asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps, if any he is taking to ensure that adequate policing services are available to the public on 1 May l998 in view of the reported plan of thousands of members of the Garda to report sick on that day; the steps, if any, being taken to secure a negotiated settlement of the dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Threatened Garda Industrial Action.
(Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps, if any, he proposes to take to eliminate the threat to the security of the State posed by the threatened action of gardaí on 1 May l998; the further consequences, if any, there are for public safety and public order; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Deputies will be aware that this is a dispute about pay. As regards the efforts which have been made to resolve it, following intensive discussions which I and officials of my Department had with the Garda associations late last year, a mechanism was found whereby Garda pay issues could be discussed. The mechanism was related to the Government decision in late November last to establish a steering group to implement the Garda SMI report.
One of the tasks of the steering group was to oversee the bottom up review of the force, including numbers, structure, deployment and optimum garda-civilian mix. Because of the priority of this task, a subcommittee was set up by the steering group to carry it out. The chairman of the bottom up review committee, Mr. Declan Brennan, was to be a member of the steering group. He was also to be appointed to chair discussions between officials and staff representatives on issues of pay.
The discussions commenced, under the chairmanship of Mr. Brennan, just before Christmas. Following a number of meetings, the official side made an offer of a 5.5 per cent pay increase in separate discussions on 1 April l988 with the Garda Representative Association and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors. Neither association was satisfied with the offer and withdrew from the talks.
At their annual delegate conference on 7-8 April l998 the AGSI delegates decided to start a campaign of non co-operation with new developments and tasks not normally appropriate to their rank. The GRA, separately, threatened a campaign of industrial action.
The chairman of the pay talks subsequently invited the GRA and the AGSI to separate meetings to discuss developments. Arising out of these contacts, the chairman made a recommendation that the offer to the associations be increased to 7 per cent stating that he was satisfied, based on discussions to that date, that productivity discussions due to take place would yield savings that would justify at that stage an increase to 7 per cent. He recommended that an offer of this amount should form the basis for a resumption of talks. His recommendation was accepted by the Minister for Finance and me on 18 April l998. Its substance was conveyed immediately to the general secretaries of both associations.
The AGSI returned to the negotiating table on 23 April l998 and discussions on its pay claim have resumed. However, the GRA decided not to return and current indications are that its executive has decided that a form of mass protest should be engaged in on 1 May l998 which would be aimed at seriously reducing the number of gardaí making themselves available for duty on that day. No formal notification has been received either by the Garda Commissioner or my Department from the GRA as to the precise nature of the planned protest and there are no firm indications at this point as to the level of support any such protest may attract. The Garda authorities are monitoring the situation closely and will gear their strategies for the provision of effective services to the public on 1 May l998 on the basis of their ongoing assessment of the situation.
My Department and I are in constant contact with the Garda authorities and the pay negotiating teams are on standby for an immediate resumption of discussions should the GRA decide to veer away from the serious course now contemplated and return instead to the negotiating table. I have appealed in the past to the GRA to return to the negotiating table and I do so again now. I hope Deputies on all sides of the House will join me in that appeal. I am aware that all Members of the House and all rightminded people outside it would see it as an extremely grave development if members of the largest Garda association, for the first time in the distinguished history of the force, left their posts en masse leaving their fellow citizens without the level and quality of service which we all value, respect and need. Traditionally, one of the greatest strengths of the force has been its relationship with the community it serves. Members of the force should think long and hard about taking steps now which are designed to cause difficulties for that community and also for their colleagues in the force.
It is in the nature of things that disputes of this kind are portrayed as a dispute between the Government of the day and a particular association but the Government's only concern in this matter is the public interest. It would fail in its duty if it came to a settlement with a sector which would jeopardise the economic progress we have made. That is what we are being asked to do. Other public service unions have made clear privately what they see as the inevitable implications of the Government adopting such an approach. It is not in the long-term interests of the community, including members of the Garda and their families, that the economic progress we have made should be jeopardised in this way.
Having appealed to the GRA to reconsider its planned protest, I appeal to Members of the House and those outside it who may have an influence on public opinion. I ask that it be recognised that there are no easy solutions. There is no doubt that, if the Government were to concede a further increase in the offer already made to the GRA while its members remain on protest outside the negotiating process, the damage to the economy would be enormous. The Government cannot undermine the economic progress which has been achieved and maintained in recent years through the good sense and restraint shown by thousands of other workers and employers in the private and public sectors, progress which is designed to secure and has secured a better future for ourselves and our children.
I ask also that it be made clear in commenting on this situation that there is still time for a calm assessment of the issues involved. On the one hand, people can choose to go down the road of taking unprecedented disruptive action against the community which would be seen by many as out of all proportion with what is at issue and, unfortunately, undermining, for short-term reasons, the long and proud tradition of the Garda Síochána. On the other hand, we can keep a sense of proportion and return to the negotiating table to see what progress can be made.
I am sure many gardaí will see the sense of opting for negotiation rather than confrontation. They are part of the community which they have served well. They have a pay offer which is generous by any standard and they have the option of returning to the negotiating table. What they cannot have is the concession of a pay deal while on protest and outside of the negotiating process when we know that the consequences of making that concession would be economic chaos.
Members will appreciate that I cannot negotiate a settlement to the dispute across the floor of the House. There will be limits, therefore, to what I will be able to say in answer to supplementaries. It would be helpful if the message came from all sides of the House that, while we recognise that the issue of Garda pay has to be addressed, the way forward does not lie in members of the force taking disruptive action against the interests of their colleagues in the force. As with any industrial dispute, this one can only be resolved by negotiation through the mechanisms which exist.
Does the Minister accept, having given a lengthy reply, that he has not answered the question?
Surprise, surprise.
Does the Minister not accept it is a rather unedifying spectacle to see a Minister simultaneously wringing his hands and washing them of the issue? Does he not accept he bears responsibility, in his office as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and for his role as Opposition spokesman on Justice when he clearly indicated and gave encouragement to the Garda on this issue?
I ask the Minister, yet again, to state what measures he will take to ensure adequate policing services are available to the public on Friday. He does not need a formal statement from any organisation to be aware there is considerable anger among the Garda. What is he doing to protect the public interest? He must accept he has responsibility for this issue and cannot walk away from it. This is a long-standing issue and no Member underestimates how difficult it is to resolve it, but it must be resolved. The Minister's answer gives very little hope.
The Deputy must ask a question.
What measures is the Minister putting in place to protect the public interest from the industrial action being taken on Friday? What meetings is he setting up and what initiative is he taking to resolve this issue, which will not go away just because he has closed his eyes? I want answers to the two questions which I came into the House to ask but which were not answered. The Minister has an obligation to set out the position plainly and to reply succinctly to those two fundamental questions.
It has been made abundantly clear that the door is open to the Garda Representative Association to return to the negotiating table.
That does not answer the question.
Mr. Brennan contacted the associations during the weekend before last and made it clear there would be an increase of 7 per cent, which he was recommending, on the basis that we could discuss the issue of productivity. The question of whether the GRA returns to the negotiating table is a matter for the GRA.
I am not absolving myself of my responsibility in this matter — I accept it is up to my Department and me, with the Department of Finance, to try to resolve this matter with the Garda Síochána. I urge them to return to the table so that we can discuss this matter.
What will the Minister do on Friday?
I want to nail the lie which is being peddled by some Members to the effect that I gave a massive commitment prior to the last general election.
The gardaí are all telling us that he did — he spoke to them at the Kildare Street gate.
The Garda associations have a letter which I signed indicating we would be prepared to discuss the issue of pay in the context of the SMI report——
How will the Minister protect the public on Friday?
——and in the context of the implementation of our crime policy. The Minister for Finance informed the House earlier this afternoon that that was the precise position.
What will happen on Friday?
It would, of course, have been far easier for us to take the irresponsible course. However, we did not do that in Opposition and will not do it in Government.
Yes, he did; he whipped them up into a frenzy.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister must be allowed to continue without interruption.
Substantial efforts have and are being concentrated by the Garda authorities, myself and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on monitoring and assessing the likely extent of the protest which has been threatened, and in forming strategies to ensure the public is given an adequate police service on Friday.
Can the Minister describe them?
It is not possible for me to indicate the precise strategies to deal with staff shortages or particular risks.
Why?
It would be utterly counterproductive and contrary to long-standing practice to discuss strategies put in place with the Garda Síochána authorities to cope with particular situations.
The Minister's plans are secret.
What about the Freedom of Information Act?
The Minister, without interruption.
However, I emphasise it is the aim and determination of the Garda authorities and those of us who must address this situation to ensure the public will be adequately served.
How?
The panic reactions which Members of the Opposition are trying to steamroll me into——
We are looking for some reaction — we are trying to see if the Minister is still alive.
(Interruptions.)
