Minister, I have always been happy to engage with every colleague in this House on any legislation. This section has grasped many people’s attention for obvious reasons. I have been happy to engage with all colleagues. I was happy to have the meeting with Fianna Fáil Senators and Green Party Members. I was happy to engage with my own party on numerous occasions and with Independent Members across this House on concerns they raised. There is nothing in this legislation to give rise to many of the concerns that have been raised.However, I am happy to provide clarification on many of the questions that have come from councillors, which they have also come directly to me about.

Section 114 is set out in the way it is because it is not the practice to stipulate the who or when or that level of detail in primary legislation. It was not done for the JPCs and it would not be right to do it here because there has to be that level of flexibility. These partnerships will work, and this is becoming apparent through the three pilots, on the basis of flexibility, depending on what an individual community's needs are, what the resources are, and what the particular focus is at the time. Even that will change. There might be a particular problem in a county that will be addressed through resourcing and investment and, when it is no longer a problem, the county will move on to the next issue. The dynamic on the partnerships will also change, as will the chairs and membership. It is important that it be that flexible and is not tied down in primary legislation. It has always been the case that this detail will be set out in the regulations. As I said before Christmas, I am very happy to engage with Members in both Houses, and with the representative organisations, before the regulations are put in place and before that is made absolutely clear.

Speaking to some of the amendments, the challenge in respect of amendment No. 68 is that it would require the Minister to consult with local authority associations, in addition to other relevant Ministers, prior to making these regulations. This specific section of the Bill covers high-level consultation. It is required to make sure that other Ministers and their Departments are aware of any regulations that will potentially impact on them and that there is engagement prior to that. It is not going further beyond a Department. It is very specific to how these regulations might impact on the functioning of a Department, including its policy and overall budget. It is a requirement in that regard, which is why I cannot support the amendment. The section does not go beyond that and is very much about a high-level consultation requirement.

Amendment No. 69 seeks to ensure that a review of the effectiveness and resourcing of LCSPs is carried out, prior to the regulations concerning the establishment and operation of partnerships being made. As these regulations provide for the establishment of the partnerships, it would not make sense to provide for a review to happen before they are up and running. It is just a matter of sequencing. Only three pilots exist at present. They have been under constant evaluation. As I said, it was my intention that I would get the completed evaluation before Christmas. That has not happened. One of the pilots was a little delayed in setting out its plan and getting to the same stage as the others. My understanding is I should probably have that evaluation in the next week. I gave a commitment that I would publish it, which I will. That in itself will inform the development and finalising of the regulations and the roll-out of the partnerships.

The engagement I have had with all three partnerships, including the chairs, members of An Garda Síochána and the representatives who have engaged, has all been positive, as has the feedback. There will always be ways in which we can improve it but, in particular, the only concern colleagues in the House have raised is making sure that people come to the table and are there. There certainly have not been any gardaí found wanting in being on these partnerships. They have been very positive. Once the legislation passes and this comes into law, there will be a requirement for the statutory bodies to engage. This is not just a "nice-to-have". There will be a requirement legally for health and educational bodies, An Garda Síochána, local authorities and everybody else to engage. It is very important to state that.

Amendment No. 70 seeks to change the provision from "shall" to "may". To a point that has just been made, we need these regulations to make sure that the partnerships can be established. Changing the wording to "may" casts a little doubt over whether they would be put in place. Use of the word "shall" means the Minister of the day will make sure there are regulations and guidelines so these partnerships can be set up as quickly as possible, and that there is that bit of clarity people are looking for.

Amendment No. 71 seeks to require the regulations to provide that establishment of a partnership would be by a resolution of the local authority concerned. I do not support this as it is the Minister who has legal responsibility for the partnership. It is right that the Minister, who is the responsible person for this, would have responsibility for the operation of the Bill as a whole. The regulations will come to him or her. I cannot accept the amendment for that reason.

Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 and amendments Nos. 75 to 79, inclusive, all propose to amend section 114(2) in some way to ensure certain persons can be, or are, appointed as members of the new partnership. As I noted, these partnerships will have a broader membership than the current committees. The Bill does not specify the exact composition of the partnerships. This is keeping with learnings from the partnerships to date so we have that flexible approach. Specifically on councillors, they have numbered six to seven on each partnership. It has worked well. There has not been a specific ask for many more. At the same time, I have clearly outlined the intention behind the overall composition of the partnerships. They will have 30 members, 20 of whom will be specified, including seven local authority members and ten others who could be appointed. The way in which they will be allocated has not yet been worked through. As I said, we will engage with colleagues in the House. However, if any particular group, organisation or member of a local authority wants to be part of that group of ten, there will be a process for them to be able to engage. However, we have specific committees that operate within local authorities at present. There is a process and a way in which local authority members are appointed to those. There will be a similar process to appoint the initial seven to the partnership. Beyond that, there will also be a specific process for anybody who would like to be appointed.

