I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:
"(1) The Minister shall by order appoint a day to be the establishment day for the purposes of this Part.".
SECTION 7.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 14 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 9, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(d) an inspector for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1961, who agrees to be seconded from An Garda Síochána to Forfás,".
This is a very contentious part of the Bill and affects the people who will move to new positions under the new system. An article in the Irish Independenton 7 May 1996 referred to employees of Forfás and Forbairt and the fact that they were not receiving their fair share. There will be an amalgamation problem in the future, but I do not wish to see industrial unrest during the changeover period. I believe the Garda, by and large, welcome the Bill in principle. Many gardaí are approaching retirement and I ask the Minister of State to institute a compromise whereby they can continue as members of the Force until retirement. This could be phased in over a period and, in the interim, civilians could be recruited from other organisations and local authorities.
The Minister of State must realise that this change will involve hardship. I understand that the gardaí involved may not be accepted back into the force. They have provided sterling service in the area of weights and measures in the past. A small number of persons will be uprooted into a new service and I ask the Minister of State to sympathetically consider their situation. I believe that a compromise can be reached because agreement has already been achieved on earlier sections of the Bill. We are dealing with decent, helpful individuals who do not attract criticism from people in the trade, for whom they have gone out of their way on many occasions. I request that the Minister of State accept the amendment and reconsider this matter for Report Stage.
I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe. I appeal to the Minister of State to consider this situation with a view to granting our request. Garda sergeants are the experts in this area and their experience should not be cast aside. I believe the Minister of State will accept that it is not wise to request that they change employers at this stage in their careers. This provision also involves a strong possibility of changes in their conditions of employment which would be unfair. A compromise can be readily reached on this issue and I suggest that Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment be accepted.
This is a key area. The requirement to move from long established positions in the Garda Síochána or local authorities will present difficulties for the people involved. They will have to make a difficult choice. If a person works in a particular area for their entire career and then changes employer, this brings many fears, apprehensions and opportunities. I spoke to the Minister of State about this matter on a previous occasion. In terms of conditions of employment and the sacrifice they are being asked to make, I believe that the people involved should receive a substantial incentive or reward. The Minister of State is very familiar with this issues and I ask that he favourably consider the representations made on behalf of the gardaí involved and the staff of the Weights and Measures Department of Dublin Corporation.
During the past number of weeks, I received many representations in connection with this matter which were circulated to Members and the Minister of State.
I agree with Members' statements regarding the sterling service provided by Garda sergeants involved in this area. However, the issue of secondment is solely a matter for the Department of Justice. It was considered early in the negotiations with the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, but was rejected by the Garda Commissioner. Agreement was reached, through the Garda Conciliation Council, between the Department of Justice and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors in January of this year. Under this agreement the option of definitive transfer will be available, while those involved will retain existing pay and conditions on a personal basis.
The Department of Justice again recently confirmed that secondment is not available to the Garda, because secondees would remain subject to Garda Síochána Acts and regulations, whereas the Garda Commissioner would have no control over their day to day activities. Under the agreement concluded with the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, gardaí transferring to the new service will retain a link with the Garda sergeant pay scale and will also retain the four allowances they receive at present, which amount to £3,500 per annum. These allowances are £1,181 for weights and measures duties; £1,781 for rent; £453 for plain clothes and a £180 boot allowance. I regret, therefore, I am unable to accept the amendments.
Matters have changed a great deal since that agreement. A total of only 18 members are left in that service as sergeants of weights and measures. Every Member of the Oireachtas has met at least one of them and all sides of the House, including that of the Minister of State, have pledged support because of the limited number. We are only four years away from the next century, after which only six members will be left. The performance of the service, since the days of the changeover from the Royal Irish Constabulary, has been impeccable.
I am sure if the Minister of State could reach a compromise on this issue there would be little left to debate in the Bill. I understand they will assist the transfer in every possible way. However, the issue is the loss of status because these people wear a uniform. The Minister of State was a good trade union official in the past and fought on many similar issues; I often read in the newspapers about what a good negotiator he was. They do not want to transfer to civilian employment.
Will the Minister of State discuss this further with his colleagues in Government and the Department of Justice before Report Stage — it is probably an issue for Cabinet — to reach a compromise and get it phased in over the next eight years? Eight years is not a long time in Government. We came into Government in 1987 and I am in Opposition now. The Minister of State is thrilled and delighted with his position because he was on the other side for a long time. I ask him to look at this sympathetically and give fair consideration to those 18 people who find themselves in an uncertain situation as they are moving to a new organisation. They have served for a long time in that position and may not like to change.
I do not want to press the amendment but I will if I have to. The Minister of State has been very fair and even handed. He is an excellent Minister and I have very little difficulty with him. I ask him to consider my suggestions on humanitarian grounds. The buck stops with the Government and the Minister for Justice. The Minister of State sits at the Cabinet table and watches on behalf of his own side. This issue should be discussed at Cabinet. These men have given sterling service and are entitled to fair play, which is all we are asking for. I echo the promises which almost 160 Deputies have given to those 18 people.
Is Deputy O'Keeffe asking the Minister of State to consider the text of his amendment or to consider it for Report Stage?
It is a very sensitive amendment and I have asked the Minister of State to accept its spirit. He can change it for Report Stage as I realise he might have a problem with it and I always like to be fair. I ask him to urge the Minister for Justice to agree to something which would be acceptable to the 18 people we are trying to help. Their record must be looked at.
That is why I asked the question. The Minister of State has already stated it is really a matter for the Minister for Justice. Is the Deputy asking him to consult the Minister for Justice or to accept the text of the amendment?
I can resubmit the amendment on Report Stage but, from what I know of the Minister of State, he will be able to——
I will first call Deputy Hugh Byrne and then the Minister of State.
I support Deputy O'Keeffe. I have spoken to a number of people, including the Minister of State, about this issue, on which there is a great deal of sympathy for those involved. However, sympathy is not sufficient at this stage, as the Minister of State knows. The human aspect of this has to be considered and, as Deputy O'Keeffe said, the Minister of State has dealt with many similar situations. We have far less difficulty with Deputy Rabbitte as a Minister of State than when he was in Opposition — but that is not to suggest we want to keep him in that position for too long.
This matter is worthy of further discussion. I know the Minister has been fully informed about every aspect of Bills he has dealt with. This is the Minister's Bill and not that of the Department of Justice. I ask him to accept what we are saying. We will resubmit the amendment on Report Stage on the basis that the Minister of State will consult the people affected and those who are concerned about what might happen.
This concerns only 18 members of the Garda Síochána who have given sterling service, the majority of whom will retire in the next six years. If there is any way of compromising with the Garda Commissioner, who is in charge——
I thought the Minister was.
I did not interrupt Deputy O'Keeffe. The clear position is that the Garda Commissioner, who is responsible for the allocation of Garda personnel, is opposed to the secondment of weights and measures sergeants to the new service. If there was dialogue between the Minister of State and the Garda Commissioner before Report Stage, those 18 people could retain their status in the Garda Síochána while they served the remainder of their time. It is a justified demand and the Minister of State should study every possible avenue to arrive at an amicable solution for those people who have given excellent service.
It looks as if there is all party agreement on this -I do not know how the Minister of State will get around that.
I am conscious, as you say, that there seems to be all party consensus on the sensible way forward. I have some sympathy with that but I have a number of difficulties with it. As Deputy O'Keeffe acknowledged, when I have given an undertaking on previous legislation to table something on Report Stage that has been my intention. I cannot honestly say that in this case, for a number of reasons. The first reason is that, after prolonged negotiations, there is an agreement to my proposal which has been registered at Garda conciliation council level. It would appear that these difficulties have arisen only since this agreement was made. Second, while I accept that the buck stops with me, I am not responsible for the Garda Síochána. I am advised that there is no precedent under the Garda Síochána Acts and regulations whereby gardaí would be seconded to other duties and not subject to the rule of the Garda Commissioner. The Garda Commissioner is responsible for the gardaí and there is no precedent for the secondment of gardaí. Third, whether the gardaí concerned be 18 or 20 — my figure is 20 but this is evolving — the agreement provides for every aspect of their requirements in terms of maintaining a pay link and their key allowances vis-?-visthe gardaí or vis-?-vis their former colleagues as they would become if the Bill was enacted, except that they will not be Garda sergeants. The benefits, allowances, advantages, etc., that they enjoy are secure under the agreement. Presumably this was a motivating factor in explaining why it was accepted.
It is somewhat unusual for a Minister to find himself in a situation where it is being contended, in effect or by inference, that those negotiating for the people concerned did not know what they were about and did not know what they concluded. I was led to believe that they made and entered into their agreements in the full knowledge of the circumstances. I accept that, in the establishment of a service of the kind we are dealing with today, it is not unusual that staff could be seconded for a period. However, I am unable to find a precedent for a situation where the staff concerned are responsible to the Garda Commissioner and through the Garda Commissioner to the Minister for Justice. I am advised that, under the Acts, the Garda Commissioner must maintain jurisdiction over the gardaí. The Garda Commissioner will not have responsibility for the metrology service. There is a view that he has enough on his hands without this service being added.
We are concerned here with the modernisation and creation of a unitary legal metrology service. A start must be made somewhere in bringing this into line. Provided that we protect the conditions of employment, including the option of early retirement at 50 years of age, compared to 60 years of age in Forbairt, and compulsory retirement at the age of 57, compared to age 65 in Forbairt, and so long as those involved continue to enjoy their pay and allowances, the only matter at issue is whether they continue to be Garda sergeants.
I acknowledge the arguments by all sides of the House but I would not want anybody to think that this has not been examined in great detail. The agreement registered at Garda conciliation level arose after detailed and prolonged negotiations. It is somewhat unusual that, having accepted that agreement, people have, for whatever reason — I am not questioning their bona fides — rethought it and are now saying that those negotiating for them did not do the job, believing it was all right to accept it. They are now telling the Minister that he should provide for it legally, even though I am advised that the Garda Acts and regulations determine the management of the gardaí.
I am informed that the agreement was worked on a long time ago and that it no longer stands. I understand that the 20 people involved have lobbied practically everybody in the House to explain the position. Only the Minister of State in discussion with the Minister for Justice can resolve this matter.
There is no use in referring to the Garda Commissioner in this context. All Oireachtas Bills are the responsibly of the relevant Minister. The Minister for Justice has a role to play in coming to the rescue of these 20 people. Whether we like it or not they will undergo a change of status and suffer a loss. I want them accommodated in a manner that is acceptable to them. They are reasonable and helpful and they understand the position and know there is need for change and for modern technology.
I understand that there will be a total of 55 people in the new service. It must be phased in. I see little or no difficulty in having them accommodated with their existing status. As they retire, new people will replace them. They will have a major role to play in the development of the new operation. They have the expertise and the know-how. They know their people, the trade and the business.
I do not want to press the amendment because I do not want the situation to arise where we will oppose the Government on this sensitive human issue. I sympathise with those involved and I fail to understand why agreement is not possible and why nobody is prepared to talk to the Minister for Justice to attempt to resolve the problem.
The Garda Commissioner is in charge of policing and policing personnel, but ultimately he has no role here because of this legislation. It is uprooting and upsetting, changing old structures and putting new people in place. There is talk of secondment. If people transfer but are not satisfied with the secondment what is their future?
We cannot ignore the human factor. It is the basis of the argument here. There are only four years to retirement for more than two-thirds of those involved. