Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, inclusive, and No. 25 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 16
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 29, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(b) community development;”.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to insert experience and expertise in matters connected to community development to the list of types of subject matter expertise that may qualify someone for appointment to the board of An Garda Síochána. At present, the Bill provides that only persons with expertise in the functions of the Garda, organisational governance, management and public administration, or financial matters may serve on the board.
This amendment makes me think of section 10, which we considered the other day. It relates to gardaí being required in the courts for prosecutions. This is something I will seek to submit an amendment on. When we take gardaí from the duties they are trained for and have them in the courts, when somebody else could be doing that job, we take away from their role. Nobody can take on their role when they are taken off duty to attend to court matters. Amendment No. 20 relates to the expertise that may be needed on the board of An Garda and the expertise people in the community can feed into the process. While there is an argument to be made that the establishment of a board is a retrograde step, on account of its inability to provide independent and transparent oversight and accountability, it is absolutely the case that we must expand the list of types of relevant expertise to incorporate a broader and more diverse range of perspectives. Both amendments Nos. 21 and 22 have intentions similar to that of amendment No. 20, adding expertise in "human rights and equality matters” and “data protection”, respectively.
As drafted, the legislation will mean no representation on the board from persons who are impacted by the delivery of policing services daily. This amendment seeks to remedy that by including the perspectives of persons who possess expertise in the development of vibrant, safe and sustainable communities in Ireland. According to a 2015 Government framework policy for community development, community development refers to a distinctive approach to working for social and economic development and change, which involves individual and collective empowerment, enabling and supporting members of a community to work collectively to improve the quality of their lives, community and society. This approach is often based on the understanding that those affected by poverty or disadvantage are often excluded from society due to discrimination, prejudice or a lack of resources, skills, confidence or education. It strikes me that few people are better placed to provide informed and robust oversight to An Garda Síochána than community development workers, who themselves are committed to improving the quality of life in all our communities. It could go some way towards building bridges and fostering more empowering relationships between An Garda Síochána and the communities that are often most policed.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to insert experience and expertise in matters connected to human rights and equality to the list of types of subject matter expertise that may qualify someone for appointment to the board of An Garda Síochána. I have already spoken about the need to embrace a greater variety of perspectives within the board in a general sense, but there is a really robust argument to be made to include the perspectives of persons with expertise in human rights and equality matters. Policing, specifically, has the potential to significantly impact core fundamental rights, including the right to privacy. However, we also have to be mindful of the requirement under the public sector equality and human rights duty for public bodies to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and protect the human rights of those to whom they provide services and staff when carrying out their work. It is critical, therefore, that human rights and equality interests be represented at board level in An Garda Síochána, given the significant interaction between gardaí and the public and, often, people in very vulnerable and compromising circumstances.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to add data protection to the list of types of subject matter expertise that may qualify someone for appointment to the board. The relevant section states a person shall not be recommended by the service for appointment by the Minister unless the service is satisfied the person has sufficient experience and expertise in these matters. It should be self-evident why expertise in data protection is so crucial when selecting members of the board. The Government is in the process of legislating to equip An Garda Síochána with new forms of data-gathering and data-processing technologies, including body cams and facial-recognition technology. In my contributions to the related legislation, I have highlighted the many dangers this may pose to privacy and data protection. I have highlighted evidence in the UK of systemic failures in data protection, including the leaking of body cam footage and the sharing of body cam footage on WhatsApp. We already have experience of such data protection and privacy issues in An Garda Síochána, and the introduction of new data-gathering technologies will only increase risk in these matters. Any breaches of data privacy can be devastating for the public and trust, and for An Garda Síochána itself. It is members of the board who will be tasked, according to section 12, with promoting high standards of corporate governance that ensure appropriate systems of control are in place.
This is why I believe it is crucial that data protection should be a core expertise and priority of board members and that this should be baked into primary legislation. Board members should be keenly aware of An Garda Síochána's crucial role in terms of data privacy and should have knowledge and expertise that can contribute to upholding the standards of protection within An Garda Síochána.
The next amendment, amendment No. 25, states that "Nothing in this section shall preclude an individual with previous convictions from serving as a chairperson or ordinary member of the Board.”. This amendment seeks to provide that persons with a criminal record could serve as a member of the board of An Garda Síochána. At present, many barriers prevent individuals with a criminal record from serving on boards, particularly regarding the charities sector, on account of restrictive provisions within the Charities Act 2009. I understand that there is a similar provision in the Garda Síochána (Policing Authority and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015, which also disqualifies an individual with a criminal conviction from serving on a board.
A particular argument is to be made for the need to make room for the voices of individuals with lived experience of the criminal justice system on the board of An Garda Síochána. I wish to highlight the need for expanded access to spent convictions, and inclusion more generally. I think this small amendment, though, would go a long way in allowing people who have expertise gained from experience to serve on boards. We see many people in our prison system now leaving there and going to university to study criminology, sociology, etc. I have two friends now with PhDs who cannot get any sort of work in any area they have studied in. I think they would be an asset to any board, and especially this board. At the level of the drug task forces, we have also struggled to get people onto those boards who have lived experience in our communities because of the Charities Act 2009 and, in other cases, the Companies Act 2014. I hope, therefore, that this is an amendment the Minister can see the benefit of in respect of ensuring the board is inclusive and being led by people with a wide range of expertise and insights.
I thank Senator Ruane. I call Senator Barry Ward.
I am sympathetic to the impetus behind these proposed amendments. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 relate to section 16 of the Bill and the skill set that members of the board would have. What Senator Ruane said is absolutely right insofar as the board would benefit from people who have a background in community development or experience and knowledge of human rights and equality. I have a small concern, however, in respect of the way section 16(3) is set out, which is with a view to setting up a body that has a specific skill set in terms of experience or knowledge of "the functions of An Garda Síochána", the "organisational governance" and the "financial matters". Looking at section 12(1), it would appear that this seems to be the main impetus of the people who will be on the board.
By the same token, I appreciate what has been said about the added value that would be gained from people who have the range of experiences set down in amendments Nos. 20 and 21. I do not agree, though, that these aspects should be core competencies as set out in section 16(3). However, I wonder if there is room for the amendment to be changed slightly to state that these could be additional features that could be considered in the appointment process, rather than making them criteria set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 16(3). I do not think I could support the amendment as currently drafted.
Regarding Senator Ruane's proposed amendment No. 25, to amend section 16 to include a new section 16(5) to prevent, essentially, anybody with a previous conviction from being excluded from the board for having a previous conviction, if I have understood this proposal correctly, I do not think the Bill, as drafted, necessarily excludes people but I understand the point the Senator is making. Generally speaking, an important point to consider is that we have people on boards who, for whatever reason, have fallen foul of the law, have been convicted of an offence and may have served a term of imprisonment or whatever it might be.
We must, of course, remember that a conviction can include some very minor things, like speeding, for example. Nobody goes to jail for it, unless there are consequences or unless it becomes dangerous driving. It is still a previous conviction, however, and, in theory, those people must, as I understand it, report that previous conviction under the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016. It is grossly unfair that people who have had that kind of misstep and had the misfortune of being convicted, and perhaps of having served time, are thereafter excluded from any rehabilitation into society or from the ability to have functional lives, including functional working lives and functional lives in charities or whatever it might be.
I do not think the amendment is reasonable in circumstances where I do not think it is necessary, insofar as the Bill does not exclude these people. It is really a matter for the Minister of the day to take into consideration whether the type of people whom Senator Ruane mentioned, who have clearly gone on, post conviction, to lead functional and contributing lives, would be an asset to the board. The notion of putting into the Bill that no previous conviction could ever be used to debar someone from membership of the board is problematic. I have mentioned speeding as a previous conviction but a previous conviction could also include capital murder or very serious drug trafficking, fraud or whatever it might be. This might necessarily deem a person ineligible under many other criteria. The baldness of the amendment makes it problematic and I do not think it can be supported in this regard.
I thank Senator Ruane. As she has outlined, the amendments are all about membership of the board of An Garda Síochána or appointment to the board. I will discuss them together. Amendment No. 20 seeks to add community development to the list of matters that persons recommended by the service are to experience or have expertise in. While the Bill does not expressly state "community development", if we look at the functions of An Garda Síochána, it is reasonable to expect that persons who have experience in their own express functions, which are provided for in a different section and include preventing harm to individuals who are vulnerable or at risk and protecting and supporting victims of crime, they will also have a background that overlaps with community support and development. The Bill tries not to be overly prescriptive where something is essentially covered in other parts of the Bill. We have discussed this a lot regarding earlier amendments and the same would be said for amendment No. 21, which seeks to add human rights and equality matters. Under section 9, protecting and vindicating the human rights of each individual is a function of An Garda Síochána. In looking at membership of the board we would have to look at making sure we have people whose objective is protecting and vindicating the human rights of each individual. I absolutely agree with the sentiment of what is being proposed but it falls under other parts of the legislation.
Amendment No. 22 is slightly different so I am minded to accept it. What we are saying more generally is that someone should meet one or more of these criteria, along with having knowledge of the functions of An Garda Síochána and financial matters. While we have an obligation to have a data protection officer who is available to An Garda Síochána and the board, as a criterion it is different from more broad community engagement on human rights, which is very clearly defined in some of the overall objectives of An Garda Síochána. I am minded to accept this amendment. I know there is a subsequent amendment to it.
