Diverse views can enhance legislation on policing reform

It is important that momentum for change is maintained, even if there are unavoidable arguments about what ‘change’ means, writes Professor Donncha O’Connell

The momentum for change within the force must be maintained.

The publication of extracts of Garda Commissioner Drew Harris’ submission on legislative schemes to give effect to recommendations by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland has led to concerns that the reform process may become stalled by Garda opposition or diverted by political controversy. 

This level of alarmism is probably not justified.

The recommendations of the commission, published in 2018 following an intense deliberative period and adopted swiftly by the Government, were framed at a necessarily high level, with details to be worked out in the implementation process. 

The report, therefore, is not the last word on policing reform, but rather provides a comprehensive framework within which implementation is to take place. Some elements of the commission’s report do not even require legislative implementation.

Many of those elements that do require legislation are not straightforward, and it is hardly surprising that stakeholders in policing and related areas would have differences of opinion as to what is or is not good legislation.

Arguments as to whether something contained in the scheme of a bill is an accurate reflection of the commission’s recommendations might tend towards the theological, as if the recommendations were set out with granular specificity only to be codified in law.

There is plenty of detail in the commission’s report, but there are plenty of areas where details require further work. 

What would be a better measure of compatibility with the views of the commission is whether provisions of the legislative schemes give life and meaning to the 10 principles of policing unanimously agreed by the commission. Those principles are:

• Human rights are the foundation and purpose of policing;
• Policing and national security are not the responsibility of the police alone;
• Accountability and oversight structures should be clear and effective;
• Internal governance should be strong and efficient;
• Police duties should be clearly defined, and resources deployed accordingly;
• An Garda Síochána should be structured and managed to support frontline policing;
• The people of An Garda Síochána are its greatest resource;
• Policing must be information-led;
• Policing should be seen as a profession;
• Policing must be adaptive, innovative, and cost-effective.

These principles were agreed as a coherent value system animating a serious, ambitious, and radical programme of reform, not as a list from which stakeholders would choose. 

They should, in their totality, be used as the critical reference point for detailed legislative proposals. It should not be a crisis if the Garda Commissioner or, indeed, one of the Garda staff associations disagree with the Department of Justice about whether something contained in the schemes of the two bills to implement aspects of the commission’s report reflects a recommendation of the commission. 

Neither should it be impossible, with the benefit of three years of hindsight, to question the recommendations openly and with conviction.

A scheme of a bill, while quite detailed, leaves plenty to be worked out. That is what the legislative process is for. 

If the Garda Commissioner, or others, have problems with what is proposed by the Department of Justice, it is healthy that these concerns are aired publicly and addressed. No one has a veto, but everyone has a voice.

While some of the points extracted from the Commissioner’s submission seem tendentious and excessively oppositional, they can be contextualised and addressed in the course of a reasoned and constructive debate.

In my view, the reported call for the roles of various governance and oversight entities to be clarified makes practical sense, whereas the reported comments of the Commissioner on oversight of national security and reforms of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission investigations come across as too defensive and, frankly, conservative.

However, none of this constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to a productive and purposeful legislative process in which those parts of the commission’s widely applauded blueprint for reform can be made law. 

The commission’s report was the start, not the end, of a process.

The legislative process is of no value if it is not deliberative, and deliberation is only enriched by diverse, even opposing, views. It is important that momentum for change is maintained, even if there are unavoidable arguments about what ‘change’ means.

A chorus of approval would add little to the song of reform.

• Prof Donncha O’Connell teaches law at NUI Galway. He was a member of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. The views expressed in this piece are personal.