Category: gardai

Child Care Bill a case study on failures in public policy

5th February 2010

The Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2009 was discussed in the Seanad this week.  The Bill provides a statutory scheme for the High Court to have exclusive jurisdiction to hear special care cases, abolishes the Children Act Advisory Board (CAAB), and makes a number of changes to the 1991 Child Care Act.

A number of other bodies took the trouble to brief Members on the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2009. The information they provided has proven extremely useful to Members as they consider the Bill. It is always of assistance when interested bodies take the time to prepare briefings, meet Members and share with them their experiences and also the difficulties they perceive in respect of the practical, day-to-day operation of agencies, services of the State, etc. relating to children and also the problems they believe may arise in the context of legislation being brought forward.

Focus Ireland took the trouble to provide briefing information. To some extent, that organisation’s document provides an answer to the question posed by others in respect of the possible or potential cost to the State if aftercare services were to be placed on a statutory footing. It is not possible to make a direct analogy with Northern Ireland in this regard. However, the example of Northern Ireland was the best Focus Ireland could provide in estimating the ultimate cost. Focus Ireland indicates that the equivalent cost of providing the range of aftercare services available in Northern Ireland in the Republic of Ireland would be just under €11 million per annum. That figure is based on a total of 411 care leavers per annum. If it is possible for Focus Ireland to quantify the cost, it should also be possible for the Minister of State to do so. I agree with those who stated that it would be important to place aftercare services on a statutory footing in order that there might be some expectation among people of their being available. It is also important that proper controls, guidelines and supervision be put in place in respect of such services.

The Bill is welcome. However, it provides a curious case study in respect of failures in public policy. I do not lay all the blame for such failures at the door of the Minister for Children. These failures date back many years, perhaps even a number of decades. The Minister may wish to reflect on this and refer to it in his reply.

Read More

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009

15th July 2009

The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 was debated in the Seanad for over eight hours yesterday and ultimately passed without amendment late last night. This is from my Second Stage speech:

I made the point on the Order of Business earlier that, unfortunately and regrettably, there did not seem to be much point in debating this legislation because the Government was clearly intent on not accepting any amendments, and that this would render our debate somewhat irrelevant. The Leader, Senator Donie Cassidy shook his head in response to my comment, which I took to be an indication that he disagreed with me. Senator Terry Leyden then indicated to the House that if amendments were brought before the House that the matter could be dealt with during the course of the summer. The Minister has now put that issue at rest and has made it very clear, in no uncertain terms, that no amendments to this legislation will be accepted by the Government and that, to use his words, “we need this legislation now”. Let us be clear about this, there is no intention on the part of Government to permit this House to amend this legislation in any respect today or on any other day.

Notwithstanding the Government’s view as to whether we should be listened to in this House on this legislation, we still have to reflect on our role as legislators. We are paid to come here by the people to deal with legislation. As to what is our role, I accept that the Government has a very particular role, perhaps an enhanced one in the sense that it has the expertise and advice of the Garda available to it and it is dealing on a day to day basis, operationally and in policy terms, with the management of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Therefore, it is in a position of expertise far greater than anything available to any of us. I accept that. That is how the system works.

Let us examine our role. I do not wish to oversimplify it but it appears to be the case that a Minister comes to the House to inform us of the changes that need to be made to the law because there is a problem that needs to be addressed and he outlines the changes he proposes we should make. It is our role to ask him to tell us why that is the case and to demonstrate it to us. We then consider whether that explanation is adequate and we either vote for or against the proposals brought by the Minister. I accept that is an oversimplification but it is not an unreasonable description of our role.

If I am correct in that are we not entitled to ask the Minister to do more than simply assert the need for certain legislation? The Minister must demonstrate the need for it to us. He must show us why it is necessary, not just simply by anecdote, the expression of his opinion or the communication to us indirectly of an opinion given to him by the Garda. He must give us some evidence on which we can take the rest of the argument in trust that what he says is necessary. I cannot, and do not, exclude the possibility - I say this genuinely - that these measures are necessary, but I am not prepared to agree to them simply by it being asserted to me without any evidence or convincing argument - in some cases without any argument at all - as to why they are necessary.

This is very serious legislation. We are dealing with the curtailment of rights and the liberty of the citizen, irrespective of what he or she is accused of, and in view of this we are under a bounden duty to exercise the strictest possible scrutiny of any such proposal. That is all I am interested in doing. Senator Quinn, and to some extent Senator Boyle, have expressed the hope that the Minister will return with responses to some of the questions that have been raised. I do not know whether the Minister will do so when he replies to Second Stage. However, he has made it clear that he does not intend moving from his position. That puts us in a very odd position in terms of trying to debate the issue, or any expectation we might have that the Minister might address any of the difficulties we have.