With regard to amendment No. 25, I agree there is more emphasis now on rehabilitation and we need to make sure people are not precluded forever more from being part of Government organisations or senior positions, particularly where they have lived experience and had particular roles. There are provisions in section 18(2), which provide that a person who is convicted on indictment of an offence, convicted of fraud or dishonesty, or sentenced to a term of imprisonment is disqualified from holding office. However, it does not preclude a person who is convicted of a summary offence where it does not involve a term of imprisonment from being considered, except where it involves fraud or dishonesty. Given the sensitive position of overseeing An Garda Síochána, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. This is not to state that in future it will not change or that we cannot make changes in this regard. What we have at present allows for a certain degree of flexibility but it does not go so far because then we would have to prescribe what type of sentence, what length of sentence and what type of offence we are speaking about. This in itself is more challenging. It is something that could be looked at down the line, perhaps in other legislation Senator Ruane or we have been working on with regard to spent convictions. With regard to this Bill, the balance we have struck is appropriate given the sensitivity of the particular position of overseeing An Garda Síochána. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 21 or 25 but I will accept amendment No. 22.
I thank the Minister for accepting amendment No. 22. It is a good addition to the Bill, especially given what I said in my contributions regarding facial recognition. It gives me some comfort to know it will be there. With regard to amendment No 25, the Minister knows that I take regard not of the crime that someone has committed but rather the length of time since that crime was committed.
If someone has committed a crime, whether it be murder, a summary offence or a crime the person did or did not end up in prison for, it is usually the distance from it that matters. The board would still have full control of who is on it. A person cannot just demand to be on the board anyway. People have to show they work in the area, such as working in community development, as a drugs worker, in youth and community sectors or whatever field. Yes, they have a previous conviction. We see people who have done time in prison during their lives working on task forces and in youth clubs and what they add. They are on the joint policing forums and safety forums and are feeding in at all those levels. Ultimately, if the Minister will not accept the amendment now, will she try to reframe the issue in the long run? It is not about just taking someone fresh from prison who says they want to be on the board of An Garda Síochána. How people are selected and appointed, the interview process and whatever else goes along with that, would have to make sense and be in line with the legislation . It would have to be done in conjunction with all those things.
While these provisions are standard across the Statute Book, I take the Senator's point. Between now and the next Stage, which will probably be taken in the new year, I commit to looking at it and exploring it further. There are implications because this amendment is incompatible with another section of the Bill, where that is clearly outlined. I take on board the points the Senator made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 29, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(b) human rights and equality matters;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 22:
. In page 29, line 21, after “management” to insert “, data protection”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18
Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 103, 104, 161 and 162 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 30, line 36, to delete “is adjudicated” and substitute “subject to subsection (3), is adjudicated”.
The amendments in grouping 7 relate to bankruptcy provisions in the Bill. The Attorney General has advised that as currently drafted, the provisions in the Bill which bar a person who is bankrupt from the Garda board, the policing and community and safety authority and the office of the independent examiner are not in line with the directive. My amendments will ensure that people who have been discharged from bankruptcy will be eligible for consideration for a role in any of these three offices. This will ensure compliance with the overall directive.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 31, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
“(3) A person shall be disqualified from holding office as a member of the Board, a committee of the Board or the audit committee under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) only for so long as he or she has not obtained a certificate of discharge from the bankruptcy.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 31, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(5) Nothing in this section shall preclude an individual with previous convictions from serving as a chairperson or ordinary member of the Board.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Section 20 agreed to.
Sections 21 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 26
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
We oppose section 26 of the Bill, which provides for the appointment of the Garda Commissioner, in its entirety as its inclusion in the Bill risks politicising the office of the Garda Commissioner. It is a retrograde step without any evidentiary justification and we are unclear why it has been taken.
In recent years, the independent Policing Authority has had a strong role in the appointment process, running the competition and nominating the Commissioner for appointment by the Government. The Bill proposes to reverse this to a Government appointment merely in consultation with the authority and the board.
GRECO, the Council of Europe body for the prevention of corruption, recommends the independent appointment of the chief of law enforcement agencies, given the political appointment of the chief can pose a corruption risk. In the UK, chief constables are appointed by police and crime commissioners, the equivalent of the Policing Authority. While an argument can certainly be made that there is a difference because the Commissioner is also head of the security service, this did not appear to be especially problematic in the nomination of the current Commissioner by the Policing Authority. It is our view that the nomination of the Garda Commissioner by the authority must be preserved to ensure the Commission is independent of the Government. Additionally, it runs the risk of disempowering and undermining the independence of the authority, a key body in promoting ethical and effective human rights-based approaches to policing.
Currently, the Policing Authority has responsibility for the appointment of the Garda Commissioner under section 9 of the 2005 Act. This is to invite the Public Appointments Service, PAS, to undertake a competition to nominate a candidate to the Government along with any ancillary roles. Acting on the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Policing, CoFPI, the Bill will remove those roles from the new authority, whose functions are now more clearly defined. We want to make sure oversight and governance are separate, with the authority and the inspectorate coming together on oversight and the board dealing with governance.
Under the Bill, the appointment will continue to be made by the Government, and it is clear the Minister has a statutory obligation under section 4. It will then go to a selection competition undertaken by the PAS at the invitation of the Minister and the selection criteria will have to be approved not just by PAS but also by the Minister following consultation with the authority and the board. The Minister will have to have regard to the views of the authority and the board when agreeing those criteria.
We have a clear, independent process. While the Minister will start it, there will still have to be full engagement with the authority, being led by the board, and it will still have to go through the PAS. The challenge more broadly with opposing the section is that nothing is proposed to replace it, so we would be left without a clear process as to how to appoint a Garda Commissioner, which is vital. For that reason, I cannot agree to deleting the section.
I will waive my opposition to the section at this point and come back on Report Stage with an proposed alternative section. My assumption is the process is laid out in how we have previously done it but as for this legislation specifically, I will withdraw my opposition to the section, reserving the right to submit amendments that will protect the current model whereby the Policing Authority is part of the selection process for the Commissioner.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 27
Question proposed: “That section 27 be deleted.”
I oppose the section, in a similar vein to the previous section. The Bill will provide for the appointment of the deputy Garda Commissioner and we oppose the entire section given its inclusion poses similar risks to section 26 in politicising the office of deputy Garda Commissioner.
Likewise, I cannot agree to the section’s deletion given the Senator does not propose to replace it with anything else. Moreover, the objective is that the new authority will be more of an oversight structure, whereas governance will be dealt with directly by the board. That is why the board will be the body leading out in consultation with the Minister but still engaging with the authority.
On the appointment of the deputy Garda Commissioner role, an issue arose a month ago regarding the recruitment process for that role and this is an opportunity to raise it. I acknowledge we are talking about it in the context of a process but is information on the status of that recruitment process available? It speaks to a broader conversation about the role of deputy Garda Commissioner, the lead person in the State for intelligence and national security, and that brings with it a certain level of responsibility regarding who is appointed to the role.
The Minister will be aware of the conversations taking place about when that person may be from another police force or jurisdiction because he or she has access to intelligence information, witness protection lists and informants. Listening to others who have spoken about this issue, and knowing there has been extensive coverage of it by The Irish Times and RTÉ, there are concerns in the security community about somebody coming from another jurisdiction. The UK or US, for example, would certainly not consider somebody for a lead intelligence role who did not come from the domestic jurisdiction. The Minister might be able to shed some light on where that recruitment process is.
Where the legislation lays out this process, it refers to the "criteria relating to knowledge, ability and suitability for appointment to the rank of Deputy Garda Commissioner". Would something of that nature be considered if the person in question is the person charged with national security and intelligence in the State? What type of criteria would be applied to that recruitment process? Does the Minister acknowledge that there would be concerns among those working in the security sector about somebody coming from an external police force into that role? We have to take national security seriously. We have heretofore taken a very laissez-faire approach to it. We should take on board the expertise offered by people in other jurisdictions.
Maybe we have felt very secure to date in Ireland and we have been largely protected by our geography, but the geopolitical situation globally prompts us to review how we deal with national security in the State. In some ways, not having a separate national security agency and everything coming under the remit of An Garda Síochána poses challenges for us. Maybe that is something we need to look at. There have been calls in this House by other colleagues to look at that. Perhaps the Department could consider that too.
This Bill is far-reaching. It provides for significant reform, which is to be welcomed. We are not against progress, reform or changing how we do things for the better. Later, we will talk about some reforms happening at a local level. The Minister will be aware of the issues being raised by my party regarding joint policing committees and the changes happening there. I will take the opportunity when that arises to discuss the amendments my party has tabled. We hope the Minister will look favourably on them.
Getting back to the point of the reform taking place here, there is an opportunity for us now, given the extensive change the Minister is bringing about with regard to how we do policing in the country, for us to take a more serious look at national security and intelligence, the role of An Garda Síochána in that and who is charged with that responsibility. That has not happened to date, which is not a criticism of the Minister. Historically, we have been hands-off when it comes to the issue. Given that we are engaging with other police forces around the world and seeing the more recent work in the Minister's Department, we need to be taken more seriously on this front. That means the criteria that we apply to the appointment of the deputy Garda commissioner, if he or she is still to be the person charged with that work, which is another question that needs to be looked at, need to ensure his or her suitability for that role, given what that person will be dealing with and the information he or she will have access to. I say this in the context of whatever potential future governments we may have. This issue has never been more important or pressing. I ask the Minister to address where that recruitment process is and if she is minded to consider the issues I have raised about the appointment process of a future deputy Garda commissioner if he or she is still charged with the intelligence role within An Garda Síochána.
All those involved in our national security, particularly in An Garda Síochána, have always taken their role seriously and will continue to do so. We have a number of deputy commissioner roles in positions dealing with a number of different matters. To be clear, no person would be or will be appointed to any security position where he or she might pose a particular threat or might not be appropriate. I reaffirm that position, which I have stated many times. The competition is in process. It closed in the last number of weeks and we have to allow it to continue. Issues were raised. The Senator might be aware that her colleague brought a memo to Government today to review a particular standard fund threshold, which is an issue that was raised. That review will be completed by the summer and potential recommendations might be made in that regard.
Regarding the criteria, the process proposed in the Bill is that the board, instead of the authority, would lead the charge in the appointment process, engaging with the Minister but also the authority to set out the criteria and working closely with the Public Appointments Service.
As is the case with any legislation, we would not be overly prescriptive as to what that needs to be, and I do not intend to change that. An independent security body will be established through the Bill to review our security legislation and examine potential weaknesses and changes that need to be made. That is new in this legislation.
I am aware of the work the Minister for Finance is doing on the pensions issue. Is it the Minister’s intention to wait to conclude the process until that work has been done? Will the role be left vacant until that point? I understand that would take some time. I also understand the need to let the process take its course.
On the recruitment process and the applications having closed, can the Minister inform the House as to whether any senior members of An Garda Síochána have applied for that position? I agree entirely that those working in the security sphere within An Garda Síochána take their role seriously and I am glad to hear the Minister say that nobody will be appointed to the role of deputy Garda commissioner with responsibility for intelligence where that appointment would pose a threat to our national security or would not be appropriate. In that context, I ask her to consider the advice from people in other jurisdictions with significant experience in this area. They believe, as do I, that the reason it is not appropriate to appoint somebody from another police force or jurisdiction to a lead intelligence role in national security in this State is that if they have links to another country, including perhaps family members living in another country, they could be open to having pressure exerted on them. That is just the nature of how these things often work. It is through no fault of their own but these are the risks involved with having somebody in that role who may have may have additional exposures that domestic applicants will not have. That is what I refer to when I speak about this.
Despite the level of change and reform the Bill is making to our policing system, this issue has not been properly or adequately addressed by the Government. We are taking a very hands-off approach as though it will all be fine until it is not fine. The issue has arisen because the pensions issue just happens to have highlighted it and brought it to the fore. We need to take a more focused look at it, rather than waiting for something to happen before reacting, as is often the case in many Departments on many issues. It is not a criticism of the Minister's work - there is a lot of good reform - but this is one area where we need to be proactive rather than being reactive and waiting for something to happen before we act.
I concur with much of what Senator Chambers said. This is wide-ranging legislation that makes a great deal of change. The Senator’s specific point on the security aspect of appointments at the highest level of An Garda Síochána is well made and deserves attention. We are very fortunate that we have people of the highest calibre and of great intelligence serving within the ranks of An Garda Síochána. I am sure they have collectively the ability and capability to undertake any tasks, as history has shown us and no doubt we will see in the future. When these appointments arise, we have to make sure the net result is that we get the best people for the jobs. If that means looking elsewhere, that is fine but we should think long and hard before we leave our own shores, so to speak. As I said, people of the highest ability in the ranks of An Garda Síochána have served this nation well over the years and I have no doubt we still have people who are capable of performing any role up to and including the rank of Garda Commissioner.
This is a massive, far-reaching Bill that changes many things. As Senator Chambers mentioned, Fianna Fáil Senators have tabled amendments, as have colleagues on the other side of the House, on issues relating to the new community policing body being set up to replace the JPCs.
We sincerely hope the Minister will look favourably upon them. We need accountability in all of these organisations.
Accountability in regard to what we are talking about is vitally important. Nobody is more accountable than the elected representatives across all ranges of Irish society. We are very fortunate that we have people of the highest calibre serving on local authorities. They are accountable unlike no one else on the committee in that they have to put themselves before the people every five years to get re-elected if that is their wish. They are not contactable 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. but they are contactable 24-7. They are the only people on the new committee the Minister is putting together who will be contactable 24-7. We should think long and hard before we dispense of their expertise and local knowledge. They play a vital part in our local democracy and it is important that every strand of democracy that we have has people who are accountable, including on that committee.
I understand, in respect of the Senator's comments, that there are two issues in regard to the deputy Garda Commissioner. An issue arose in the past number of months which was raised by those seeking to apply to a particular position. As I have said, a memo responding to that came before Cabinet today in respect of undertaking a review of a particular threshold. I have no doubt the review will be concluded in the summer. Minister McGrath will respond to that.
In terms of the system, I am not sure where the Senator is suggesting the gap is. The selection criteria, in terms of how somebody with a security background or a particular person should be appointed to that role, will never be put into primary legislation. That relates to the structure itself. The board, working with PAS, and in consultation with the authority at the direction of the Minister, is where the criteria are set out. If there is a particular position of deputy commissioner where the role includes national security, of course criteria would be set out that any person appointed cannot have any negative impact on that role and cannot impact on security, national or otherwise. That will not be put into primary legislation. That is how is it set out at the moment. I do not think there is a gap, in that sense. The competition is ongoing and we need the process to continue.
Regarding the section and the appointment more generally, we are clearly defining that the authority, which is an amalgamation of the previous policing authority with the inspectorate, would have an oversight mechanism instead of a governance role, which it had previously. There is a shift because it will not deal with governance; the board will. They are, essentially, the changes the section is making and simply reflect the fact that the authority will now be the oversight body and the board will be the governance body, whereas previously the authority took on that role. That is why it started the process of the overall appointment of deputy Garda Commissioner or Commissioner.
The Minister asked where the gap is. I was not suggesting that she put into primary legislation something to the effect that somebody from An Garda Síochána should be appointed, although that is what I think. We have to consider people serving in our police force for the head of intelligence.
The reason we had this conversation in the Chamber is that if ever this were to be looked at in terms of the intention of the legislation and the Minister, the debate in this House and the other House will be read to determine what was intended. The reason I asked questions during the debate around suitability for the role was to draw out what we mean by the term "suitability" and put on the record that I think people are not suitable for the role if they are coming from an external police force and are charged with national security intelligence services. That is the conversation we needed to have.
The Minister is the person in the job at the minute, and I sought to make these points in the context of overall policy changes in the Department and how we do policing. The issue of national security has not been taken seriously enough and people in the sector have said we need to have a greater focus on this. We want to ask the Minister to examine that when the Bill has concluded and do a little bit of work on the whole area of national security and intelligence. It has been left to the side.
My fear is that we will wait for something to happen before we react, as we often do. We need to listen to people who have expertise in this area who have said that what we are currently doing is not sufficient and we are not taking things seriously enough. There is an opportunity under this section to make that point. The current role lies with the deputy Garda Commissioner.
However, I take the point. I am not suggesting that the section needs to be amended in any way, more that we have the intention behind it on the record.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 28 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 31
Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 33 and 34 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 41, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(d) the person has engaged in conduct that brings discredit on An Garda Síochána or that may prejudice the proper performance of its functions, or”.
Amendment No. 27 seeks to include a provision in the Bill that the Commissioner or deputy commissioner of An Garda Síochána could be removed from office in circumstances where the person has engaged in conduct that brings discredit to An Garda Síochána or that would prejudice the proper performance of its functions. The Bill sets out the other circumstances by which a Commissioner or deputy commissioner can be removed from office before the natural conclusion of their term to include the failure to perform their functions and the engagement in conduct that brings discredit on the office of the Commissioner or deputy commissioner.
Amendment No. 28, like amendment No. 27, seeks to insert an additional provision in the Bill that could see the Commissioner or deputy commissioner removed from office in circumstances where their removal from office would be, in the opinion of Government, in the best interest of public safety. The Bill currently provides that the Commissioner or deputy commissioner can be removed if, in the opinion of the Government, it is in the best interest of An Garda Síochána. While it may be implied that what is in the best interest of An Garda Síochána is in the best interest of the public, it is our view that public interest should have precedence and, therefore, explicit reference. Within this, however, it is the issue of the Government being able to remove a Commissioner and deputy commissioner as it sees fit. Like the Government being able to directly appoint the Commissioner, this provision risks being politicised. We should look to insert safeguards to prevent the abuse of this provision by Governments and, therefore, reserve the right to introduce an amendment on Report Stage that would mandate Government to consult with relevant stakeholders, including but not limited to the Policing Authority, before taking the decision to unilaterally remove a Commissioner.
Amendment No. 33 inserts a provision that would facilitate the suspension or removal from office of an assistant Garda commissioner or chief superintendent in circumstances where the person engages in contact that brings discredit on the Garda or that may prejudice the performance of its function. It has a similar intention to amendment No. 27 but specifically relates to the assistant commissioners and chief superintendents. Importantly, unlike amendment No. 27, the relevant section contains a safeguard that ensures that board approval must be sought prior to the provision being acted on.