Amendment No. 76 references members of the local community. When we talk about this, it is very important to acknowledge that representative groups and community organisations will have a very important role. Whether the partnership is looking at domestic violence, or is representing minority or Traveller communities or many different aspects of our society, it is so important that these groups form a significant part of the LCSPs. Again, it will be up to the partnership itself to decide where those ten spaces go. It is also important that there is that good balance between statutory organisations, elected members and the community itself.

Amendment No. 74 seeks to provide that in addition to a requirement for gender balance and diversity in the partnership, a specific wording, "a diversity of interests and perspectives", would be included. That is overly prescriptive for primary legislation. A diversity of interests and perspectives could mean a multitude of things to different people. Again, it should be left up to the regulations and, most importantly, to the committee and partnership to look at what the interests are in a community, what the local issues are and what the local demographic is. The partnership itself will then be able to decide who it needs on the committee and what its priorities and focus are, and how it develops its local plan based on all of that. For that reason, it is too specific to include "interests and perspectives" in primary legislation. The provision for gender balance and diversity in partnerships covers that.

Amendments Nos. 80 to 82a, inclusive, also seek to amend section 114(2), but this time making it a requirement that a member of a local authority be elected as chairperson and vice chairperson of a partnership. This is the case with the current JPCs. However, I stress these partnerships will not be the same as JPCs. The role of the chairperson, and the composition, work and commitment of the partnerships, will be very different from that of the JPCs. I have been very clear, however, that there is nothing to stop a councillor from being chair. I am very happy to bring forward an amendment to clarify any doubts there might be around that but I am very clear that it will be an open position. It will not specifically go to local authority members but there is nothing to stop them from being chair, if they so wish to put themselves forward. While we do not have a local authority member as a chair in any of the current three pilots, which have worked in different variations, there is nothing to prevent a local authority member from being chair, if he or she wishes to put himself or herself forward. The most important thing is that the best person to carry out the role, and the person who wants to do it, can put himself or herself forward. There will be a process to select a chair. Again, the amendment I brought forward seeks to clarify that there is nothing to prevent somebody from becoming chair.

Amendment No. 83aalso seeks to amend section 114(2) by defining the circumstances, frequency, medium and some of the content relating to meetings of partnerships. I cannot support this because, again, it is overly prescriptive. The number of times a partnership meets and the various types of meetings need to be covered by regulations. What I would like to see, similar to what we have in the JPCs, is that out of the minimum four meetings, at least one would be for the public and a second would be for other local elected representatives. Essentially, two meetings would be public.There is nothing to stop partnerships having more meetings than that, or different types of meetings. Again, it is about not being overly prescriptive in the Bill. As Senator Fitzpatrick pointed out, it is clear that under the legislation there can be separate forums. There will be one local community safety partnership per authority, but that is not to say there cannot be a separate forum within that area. If a partnership within a local authority area believes there is an area with a specific need that requires the establishment of a separate forum to focus specifically on that community, townland or area, there is nothing specified in the legislation to prevent that happening.There is work currently under way in Drogheda, Cherry Orchard and other areas and there is nothing to stop them moving forward with a forum separate from the overall partnership.

For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot accept amendment No. 83a.

Amendment No. 85 is out of order.

Amendment No. 86 seeks to give the Minister power to place obligations upon public authorities. I have touched on this issue. Section 114(2)(o) allows for the Minister to make regulations providing for co-operation between such bodies in the regulation. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment. It will be clear that bodies will have to engage and be part of this.

Amendment No. 87 seeks to provide that the Minister shall lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas detailing a review of the safety partnership model. The amendment specifies a number of issues the report should address. It is important to note that there will be an obligation on the partnerships to prepare and submit to the new national office for community safety, which will be over all the different partnerships, an annual report and any other type of report the national office may request relating to the performance of its functions. It is more appropriate that the office with responsibility would require an update but I also reject the suggestion that a full report should be provided after one year. We need to give these partnerships time to be in operation, to have effect and to see the effect they are having. I have no doubt that in the years ahead there will be a significant amount of engagement between the Minister of the time, the office and locally to see how the partnerships are operating and ensure they are as effective as possible.

As regards amendment No. 88, there are three pilots currently ongoing. As was stated, these are located in Dublin's north inner city, Waterford and Longford. The pilots have been under constant evaluation and the intention is to apply the lessons that have been learned to the development of the regulations and the other partnerships. They are necessary for the establishment and operation of the partnerships. As I stated, however, I will publish the reviews once they are concluded. I expect to have that in the next week. They will feed into the overall regulations and the development of all the other partnerships throughout the country, which I hope to see up and running as soon as possible.

I thank all Senators for their support. There is significant support for the roll-out of community safety partnerships. The overall objective here is community safety and a focus on how we keep people safe. Everybody has a role in that endeavour. What we are doing here is building on the positive work from local authority councillors, working with An Garda Síochána, expanding that further and making sure that even more people are held accountable when it comes to community safety. I again thank colleagues for their contributions. I am always happy to work with every Member of the House.