——would be very much out of place and counterproductive. In the circumstances, while recognising the bloodthirstiness of the Opposition, I appeal to them nonetheless not to send out messages which would give rise to excessive anxiety among members of the public, particularly among vulnerable people.
The Minister was never off the television when he was in Opposition.
The Minister should read his press cuttings and the Official Report.
What will the Minister do about the situation?
The Minister must be allowed to continue without interruption.
We want to deal with the situation in a sensible and practical way.
The Minister has taken a verbal laxative.
Jackie Healy Rae has the Minister on the run.
I have no doubt we can achieve this. However, it will not be achieved by efforts to rewrite history or the public record. The Opposition is clearly more interested in creating panic among the public than——
(Interruptions.)
What about the people's security on Friday? The Minister should stop making silly points.
The Minister must be allowed to continue. Deputy Owen will have an opportunity later.
I have made it very clear that I am looking at the position, that we are keeping the situation under review and that we will ensure strategies are in place to protect the public next Friday, if the threatened actions go ahead.
(Mayo): Does the Minister realise the gross hypocrisy of which he now stands accused? Since he was appointed he has been trying to put the genie which he created back in the bottle. Does he realise he is the architect of the present impasse and chaos? Does he realise the blame for the impending chaos next Friday and the crime free-for-all which will ensue rests solely on his shoulders?
When the Minister was in Opposition he met the GRA representatives at the gates of Leinster House and gave them specific assurances. Does he not realise he gave them categorical assurances on Garda pay? Does he not remember he agreed totally with the merits of their claim? Does he not remember he promised to deliver when in Government?
It is payback time.
(Mayo): Does he not realise the reason for this pent up anger, frustration and low morale is the fact he has reneged on these specific promises which were so attainable by him a year ago but have now been cast aside?
What will the Minister do about security? Next Friday we face a crime free-for-all. The Minister does not know how many gardaí will call in sick. He does not know what Garda resources will be on the streets. He does not know if the Garda will be able to man the stations and telephones. He does not know what will ensue if there is a massive amount of crime, as undoubtedly there will be because there will effectively be an amnesty if gardaí remove their services for a day.
Has the Minister met the Garda Commissioner and senior Garda personnel? What assurances can he give the people in relation to State security, public order and personal safety? That question has been with the Minister since 1 p.m. but he still has not answered it.
Deputy Higgins is welcome to lay before the House the categoric assurances which he accuses me of giving.
(Mayo): That is what the GRA is saying. Is it telling lies?
(Interruptions.)
The Minister must be allowed answer the question.
Does the Deputy wish to lay before the House the categoric assurances which he states I gave to any Garda representative association? Is the Deputy telling me I am misinforming the House when I tell him that I recall writing to one or more of those associations informing them of the position in the context of the SMI report and the implementation of our crime policy?
Senator Kiely said the Minister said it.
Members on the Opposition benches appear to be reduced to quoting a Senator's words as being mine.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister appears to suggest that Senator Kiely is wrong. Is Deputy Healy-Rae also wrong?
It is wrong of any Member of the Opposition to say that a Member of another House could speak for the Minister for Justice. If Members are reduced to that kind of argument it is very paltry, distinguished as the Senator is.
With regard to the plans to be put in place in the event of there being disruption on Friday as a result of some members of the force staying away——
All of them.
——the Garda authorities have plans to deal with areas which will have to be covered. These include the banks, security escorts, airports and communication centres.
Will court cases be covered?
If cases require Garda witnesses who will not attend court it will be very difficult for successful prosecutions to be taken.
Cases will collapse.
I will not be steam rolled into panic reactions. I am setting out the position as it exists.
The Minister has rolled over.
The only person to have rolled over is Deputy Quinn, to judge by the strength of his arguments. The issue of Garda pay has been very well handled by the Government. For a considerable time the Garda associations sought a commission to review their pay.
The placing of pickets outside this House for a week by members of the Garda Síochána is unprecedented.
This was resisted by successive Governments because it was recognised that the issue of public sector pay could lead to the country returning to the position it was in prior to 1987. Successive Governments have made serious efforts to reduce taxes. If this Government becomes involved in the appeasement of one part of the public sector this will lead to follow on claims and to a situation where envisaged tax reductions cannot proceed. It would also lead to an irresponsible handling of the public sector pay issue and the economy. That will not happen under this Government, now or in the future. Will Members of the Opposition explain what we have not done that they would have done?
(Interruptions.)
What will happen on Friday?