Read More

No excuses for rushing important legislation

3rd July 2009

Why is it that for many weeks there is little or legislation before the House but in the two or three weeks before the end of the session there is an extraordinary flurry of activity with measures being introduced and pushed through both Houses as is happening again now? Why is it that the Minister, the Department or those who manage the flow of business to the Houses cannot pace themselves a little better throughout the year? Why can legislation not be introduced in the House periodically in a manner that will allow it to breathe, as it were?

The Leader of the Seanad often says he does not guillotine legislation and that is true, but that misses the point. It is not a question of saying we can have an hour or two to read the legislation but of allowing the public to consider important legislation over a period of weeks. I am not suggesting that the Government never makes an effort to do that. In fairness, it does. However, that should be the universal approach to legislation, unless it is genuinely emergency legislation which must be put through the Houses in a period of days.

I have in mind some of the criminal justice legislation we are dealing with this week. There are two Bills this week and I presume the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill will be introduced in the House next week. The latter includes proposals for the considerable curtailment of the liberty of the citizen. It may well be that this is justified and that Members of the House support it but it is one of the most serious actions a parliament can take. The guarantee of last September is probably the most serious action a parliament can take in that it mortgages the future and future generations. However, in terms of the liberty of the citizen the proposed legislation provides for the expansion of the use of the Special Criminal Court and removing the important protection that juries provide.

I disagree regarding any further restriction on the use of juries. In the criminal context, in particular, it is a further restriction on the liberty of the individual, as is the introduction of secret hearings in the District Court regarding detentions and so forth. I appeal to the Leader to ensure, especially with legislation of this nature, that the public and the Houses be given an opportunity to consider such legislation over a longer time span. It should certainly be over a period of weeks and not days, as is now being proposed.

“A police force is nothing without the trust of the community”

4th November 2008

Last week, the Seanad had an opportunity to debate the findings of the recent final part of the Morris Tribunal findings. There was particular interest in the judgement of Mr. Justice Morris in respect of Members of the Oireachtas. Below is my own contribution to the debate.

I will begin by echoing the remarks of other Members in respect of Mr. Justice Morris’s work during the preparation of his eight reports. I refer to the extraordinary amount of work that was input, the careful consideration and sifting of evidence and allegations, as well as the highly detailed and, as Members have commented, in many ways shocking contents of the reports that have been published as a result of the inquiries the judge carried out. I also add my congratulations to those who worked with Mr. Justice Morris in his tribunal, including the lawyers, high-paid or otherwise, who performed an important public duty by sifting through a considerable number of allegations, sometimes of great complexity, as well as hearing evidence and reaching conclusions based on the evidence put before the tribunal and publishing the reports it was charged with providing to the Oireachtas when it was first established.

The most recent report is the one we are at present considering in greatest detail but, as other Senators have noted, the most serious of conclusions were reached by the Morris tribunal and each of the eight reports makes for disturbing reading. As others have quoted from the findings, I will not rehearse them other than to note that a police force in a democratic society is nothing without the trust of the community. The Garda has a remarkable tradition of coming from the community but if that connection is undermined, it will hit at the core of the confidence that the public must have in its police force for society to function and justice and policing to be administered efficiently and fairly. If authority is rooted in the society which it serves, it will be successful.

Unfortunately, the example of what occurred over a number of years in Donegal, which the Minister of State described as a dark period in our history, could be repeated and suspicions remain that similar practices continue. Ongoing scrutiny and engagement are needed in respect of these issues because we cannot be absolutely confident that the dreadful deeds set out in the Morris reports will never be repeated. Perhaps ominously, Mr. Justice Morris was of the opinion that the gardaí serving in Donegal cannot be viewed as unrepresentative or an aberration from the generality. He was reflecting on concerns that he was not inquiring into an isolated case and reminding us of the need for constant vigilance and proper mechanisms to ensure public confidence in the Garda Síochána.

Read More

Rushing through of Intoxicating Liquor Bill undermining integrity of the Seanad

9th July 2008

Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008

The Seanad discussed the Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008 this afternoon. This piece of legislation is somewhat unusual as the bill only passed the Dail last night and the government is seeking to have it passed in the Seanad by tomorrow evening.

At Order of Business this morning, a number of senators raised concerns regarding the rushing of this Bill. I stated that it was undermining the independence and integrity of the house.

What concerns me also, is the fact that I have received letters and emails by the dozen in the past 48 hours from people concerned about what effect the legislation will have on them - not only members of the nightclub industry but youth groups and organisations. I have not yet had an opportunity to consider fully what each one states.

Below is my contribution to the second stage of the bill in the Seanad:

No one can doubt the background against which we are having this debate. We discussed it on a number of occasions in this House and it was discussed elsewhere. I refer to the abuse of alcohol, the problem of binge drinking, and the knock-on effect right across a range of social and personal problems such as mental health problems. All of these issues and their impact have been documented and elucidated in this House many times over.

No one questions the commitment of all of us, Senators on both sides of the House, to address this fundamental problem with which Dr. Gordon Holmes, in his insightful report, assisted us so much. The fact that all on this side of the House are complaining that this is, as Senator Quinn stated, “rushed legislation of the worst kind”, are criticising the legislation and the manner in which it has been introduced, and the speed with which it is being forced through both Houses, can not be taken for one minute as indicating any less of a concern on the part of those of us on this side of the House who would make that point with addressing this issue.

The question really is; does it address the issue? Dr. Holmes, in his report, wrote of the need for a comprehensive approach to this problem right across society but that is not what is in this Bill. The Bill contains a number of welcome provisions, but this is not the comprehensive attack on a serious social problem that we all know is needed. It is not consistent with debate, analysis, careful scrutiny of the problem and then the bringing forward of solutions to have legislation in this House, for the first time in my relatively short period here, where the deadline for amendments on Committee Stage came before the Second Stage, although there was some flexibility indicated for later today. It is ludicrous for us who are expected, as I stated on the Order of Business, to carry out the important constitutional function, to scrutinise legislation and to decide whether it is appropriate that it should be passed, to be faced with such a situation.

I heard one of my colleagues state that he was lobbied by one of the associated bodies, I think it was the nightclub association. I have not had time to be lobbied by them. There is not enough time to meet the people who have expressed an interest and an involvement. Certainly, people who are involved in it are just as entitled as anybody else to raise their concerns with legislators. What we do about that is another matter, but we should have an opportunity to listen to them and to think and consider carefully what they have to say.

Read More

Labour Bill on FOI voted down by government parties

1st May 2008

Last night, the Seanad debated the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2008 brought forward by the Labour party. After a debate of nearly two hours, with some interesting input from both sides of the house, the Bill was voted down by the government parties.

The Bill would have gone some way to redeem the Freedom of Information Act from the bruising it received due to amendments by the Fianna Fáil/PD government in 2003. Those amendments added fees of between €10 and €150 to FOI requests which has resulted in a dramatic fall in the number of requests received, from a peak of almost 18,500 in 2003 to just over 10,500 in 2007.

The Bill would have also extended the remit of FOI to groups such as an Garda Síochána. Ireland is the only country of 27 in Europe which does not include its police force in FOI, and this is something that the Information Commissioner, Ms. Emily O’Reilly has sought as well as Mr. Conor Brady, a member of the Garda Ombudsman Commission.

Below is my own speech to the Seanad last night. I spoke at the very end of the debate.

I represent something of an unreconstructed approach to freedom of information, namely, that the presumption should be precisely that freedom of information. The case should be made for the exception and not the other way around. The rationale behind the 2003 amendments was, and much of the opposition to what we are proposing is, motivated by a completely different approach to freedom of information. The latter is, in part, grudging.

At the very least, it can be characterised by a sense that the individual must make a case for obtaining particular information rather than it being presumed that the information should be freely available, but with reasonable and rational exceptions. The starting point should be to have the widest possible latitude and freedom while a case can be made in legislation and administrative rules for where the exceptions should apply. It has as much to do with our culture and approach to the issue as it has with the individual legislative provisions.

I am sorry to say that the Minister of State’s contribution is from the old school. We know the Act was introduced in 1997 and that extra bodies have been added. We know all these things, which have been set out in the Minister of State’s speech.

To take the fees issue, however, it is difficult to see how the change in fees in 2003 was motivated by anything other than a desire to deter people from making freedom of information applications. Why else was it done? The Minister of State ought to be more direct with us as to why that was done. It comes through in his speech which quotes the extreme but interesting example of a request for access to the diaries of a number of civil servants and Ministers - the very idea of it. It involved reading through thousands of pages of documentation. At least that particular application had the advantage of only ever having to be done once as regards the diaries of civil servants and Ministers.

We understand that there is a burden on the State and the public service in respect of freedom of information. By introducing legislation in 1997 and believing in freedom of information, as Senator Callely said, we must be prepared to accept that a burden goes with the freedom we want to provide. It is no use taking the approach that it is so onerous and requires so many hours of work that we must restrict it. The presumption in any democratic society, especially a modern democracy such as ours, should be to make the information available, accept the burden and live with the cost to the State. I accept there is a cost to the public purse in providing freedom of information, but most entitlements we introduce come with a price tag. We must be prepared to accept that price tag within reason. It is not good enough for a Minister to point to the extraordinary cost or how onerous it is on us.

Read More