merrion street

A Cathaoirleach, thank you.

We have had an interesting debate on this topic over the last two days. .

To conclude, while not wanting to recap on all the issues raised by the

Minister, the model proposed in the Bill does not have due regard to the

existence of a national police force in this jurisdiction which is not only

the police service but also the security and intelligence service, as well

as the border control authority of the State. In his opposition to the

Bill, the Minister voiced his concerns that the proposal to transfer key

oversight functions of the Garda Síochána to a separate unelected body

would not improve the democratic accountability of the Force. It is the

fact that the Garda Síochána Act 2005 provides that the Garda Commissioner

is accountable to the Minister for the performance of his functions and

those of the Force and the Minister in turn is accountable to this House.

The Commissioner, as Accounting Officer for the Force, is also liable to

appear before the Public Accounts Committee. It is noteworthy that

experience in the UK for example is moving away from the type of structure

proposed in the Bill to systems aimed at more democratic accountability

linked to elected representatives, in tandem of course, with an independent

body to investigate allegations of misconduct.

The Bill also calls for enhanced Garda measures on human rights. It is

indeed appropriate that we debate Garda responsibilities on human rights

and the policies developed to meet these. There have been a number of

developments within An Garda Síochána in recent years designed to put

regard for human rights at the core of policing in Ireland. One of the

functions of the Garda Síochána, under section 7 of the 2005 Act, is to

vindicate the human rights of each individual. Arising from this

requirement, all Garda policy is drafted in accordance with Human Rights

Principles and all operational Garda Directives now make reference to the

relevant human rights principles. Accordingly, the application of human

rights is a core objective of the Force. This work is supported by advice

from the Strategic Human Rights Committee of the Garda Síochána whose

membership includes NGO experts in human rights.

The Bill seeks an enhanced role for the Joint Policing Committees. A

number of Deputies brought their own personal and positive experience of

working with these Committees to the fore in the debate on the Bill. The

Minister awaits the outcome of the review of the JPCs which is underway and

I expect that we can look forward to improved operating guidelines for

their work providing, in particular, for an enhanced communication role at

both local and national levels.

In presenting the Bill, some Deputies referred to whistlebolowing

provisions for members of the Garda Síochána. As you will be aware, the

Programme for Government contains a commitment to enhance whistlebolowing

provisions. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform recently

published the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013 which provides for robust

protection to whistleblowing employees generally, across both the public

and private sectors. Section 19 of that Bill provides for the making of

regulations relating to protected disclosures by members of the Garda

Síochána. This provision will provide the availability of enhanced

procedures to members of the Garda Síochána who wish to raise matters of

concern.

I would like to comment on two issues in the Bill. Firstly, a number of

Deputies commented that certain forms of harm, including torture and rape,

were not covered under section 102 of the 2005 Act. Section 102 requires

the Garda Commissioner to refer to the Ombudsman Commission ‘any matter’

where it appears that the behaviour of a member ‘may have resulted in the

death of, or serious harm to, a person’ and ‘serious harm’ is

comprehensively defined. But it is important to understand that this is a

neutral, automatic referral mechanism. In other words, the Commissioner

does not have to decide whether any wrongdoing might be involved. So, for

example, a death arising from a straightforward car accident would be

covered under this provision. The scenarios outlined by some Deputies,

concerning incidents of torture or rape, are of an entirely different order

and would fall to be investigated as serious criminal allegations. In this

regard, the other provisions of the Act relating to the Ombudsman

Commission would be relevant.

Secondly, the Bill is seeking the extension of the time limit for making

complaints to the Ombudsman Commission from six months to one year. Section

84(2) of the 2005 Act already provides that the Ombudsman Commission may

extend the time limit if it considers there are good reasons for so doing,

but clearly for practical reasons including the public interest in

investigating incidents as soon as possible there must be a reasonable

time-frame within which to make a complaint. It is also the case that

proposals from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission for amendments to

part 4 of the 2005 Act are under consideration and these proposals are the

starting point for any revision to their oversight role.

To conclude, I would like to thank Deputies for their contributions to the

debate on the Bill. I fully agree with the Minister’s acknowledgement

yesterday of the genuine objectives behind the Bill, but conclude that the

Bill cannot, for the reasons stated during the debate, be supported.

Thank you, a Cathaoirleach.