Like amendment No. 33, amendment No. 34 expands the circumstances where an assistant Garda commissioner or chief superintendent can be suspended or removed from office to include circumstances where it would be in the best interest of public safety. This amendment has a similar intention to amendment No. 28, discussed already, but like amendment No. 33, it relates specifically to the offices of the assistant commissioner and the chief superintendent.
It is not that I disagree with the overall objective of the amendments, but similar to previous conversations, I am not sure they are necessary because many of them are covered in what is already in the Bill.
Regarding amendment No. 27, while I do not disagree that such conduct could be reason for removal of an officeholder, the functions of the Garda are set out in section 33 of the Bill and this includes the direction, control and management of An Garda Síochána, so it is difficult to conceive of a conduct that would bring discredit on the office of the Commissioner that would not bring discredit on the Garda as whole or An Garda Síochána more generally. Section 31(1)(b) relates to the organisation itself. It states that the removal of the person from office would, in the opinion of Government, be in the best interests of An Garda Síochána. That part in particular clearly states the reason a person would be removed is because it is in the best interest of An Garda Síochána more broadly. That is the reason amendment No. 27 is not necessary.
On amendment No. 28, the question is why we would single out public safety. I note it is in a separate amendment, namely, amendment No. 34, as well that the removal of a person from office would, in the opinion of the Government, be in the best interest of An Garda Síochána or public safety. Again, it is overly prescriptive. There is not necessarily a rationale as to why we would single that out when the role of An Garda Síochána is to keep people safe. If that is in any way impacted, it would be grounds for some form of dismissal.
Again in amendments Nos. 33 and 34, the change is "to discredit of An Garda Síochána" as opposed to the office. This is very much linked with the first one, where a person has engaged in conduct that brings discredit to the office, by nature they are then bringing discredit to An Garda Síochána more generally. As I said at the outset, there is a particular provision in the Bill at section 31(1)(d) relating to the organisation, which states that removal of the person from office would, in the opinion of the Government, be in the best interests of An Garda Síochána. I know it is language and words. The overall objective the Senator is trying to reach is already reached in the legislation and the wording not just in this section but in other sections as well. For those reasons I will not be accepting the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 41, line 17, after “Síochána” to insert “or public safety”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32
Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 155 and 156 are related and may be discussed together by agreement of the House. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 42, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“(3) A person who does or omits to do anything that, if the inquiry were a court of law having the power to punish for contempt, would be contempt of such court, is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a class C fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.”.
During the Dáil debates on this Bill, it was noted that the sections providing for judicial inquiries lacked any penalties for non-compliance with the rulings of the judge in such inquiries. While the original intention of the Bill was that the common law powers of a judge could be used to enforce such penalties, I am now advised that such powers can only be used when a judge is sitting in a court. They are not applicable to these types of judicial inquiries. The Attorney General has now advised that express provision should be made for such penalties for non-compliance with an inquiry. I want to acknowledge Deputies Ó Ríordáin and Howlin for flagging this particular issue. Accordingly, these amendments make it an offence for a person to do or to omit to do anything that, if the inquiry were a court of law, would be considered contempt of such a court.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 42, line 36, after “offence” to insert “(other than an offence under subsection (3)#)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 33 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 36
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 45, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(c)significant developments that might reasonably be expected to adversely affect the performance of An Garda Síochána;”.
This is a simple enough amendment that would mandate the Garda Commissioner that he or she be duty-bound to keep the Minister and Secretary General at the Department of Justice informed of any significant developments that might adversely affect the performance of An Garda Síochána. As drafted, the Bill provides that the Commissioner must keep the Minister informed of developments that might impact public confidence in An Garda Síochána but not on their performance. While public confidence is indeed impacted by performance of An Garda Síochána of its functions, the same is not the case of the reverse. It seems like a sensible provision in circumstances where the Commissioner is aware of developments that would adversely impact the performance by An Garda Síochána of its functions that the Minister would be fully informed. Perhaps this is already mandated in other sections but I do think it is a simple enough amendment that will give extra clarity within the Bill in terms of it also being in respect of performance and not just functions.
As I have said in many instances, while we are trying not to be overly prescriptive in the legislation in adding in specific criteria for certain things, I think what is being proposed in this amendment more or less reflects what actually happens more generally and what happens now. For that reason, I am happy to accept this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 37 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 43
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 49, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:“(6) In making a determination under this section, the Garda Commissioner shall have due regard to the capacity of An Garda Síochána to fulfil its regular functions.”.
Section 43 makes provision for policing services to be provided for private events by An Garda Síochána. I refer to events like concerts, sporting events, festivals and conferences. This amendment simply inserts a qualifier stating that in making a determination in respect of a request for policing services "the Garda Commissioner shall have due regard to the capacity of An Garda Síochána to fulfil its regular [everyday] functions".
While I am sure it is the case that the policing of private events is facilitated through the use of Garda overtime, etc., I think it worthwhile to acknowledge the potential impact that private events could have on everyday policing matters and to ensure the Commissioner would consider this prior to agreeing to a private request for policing services.
This section is an enabling one rather than being overly prescriptive. What the Commissioner always has to do is look at whether this is in the public interest. It has to be consistent with the functions of An Garda Síochána and he or she must make sure it does not impact on the role of the Garda or potentially take away from resources. Again, I think we are being overly prescriptive in adding this measure on top of it. It is very clear at the moment that this is a role the Garda may take on or it is a duty they may be part of, for example, when large events or matches take place on particular days where the Garda are naturally there and it is part of their overall duty, so there might not even be an agreement in place. This is to allow for a particular agreement to take place rather than getting into too much detail as to the regard the Commissioner may or may not have. It does have to be in the public interest to provide this type of service, and any charge, but the Commissioner would also have to make sure that it does not inhibit the Garda's work more generally on that day or any day-to-day basis.
I am thinking of public interest underpinning the decisions on where police are deployed or not deployed. I think that makes sense.
When we look at the prosecutorial powers of members of the Garda, I question whether it is in the public interest to keep guards in courts. Is there another part of the legislation where decisions are made that are not in the public interest? I am not sure if I am pronouncing "prosecutorial" right. I am not sure whether it is in the public interest that guards are in court. I accept that public interest would definitely underpin concerts, matches and other such events. I suppose this is more of a comment.
In response to the Senator's last point, we are always looking at ways in which we can free up front-line gardaí who are perhaps in roles that can be done by other people, be it in the courts, areas relating to immigration or other types of roles they have been in previously. We have seen how gardaí have been freed up. A report is ongoing at the moment on the prosecution role, which I will be able to bring to Cabinet in the near future.
This section is about not over-prescribing the use of the Commissioner's professional discretion to manage the organisation in the way he or she sees fit. That is what we are trying to do. It is an enabling provision. At all times the Garda Commissioner has to be mindful of the resources he or she has and how they are being allocated. There might be a situation where the resources are deployed anyway without an ask from a particular organisation or for an event that is taking place because it is deemed in the public interest or necessary for public safety.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 43 agreed to.
Sections 44 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 48
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 51, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:“(c) the person has engaged in conduct that brings discredit on An Garda Síochána or that may prejudice the proper performance of its functions, or”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 51, line 20, after “Síochána” to insert “or public safety”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 48 agreed to.
Sections 49 and 50 agreed to.
SECTION 51
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 54, line 9, after “Síochána” to insert “or public safety generally”.
Section 51 provides for the removal of members below the rank of chief superintendent for reasons of public confidence. As drafted, members could be removed from office where public confidence is undermined by their continued membership. As with similar amendments that I have already spoken to, my intention in tabling this amendment is to tease out the distinction between public confidence and the exercise and fulfilment of functions of a member of An Garda Síochána. My view is that public safety should be the primary consideration when considering the removal of a member of An Garda Síochána. This amendment reflects and acts on that by referring to the impact of the continued membership of the individual in question on public safety generally.
Amendment No. 36 is consequential to the previous amendment which states that the Garda Commissioner shall have regard to the impact on public safety generally of the continued membership of a member of an Garda Síochána before issuing an order for dismissal. This amendment would provide that a member could be dismissed where his or her dismissal is necessary to maintain public safety in a general sense.
Again, I believe this amendment is overly prescriptive. We are trying to ensure there is a particular ability for the Garda Commissioner to dismiss somebody below the rank of chief superintendent for reasons of public confidence. The section is sufficient to cover the broad headings for any consideration. There would obviously still have to be a disciplinary process but by reason of a member's conduct, the section outlines that this would include any act or omission. It is, therefore, broad enough to cover anything. Obviously, there would have to be a particular process. The amendment is overly prescriptive. There is no clear rationale as to why we would include public safety when obviously the role of An Garda Síochána is to keep people safe. Therefore, if a member engages in any type of an act or omission that might jeopardise public safety, that would fall under this particular area. As I said, there would still have to be a disciplinary process. This is an enabling section to allow the Garda Commissioner to start that process.
I probably sound like a broken record but we often do not think about public safety in terms of occasions when gardaí are overly aggressive or abuse stop and search powers. The use of stop and search powers is for other legislation at another time, however. Sometimes public safety can be threatened in particular communities because some gardaí do not necessarily work towards having a positive relationship with the community and they can be verbally or physically aggressive. That also has an impact on public safety because it creates a sense of unsafety in certain communities when there is a garda present. While it is really obvious when we look at the public safety of society as a whole, in more micro situations, where some gardaí are extremely or unnecessarily heavy-handed in certain situations, it affects public safety in the long term because it affects the relationship between particular communities and An Garda Síochána. I will withdraw the amendments. I am trying to stretch out the idea that when we think of public safety it is not always as obvious as an incident or something easy to point at. It is also about how we engage more generally with policed communities and the fact that some gardaí actually do a disservice to any sort of relationship building between An Garda Síochána and particular minority groups, etc.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 54, line 10, after “confidence” to insert “or public safety generally”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 51 agreed to.
SECTION 52
Question proposed: "That section 52 stand part of the Bill."
Section 52 deals with the Garda Reserve. While I have no difficulty with the section, I should point out that the potential of the Garda Reserve has been raised a number of times in the House, in particular, by Senator McDowell. In the context of the challenges we face in recruiting and retaining gardaí for many reasons, we are working to improve the lot of trainees and getting more people into the Garda.
There is untapped potential within the Garda Reserve. The section refers to a garda reserve having the same duties and responsibilities as a serving member of the Garda and that the roles effectively can be the same if that is the direction.
There is an opportunity here to review how the Garda Reserve is working and to examine its potential more broadly, acknowledging that, because it is a volunteer role, people do not come to that role in the same way they come to working as a permanent member of the force, where that is their full-time job and what they do day in, day out. I say this as somebody who served as a member of the Reserve Defence Force for many years. It is a different role. It is a supplementary role. We work with our permanent colleagues but we come at it from a different angle and bring to the role expertise and experience from other jobs and other professions we might have. Somebody could come in who might be a teacher or an engineer by profession or a farmer and he or she brings different expertise to that role. Given the challenges in recruiting the number of gardaí needed, which will probably persist for some time, there is an opportunity to utilise the Garda Reserve more fully and have a deeper examination as to the kind of role it could play and the kind of role it wants to play.
It would be worth having a conversation with serving members of the Garda Reserve, particularly those who may have joined and dropped out or where it did not work out, to see what could have been done differently. The numbers are not where they need to be. There are people who would join the reserve if it were made a little easier to do so and if the role were more distinct from serving as a permanent member of the force. I ask that in the context of the overall reforms of how we police that we would have a deeper look at the Garda Reserve and how it could be better utilised and maybe some sort of outreach into secondary schools at leaving cert level or into colleges and into areas where people are retired and would like to come back and have expertise to offer. There is great potential there and it has not got off the ground to the extent we would have liked. It is great to see that it has been dealt with in the Bill and that there is still a focus on the Garda Reserve and a desire to do more with it but I am keen to hear the Minister's thoughts on where she sees the Garda Reserve going within this reform process and what she thinks the potential is there for it. There is great scope there to do more with it. There is a lack of knowledge or understanding. When talking to ordinary members of the public, they are not really aware of what the Garda Reserve does or how they can join it. Perhaps another recruitment campaign could be run to try to encourage members to come in because people would be interested if they were reached out to. That would nearly need to be done regularly until it becomes bedded in and people are aware how to join because they are not fully aware yet how to do that.
Those are just some thoughts as the opportunity arose to raise them under this section.
I highlight what Senator Chambers said. It is a very important point. We need a renewed focus on the Garda Reserve. I have had a good few friends in the Garda Reserve, more than half of whom have left. They are very discontent with the whole setup, disappointed with what they see inside Garda stations and disappointed that they were sent to police rugby matches. People have told me they arrived and were told they were not really wanted at the station. There is a huge suggestion of bullying and intimidation within An Garda Síochána as regards these reserves, from what people have told me. I know one person who suffered major mental health issues as a result of his time within the Garda Reserve. He was a broken person as a result of it all. He came with great ambition to be a garda. Thanks be to goodness, he is now in IT. He has just turned out with his master's and is working for an American company in Dublin. He did information technology. What a skill set to bring to An Garda Síochána. That is an important point.
We need a renewed focus on this but we need to define clearly the role of reserves. It is certainly not to be standing around parades, it is certainly not to be thrown out of stations and it is certainly not to be going to the local chipper for chips or to Chinese takeaways. That is, sadly, what people have shared with me. That is the story, and I want to tell it to the Minister. This is our platform. This is an opportunity where I can share that with her. They tell me that there is systemic bullying in the Garda Síochána in respect of reserves. Their numbers have gone down. One man who was in the Garda Reserve, I am delighted to say, will be running in the local elections - not in Dublin. I do not want to identify him. He had so much to offer the community. I said to him, "You can do other great things in the community, so why not run in the local elections?"
We need to understand that there are older people who may have opted out of something. There is a cut-off point. I recall another person who was asked to leave at a certain point. People who reach the age of 65 or 68 are not redundant or useless. They have life experience and lived experiences. I believe they can be a positive force for goodness and change.
We also have many people, reservists, with other skills who could be doing administrative work. We do not need all our highly skilled members of An Garda Síochána behind desks. It is challenging. We need to recruit them but before we start on a recruitment drive, we need to clearly define what the job is. There are many good people and many gardaí, superintendents, sergeants, etc., in divisions all over the country who are very supportive of reservists. I would not like to think it was a common problem. However, many people I know who were in the Garda Reserve have told me the same story. Therefore, we need to revisit it and define what their role is. We need to be clear on a line they can take up if they feel in any way pressurised or intimidated.
The other side of the Garda Reserve is that it is a great screening process or a great teaser or introduction to An Garda Síochána. People come into something like that and then decide after a year or two that it is not it is not really for them. That is another particularly important point.
Finally, I ask that in any reform of the Garda Reserve or when we are looking at it again, we put in place a confidential exit interview process. We have much to learn from people who leave here and who leave politics. We have much to learn from people who leave An Garda Síochána. I would like to see a very professional exit interview system in place in order that we can learn, because some of these people say that, yes, they are prepared to come and meet people to whom they can talk in confidence. They want to share their experiences and contribute for people coming behind them who may like a more positive experience as a Garda reservist. There is really a place for Garda reserves. There is in-house training for the people who are there but there has to be a mechanism of finding out why so many people are leaving, why they are not staying and why they are not valued. There is much to be learned. Therefore, before we throttle out all the reforms, we need to identify what the issues are for the people involved and see how we can learn from that to put in place a more strong, robust and healthier workplace for our Garda reserves.
I thank Senator Chambers for poking us all on this particular issue. The Garda Reserve is a very valuable resource in this country that is absolutely not tapped into. I thank Senator Boyhan for his contribution. This is an issue that Senator McDowell has been raising for the last number of years and nothing has been done - absolutely nothing has been done on this. The Garda Commissioner has done nothing on it. That is the reality of it. It is now a depleted force. There are approximately 300 people in our Garda Reserve programme at present. A person can enter into the Garda Reserve from the ages of 18 to 60. It is a voluntary role, but if a person does do more than 200 hours, he or she can get a contribution of €1,000 towards expenses or something like that. That is actually part of the scheme as well. There is no reason these people cannot be doing administrative roles, however. There is no reason why we cannot bring retired gardaí back and maybe give them a tax rebate on their pension or something like that to take up some Garda Reserve roles. There are loads of ways in which we can increase participation in the Garda Reserve programme but there does not seem to be a will to do that. Whether it is the Minister or the Garda Commissioner, we need to do much more to increase the numbers we have within our Garda Reserve force at this moment. Those people may lead on to join the Garda down the line, but they may not. It is a very valuable resource that this Government is not tapping into, however, and nor is the Garda Commissioner. The Minister needs to find out why and if not, why not, and what he is going to do about it.
I concur with the sentiments of the previous speakers regarding the merits of the Garda Reserve. I noted from comments at a previous debate in this Chamber last week that the Minister indicated that moves were afoot perhaps in the first quarter of 2024, and she might correct me if I am wrong, regarding a recruitment campaign in relation to getting people to sign up for the Garda Reserve. That would be very much welcome. There is no doubt but it can be a very valuable resource.
It is worth mentioning at this point is that, yes, there needs to be a public awareness campaign regarding the recruitment campaign for the Garda Reserve.
As my colleague said, perhaps an ongoing programme would be beneficial in that regard. It is critical, as part of that campaign, that the exact role of a member of the Garda Reserve is clarified. It is essential that anybody who contemplates joining the Garda Reserve is clear about the job description. Perhaps that is part of the reason the campaigns failed before. Knowing the job description would ensure that anybody who signs up is under no illusion about the job description for a member of the Garda Reserve, what a member is entitled to do and, even more importantly, what he or she is not entitled to do.
We cannot ignore another aspect concerning the existing Garda force. We are all aware that there is stress as regards numbers and a lack of personnel. We all accept that. As the Minister alluded to on a previous occasion, we all accept that the chairman of the Policing Authority said that had Covid-19 not struck our shores and had the Garda College been up and running as per normal, there would be an additional 1,000 members in the force today. Everybody will have to accept that as a reasonable point and I certainly do. If we had an extra 1,000 members in the Garda Síochána today, it would make a big difference because the reality is, which I think everybody accepts, the number in the force is not where we would like it to be and, as a result, we rob Peter to pay Paul when situations arise like the one that arose in this city less than two weeks ago. We must increase the number in the force to give us more flexibility, which is a job of work that the Minister is focusing on and rightly so. We must get more people through the door and, first, as members of the Garda. That is vitally important and we must keep a close eye on the issue. As I often say, it is all fine and dandy getting people to join and come in the front door but if they are resigning and going out the back door before they are meant to, that must be examined as well. Exit studies are being conducted and I respectfully suggest that this work be fast-tracked to talk to those who are leaving and ask them why they are leaving. The representative associations must also be consulted as they have first-hand information from their members as to why people are leaving. We need that information because responsibility for an individual who joins the Garda Reserve will be with the garda who is on duty with him or her at any given moment in time. It is a big responsibility taking someone in who may not have any training whatsoever concerning the role of a member of An Garda Síochána. There is a big responsibility on the garda who accompanies a member of the Garda Reserve as they go about their duties, and the garda must look after the individual.
First, it is important that a recruitment campaign be conducted. I commend Senator McDowell who has been a consistent voice on this issue in this House. On various occasions he expressed frustration at the fact that the Government was slow to move on recruitment. There is no getting away from the fact that we have been slow but the Minister has mentioned here previously, including last week, that we can expect a bit of movement in the first quarter of next year, which is to be welcomed.
Second, it is critically important that the job description of the Garda Reserve is laid out for the benefit of everybody who joins. I commend those who join the Reserve. It is public service at its best where people, such as retired people, like Senator Boyhan indicated, would like to play a part and give something back to society. These people give up some of their free time to be on duty mostly during antisocial hours. They are to be commended on that as they want to give some service to the State. The least they deserve is to know the job role and what is expected of them.
Senator Keogan mentioned the issue of providing small rewards, financial or otherwise. We should be as generous as we can when it comes to remunerating members of the Garda Reserve for their service.
They are not going to get a full-blown wage for what they do, nor do they expect to. However, at the same time, if we make it a bit more attractive from a financial perspective, people will think it is worthwhile. Individuals who are already in employment, perhaps young people who are saving for a mortgage deposit, might see this as a possibility to earn some additional income. It would make good financial sense for the State to look at that proposal in great detail because there is potential there. We would still be getting a resource for a third of the price a fully trained member of An Garda Síochána would cost the State. We cannot do it on the cheap. We need to respect those coming in because it is a very responsible job and, as we all know, quite a dangerous one. To expect people to do it free and gratis is probably stretching it a bit too much. It is not like delivering meals on wheels. That is also a very responsible job but this is a dangerous job and we need to respect and acknowledge that and to be as generous as we can, as a State, in remunerating those who would give up their free time for the State, the public and the communities they serve. We need to acknowledge that.
In summary, it is a good idea and I commend Senator Chambers on, as Senator Keogan has said, setting the ball rolling in respect of this particular section. It has the potential to be an additional arm for the State and for the Garda. However, responsibility comes with that. If I was a member of An Garda Síochána taking someone out with me tomorrow morning, I would have big responsibilities as an individual garda. If numbers are tight and people are under pressure, that pressure will be pushed onto that Garda Reserve member. In an ideal world, I would like to see a lot more gardaí before we start but, unfortunately, we are not in that space and we cannot afford to wait to get into it. We need additional help. If we make the role as attractive as we possibly can and define the boundaries of the role, it could be and, I hope, will be a valuable asset to gardaí as they go about their daily duties. I look forward to that campaign. Will the Minister confirm when it is due to begin because the sooner, the better? I again commend Senator McDowell, who has been a constant champion for this idea, on raising it on a regular basis.
The question is "That section 52 stand part of the Bill."
May I respond? I had better after all of that.
(Interruptions).
I meant after all of the contributions.
If the Minister would like me to repeat any of it, I am happy to do so.
I would say three words would cover it.
I support Senators in their contributions and agree with them that the reserve plays a really important role in supporting An Garda Síochána and in assisting gardaí in their work. The workforce of An Garda Síochána includes front-line gardaí, civilian staff and our reserve and we need to look at the overall numbers for all three areas. Senators are right to say that the numbers have dropped. While the number of gardaí had increased, it dropped during the Covid pandemic because of the closure of the college to new recruits. The number of civilian staff has continued to increase but the number in the reserve has not continued to increase in the same way. The last competition was in 2017. There was to be a new competition but it was decided that there needed to be a review of the regulations we had because a competition had not taken place in some time. That review has already taken place. It looked at the role and duties of the Garda Reserve as it supports and complements the work of the Garda. Following on from that review, new regulations are being developed. There was engagement with all of the relevant associations. That engagement has already happened so the Commissioner will be in a position to open up a new competition early in the new year. That will coincide with a new recruitment campaign for An Garda Síochána more broadly.
At the moment, if somebody does more than 208 hours per annum, he or she can be remunerated up to €1,000 but the position of reservist is voluntary and this is just to cover the costs reservists might have incurred, including travel and other expenses. Work is being done and there has been work on reviewing the overall role of the reserve, which has resulted in new regulations I will be able to sign off on shortly. There will be a new recruitment campaign early in the new year. The more who apply, the more the reserve can support the work of An Garda Síochána more generally.
I support the role of the Garda Reserve and hope to see new recruits in the new year because many of them then go on to became gardaí and it is an opening mark for many of them.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 53
Question proposed: "That section 53 stand part of the Bill."
I want to take this opportunity to talk about the admission of trainees, which is dealt with under this section. Somebody close to me has recently gone through the process of applying to join the Garda. They have gone through the fitness test, the interviews and all that goes with that. It was quite a lengthy process. It started at the beginning of this year and that person is still awaiting their date for call-up. There is a particular process to go through and the individual concerned had no difficulty going through those processes. Each step that person went through was valid but they are left in limbo waiting for their date and there is a lot of uncertainty. Between each stage there is a considerable wait time. Is there any prospect of speeding that up?
While you are going through that process you do not know what your employment situation will be or when you will get your start date. It makes it difficult to apply for another job while you are doing that and waiting to see if you will be successful or unsuccessful. It is taking a long time to get from the beginning of the process to walking in the doors in Templemore. I know the Minister has done a lot of work to try to speed up the process and get people through a bit quicker but from my first-hand experience, I have seen how long it took to get from step A to step B and step C. It has taken the best part of a year and that person has still not started. They did not have to repeat their fitness test; they went through all stages without any difficulty, which is great. It seems to be taking quite a long time and that person is left hanging during that period and not sure whether they will get a start or not or whether they should pursue alternative careers. I have no doubt that we are losing some good people and that had they gotten a start a bit sooner they may not have applied for other jobs or gone down different career paths. The more streamlined and efficient we can make the process of getting through those stages, the better it will be.
When trainees start their training programme, the duration of it is something along the lines of 33 weeks. I want to acknowledge what the Minister secured in the budget for next year in the increase in the training allowance. That was hugely significant and that is an acknowledgement of the cost of going through that training process and the cost of living that people have to deal with. That increase in the training allowance is hugely welcome and went down really well. I have no doubt that will make a difference to people choosing to join. Once you get into the college you will be on that allowance for the best part of a year, you have to live during that period and you get back home at the weekends. To have a reasonable training allowance and money they can live on for that period is welcome. I am amazed it stayed so low for as long as it did but the fact that it has been increased is important.
On the numbers of recruits who go in and those who get through, there is a considerable drop-off rate and a considerable number who do not make it through. I take on board the comments that have been made on this. The fitness test is hugely important and it is in or around one in six applicants who do not make it through the fitness test. There is an opportunity to come back and do it a second time if you did not make it through the first time. From what I have heard back from somebody who has recently been through it, there were people turning up on the day for the fitness test who underestimated what would be expected of them. Perhaps a little bit of work should be done to let people know what is involved in the fitness test when they come for it. We should inform the new people coming in of what the failure rate is and of what is required of them because it seems to be the case that people are rocking up thinking it will be a walk in the park or very easy, when it is anything but easy. The fitness test needs to be robust because we need people coming through the training college who are fit, healthy and able to do the job because it is a physically demanding job. Perhaps work can be done to inform new or potential recruits about what is expected on that day and that preparation training is required. You need to get out and go for a run before you rock up to the fitness test as it is not something you would pass easily.
The following point is not completely related to the section. There seems to be a view that if you come out of Templemore, you will automatically be sent to Dublin for a period of time.
There is concern in other areas of the country, particularly rural areas, that other parts of the country are not getting their fair share of new recruits. If the Minister has the information to hand on the number of trainees she expects to come out and roughly the numbers she expects to go where in the country, could she share it with us? There is an acceptance that there is a particular demand in our cities, particularly the capital, for obvious reasons but numbers have to come up at local level.
In Mayo, there is a concern that we will not be adequately resourced in terms of Garda numbers because the pressures and demands will be elsewhere and that there is not much hope of any of the new recruits being posted to other areas of the country. If this is not the case, that is good but that needs to be dealt with head on in terms of information. It came up at the last meeting of the joint policing committee in Mayo. Senior Garda management was asked whether gardaí from Mayo would be sent to Dublin if and when it was requested. The answer was "Yes" but that it would be done using overtime hours. This has concerned members locally. They are concerned about what happens during the busy Christmas period. In what is generally a very quiet and safe community in County Mayo, there are periods during the year where there is extra demand for Garda resources. Christmas is an obvious one along with new year and the summer when more tourists come to the area. Achill in County Mayo sees its population during the tourist period almost double but no additional Garda resources are made available to the area during that period. When there is talk at local level that new recruits will go straight to Dublin and nowhere else, that needs to be addressed head on. Where there is talk of resources being taken out of rural areas and sent to the larger cities and towns, that needs to be addressed head on because while we may not always need the same resources, it is fair to expect that we would get our fair share of resources and that rural areas would not be left in a situation where if something did happen, there would not be adequate gardaí available. There is concern in rural communities that resources are being sent to certain parts of the country because they are needed, but that it is to the detriment of smaller rural areas. This is particularly pertinent to the area of trainees and recruits in that we are not seeing them coming into rural areas to the level we would expect when there are still gaps in services.
During the most recent recruitment campaign, over 5,000 people applied so the Public Appointments Service has a significant number of people to go through. It is obviously not just dealing with An Garda Síochána but the entire public sector. I know there have even been difficulties in recruiting people to the Public Appointments Service so its capacity to deal not just with its own recruitment campaign but with many others is limited. A significant amount of work has been done to expand and the Public Appointments Service has gone through the applications as quickly as possible. It has to find out if people still want to take on the role or position. Some people do not want to so there is an initial process and then interviews, the fitness test, the medical, vetting and, if somebody has lived abroad, vetting abroad. There is no ability to dictate what happens in terms of vetting abroad and how long it will take. We have done everything. We work closely with the Garda Commissioner and his team to reduce the timeline as much as possible but, again, where there is a limited resource within the Public Appointments Service, we must work with it. If there are ways in which some of these things can be done in parallel, that is happening already.
Regarding the fitness test, people are given more than one or two chances. They are given an opportunity to come back a number of times. Information is available for people who apply. I think there is a video showing them exactly what the test involves and what they need to prepare for. That information is available. If people have not seen the video and they fail, they are obviously alerted to it and given as much support as possible because we do not want people failing the fitness test. There may be a medical issue or something that for some reason precludes them but if they can improve their fitness, it is really important that they are supported.
On the overall numbers going into the Garda College, of the 155 recruits in the last class, 153 will come out, so there is a certain level of drop-off but it is low. It is not 20 or 30. It tends to be just one or two.
Where gardaí go is very much a decision for the Garda Commissioner in terms of where resources are needed. Of the new classes coming out, a significant number have gone to Dublin. This allows for transfers and for people to be freed up to move outside Dublin to other regions.
One of the challenges often presented to me was that of people not being able to transfer from where they were working, be it Dublin or elsewhere. However, now that we have more recruits coming out of the Garda College, a transfer applicant might be able to move from Dublin to a rural part. While higher numbers are going to Dublin, recruitment frees up people to move around also. While just one individual from an attestation might be going to a certain county or area, there might be many more going there. However, it is the role of the Garda Commissioner to identify where members go. Recruitment is gaining pace. We will have 153 coming out of the college this Friday and a new class going in at the end of the year. This shows that the momentum is building.
To follow on from the Minister's comments, it is important that those thinking of applying today be given a timeframe for the process and steps along the way. This would be beneficial. I realise the Minister is trying to do work in this area. Where a person is working or trying to plan a future job, it is important to have clarity so that if he or she begins the process of becoming a member of An Garda Síochána today, he or she will be guaranteed to go through it within a set period, subject to all the relevant steps that must be undertaken, including the fitness test.
I am aware the fitness test's difficulty, or otherwise, has received much publicity recently. It is taken as a given that anybody serious about applying to become a member of An Garda Síochána requires a certain fitness level. As the Minister said, there is much information available on that level. Thankfully, people are probably looking after themselves more than ever before from a fitness point of view, and they are more conscious of their health. I would like to believe the majority of applicants have a fairly good level of fitness to begin with. I understand some have failed the test; however, as the Minister has said, if you have fallen at the first fence there is an opportunity to raise your fitness so you will have no problem the next time.
With regard to the medical, I am not sure of the exact detail but I can recall recent commentary on a delay and the question of whether a specific consultant within the Garda medical aid team had to conduct the fitness test, physical examination or health examination – call it what you may. For whatever reason, there was a delay. I do not know the present status. To fast-track the entire process, could any suitably qualified medical individual conduct the test so everybody would not have to go through the door of one consultant? You would imagine that if any medical consultant or suitably qualified medical individual signed off Joe or Mary as having health sufficiently good to join, it would suffice. In many ways, that might fast-track the process.
Once training is undertaken, the next step concerns where to go. My heart goes out to anybody coming to Dublin because they will have been on just 100-plus euro per week, or whatever it is. I compliment the Minister for raising the amount to a more realistic one. Someone who goes to Dublin expecting to put together a deposit for a house or apartment will have difficulty finding a property in the first instance, followed by the second test, namely paying the deposit or undertaking to pay the rent. I would not underestimate the challenge this poses for many coming out of the college, especially if the majority of them are to come to the capital city, which I would imagine will be the case in light of recent events.
I would not underestimate the challenge this poses for many people coming out of the college, especially if the majority of them will be, which I imagine will be the case in light of recent events, coming to the capital city. It is not an issue we can shy away from.
This problem affects not just the Garda but has an impact on many public service jobs, whether it be nursing or teaching. We need to keep this issue on the radar because we are seeing situations where young gardaí are travelling long distances daily. Some of them may be travelling up as much as two hours to and from work. It can be stressful, tiresome and dangerous if they are driving to and from their work and long distances are involved.
Additionally, there is not the added advantage of having members of the Garda living in the community in which they are serving. I would certainly not underestimate the benefit of this to society, because it allows the individual member of An Garda Síochána to become embraced within the community from a social perspective, which could mean joining football clubs, Gaelic, soccer or rugby, a badminton club or whatever club it might be.
And camogie.
Living locally would allow the members of the Garda the flexibility to be able to take part in this way.
This is to do with strengthening the nature of the section.
I appreciate that, yes, but this has all to do with the-----
-----conditions of service. Yes, I know. In fairness, I think the Senator is strangling it a bit.
And struggling.
(Interruptions).
With respect, I would probably have had my contribution completed if I had not been interrupted. Anyway, the other thing would be, if I could say this without interruption-----
Senator Gallagher without interruption, please.
My colleague, Senator Joe O'Reilly, and I are conscious that in the area we share, new Garda members are not coming to Cavan town or to Monaghan town. It has been a while since the stations in those towns have had new recruits. This is an issue that people are conscious of and it would be nice to know that some of the people passing out now would be heading to the country, so to speak, as opposed to all of them heading to the capital city. Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his latitude.
Go raibh maith agat. I hope the Senator would include County Cork in that section outside Dublin as well.
Absolutely.
I think the Senator needs a gallon of water after that.
(Interruptions).
I will not repeat any of the case just made.
Please do not.
(Interruptions).
No. I have just one comment.
I remind Members we are on this section that deals with conditions of service.
I have one comment on what my colleague was just saying. It occurs to me that this issue needs to be examined in respect of the area of health and the cases of nurses as well. Specifically in this context, though, concerning young gardaí and Garda recruits, we should consider purpose-built accommodation. Historically, this existed for the members of An Garda Síochána. We should look at this possibility now in a Dublin context. I say this because my colleague is correct that there is an issue. This happens in many capital cities now. People in a range of jobs, including teaching, nursing, the ambulance service, paramedics, and all these kinds of jobs, find it impossible to buy houses and, often, to rent houses in the capital. We should, therefore, examine purpose-built accommodation and its greater use. If we were to walk around the city here any day, we would see many derelict buildings and unused commercial office space. Converting these kinds of buildings should be considered.
I appreciate the difficulty the Minister has had in getting trainees on board. It is hard. When it comes to trainees, we must make being a garda a job worth applying for. In this regard, the remuneration is very important, but so is having a proper pension. These new gardaí are on the post-2013 pension provision. Those joining the Garda now, compared with those who joined the force in 2012, are not getting the same pension provision. There is an inequality here for new gardaí. I would like the Minister to look at this aspect of the pension and whether it is possible to make this more attractive.
Equally, when the Garda Commissioner was in the committee room before the Minister came into the Chamber, I suggested he could look at the Garda stations around the country, particularly in the Dublin area. If trainee gardaí are going to be posted to Dublin, it is important to consider whether one of the Garda stations here could be used for accommodation for gardaí. Instead of these trainees having to travel from Cork, Galway or wherever they are coming from, accommodation would be available in the city. Does An Garda Síochána need all the stations it has in Dublin now? Is there a station that could be looked at and that would have room to be built onto? Could a certain number of rooms be provided in a location like that for gardaí to live in during the week or at the weekends? I am sure this possibility could be explored. I do not think we need all the current Garda stations and buildings. We need foot soldiers on the ground. Perhaps, then, this is something the Minister could examine in conjunction with the Garda Commissioner. I refer to considering if accommodation can be provided, especially in the more expensive cities of Dublin, Cork and Galway.
It is not possible to give a definitive timeline. If a significant number apply at the same time, they must go through the initial process but there may be an issue with someone failing the fitness test or medical, or an issue with vetting abroad. We cannot say whether someone will come back from another police jurisdiction in a matter of weeks or months. It is very difficult to put a timeline on it but obviously we would like a process to be done as quickly as possible.
With regard to the challenge we have for members allocated to Dublin, what I hear a lot is that those who serve in Dublin first have more experience than anybody, particularly those in some rural areas, and this experience is very welcome when they are then potentially transferred further out. I do not for a second diminish the challenge that people who are based in Dublin have with rent when they have to live in Dublin. It is very difficult to see how we would apply a measure, be it for gardaí, nurses or anybody else. Somebody living in County Meath might be able to travel up and down if they are stationed in Dublin. Would they still get-----
Purpose-built accommodation is needed.
To respond to Senator Keogan's point, I do not think we have any stations sitting idle or that are not being used or are not necessary. We are renovating and reopening stations not only in Dublin but throughout the country.
What about using derelict buildings and office-commercial spaces?
How do we look at who takes up this accommodation? It is not something being actively looked at with regard to how it would be applied, who would get the accommodation, for what length of time and whether it would apply only to gardaí. A series of questions would have to be answered.
A question was asked on pensions. This comes under the remit of the Department of Finance or the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Any change to pensions for gardaí would mean changes more broadly across the public sector. There are ongoing discussions and negotiations with various unions at present and that is where the matter would be best dealt with more broadly.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 54
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 37:
In page 55, line 20, to delete "subsection (6)" and substitute "subsections (6) and (7)".
There may be a further technical amendment to this section and I would like to flag it now. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 relate to section 54 of the Bill on the appointment of members of Garda staff. By way of background, the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland recommended that Garda staff be recruited directly into An Garda Síochána and that An Garda Síochána be seen and treated as a single organisation with a single workforce who share a common mission. Section 54(1) allows the Garda Commissioner to recruit Garda staff directly into the organisation. In addition, section 54(5) allows for the designation of existing civilian staff as Garda staff but only on foot of an appropriate industrial relations process.
Commencement of the legislation will have no automatic effect on existing civilian staff. This point has been confirmed on a number of occasions in previous debates on the Bill. I reaffirmed this point on Second Stage in the House in early October. Following that debate, I engaged directly with many Garda civilian staff and their representatives. I remain keenly aware of, and very sensitive to, the concerns raised by existing staff. In addition, there continues to be engagement between me, departmental officials, Garda management and the relevant trade unions. This engagement will continue as part of planning for the implementation of the Bill.
Senators may wish to note that a commitment was already made on my behalf by the Department that no order would be made under section 54(5) of the Bill designating existing staff as Garda staff until at least 1 January 2025. I am bringing forward an amendment to section 54, which I hope will provide further reassurance to existing Garda staff. The amendment will ensure that an order under section 54(5) that would have the effect of designating existing staff as Garda staff may not be made until at least 24 months after the commencement of the section. I am taking this initiative as a gesture of goodwill to existing Garda staff. This provides a suitable and manageable period for the staff engagement already under way in this area. It must also take on board the terms and conditions that will apply to new civilian staff recruited after the commencement of the Bill who will automatically be designated as Garda staff.
I thank the Minister for speaking on the amendments. As she knows, colleagues from Fórsa attended the previous two debates on the Bill.
I acknowledge the Minister was good enough to speak to them on both occasions. While we welcome the two years in that amendment, it does not deal with the core issue. I have spoken to my colleagues in Fórsa almost on a daily basis in the past week. They would have been here today, were it not that this debate was only scheduled for today's sitting yesterday. However, I will read the concerns they have about what is happening into the record. This is correspondence several of us have received from a number of Garda civilian staff. I will quote it directly.
The proposed changes to my terms and conditions, which would come as part of this Bill are unacceptable to me and my colleagues, specifically relating to the proposed change of my Civil Servant status to that of a Public Servant ... As this Bill approached the Seanad, my colleagues and I across our expansive network reached out to multiple Senators on this matter to create awareness of our concerns and indeed to draw attention to the fact that no meaningful consultation or negotiation has taken place with us and our union, Fórsa, on this matter.
I will repeat that part, "no meaningful consultation or negotiation has taken place with us and our union, Fórsa, on this matter". That remains the case today. She continues:
Our efforts today culminated in a delegation of us as civil servants and union workplace representatives being in attendance in the Seanad when the Bill was introduced. At that time the Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, committed to investigate this matter further and a commitment was given that negotiations would commence. I can categorically state that this has not progressed and despite commitments given and indeed recent union led representations made to our employer on this matter, no negotiations have taken place nor has a forum or framework been established to enable this to happen. This is despite all of our efforts and indeed all the commitments given to us...It is incredibly worrying that my Civil Service status, along with the terms and conditions and protections that are associated with that, can be changed by legislation without agreement or negotiation with our trade union.
Having spoken to Jim Mitchell, who represents Fórsa and who the Minister has met on a number of occasions, as recently as yesterday evening, I know he is absolutely clear that despite the welcome commitment the Minister gave that negotiations would commence, no such negotiations have commenced. That commitment was given a number of weeks ago and the union is more than perplexed. It is extremely frustrated and its members are extremely upset because this is a most reasonable request. The request is simply to start a negotiation. That is all they are asking for; yet what they have met from the Minister's Department in return is obfuscation and delays. I can tell the Minister right now, and she knows anyway, that no negotiations have commenced. A date has not even been given for negotiations to commence. The Minister gave a commitment that it would happen. I cannot for the life of me understand why it has not. We want to work with the Minister. She will be aware that Sinn Féin supports this Bill. I am a proud trade union member and a proud former trade union official. I cannot understand why the Minister has not agreed to start negotiations. The union has been waiting all year for this. Its members are extremely upset and frustrated. It has thousands of members across the State in all constituencies and areas and they are more than annoyed at this point in time.
The good news is that she can still resolve this in a direct exchange with me now, by simply saying that negotiations will begin and committing to give the union a date this week for when the negotiations will begin. Given that the union has been waiting all year and the commitment the Minister made to it five weeks ago, that is not an unreasonable request. I invite the Minister to do that.
I echo Senator Gavan's words about Garda civilian staff. As has been said, the Minister has had discussions with them but what Senator Gavan has asked for today is reasonable, given the amount of time that has passed. In fairness to the work they do, their worries and so on have been articulated by Senator Gavan today and previously in meetings with the Minister. We support the call by Fórsa about this and welcome the Minister's contribution and more important, a date she may give in her contribution.
I am as keen for negotiations and engagement to start as both Senators present, and most importantly, as the staff. As recently as last week when I engaged with them, the challenge was finding dates that suited everyone. A number of bodies need to be around the table and the dates that had been set or proposed were not matching others' availability.
It is a matter of trying to identify the dates that suit everybody involved and moving forward with the process. Nothing has been agreed or signed off on - I was clear about that when I met them – but I am keen to move this along. The legislation is progressing and while it will not be enacted by the end of the year, I hope that will happen early in the new year. The amendment makes clear nothing will change for at least 24 months post enactment, not from the beginning of the year, so we will have a period to make sure all those involved are, insofar as possible, happy with the changes that are going to take place.
I stress that this is about making sure there will be a single workforce. Some of the concerns that have been raised with me on this issue are that a feeling of separation between civilian staff and Garda members is resulting in challenges within the work environment. It is important there be a single structure whereby people are seen under the same umbrella as having the same goals and objectives, which they do, and by making these changes, we will solidify that. Many of the terms and conditions people are concerned about will not change and I have relayed that to them. Nevertheless, I appreciate that my saying that, on the one hand, and sitting down and going through all the detail, on the other, are two different things.
I cannot give a date because it is a matter of trying to find a date that suits everybody, but I very much want this process to start. I am sure some Garda members are listening to the debate. The scheduling was yesterday and we wanted to get as much time as possible for the Bill this week, so that is why there was a short notice period. I want to get the process started as soon as possible.
I thank the Minister for her response and acknowledge the fact there was a very positive message within it, but the problem is that positive message has been there for five weeks. I accept her point about a number of people having to get round the table but the union's fear is that the Bill will go through Report and Final Stages and it will still not have a date for the negotiation to start. That is entirely unacceptable from a trade union point of view. I understand that the Minister cannot give me a date now - that is a fair point - but I want a commitment from her, which I really hope she can give me, that before we reach Report Stage, a negotiation date will be confirmed with the Fórsa trade union. That is a very reasonable ask. It gives the Minister weeks to get it done and gives Fórsa the assurance it will be done. I ask her please to give that assurance not for my sake but for the thousands of workers who are increasingly worried that their concerns are not being listened to.
While I cannot give an exact date, the next Stage of the Bill will be weeks away and I have every intention of making sure negotiations start, or that dates are set, well before that.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 55, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“(7) The Minister shall, not less than 24 months after the coming into operation of this section, make an order under subsection (5).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 54, as amended, agreed to.
I welcome the Minister for agriculture, Deputy McConalogue, and his guest to the House. I thank them for being here.
SECTION 55
Amendments Nos. 39 to 43, inclusive, and 67 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 39:
In page 55, line 34, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.
All the amendments in this grouping relate to pension matters. Section 55 provides for the making of a superannuation scheme or schemes by the Garda Commissioner for members of Garda staff where such members of Garda staff do not become members of the single public service pension scheme. Section 112 will perform a similar function with regard to the national office for community safety. The need for such schemes may arise for persons joining An Garda Síochána or the new national office who may be existing civil or other public servants already in a pension scheme and who, therefore, would not be required to join the single public service scheme. The amendments are technical in nature and follow discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 40:
In page 55, line 34, to delete “and” and substitute “given with the consent of”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 56, line 5, to delete “and” and substitute “given with the consent of”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 56, line 8, to delete “and” and substitute “given with the consent of”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 56, line 21, to delete “and” and substitute “given with the consent of”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.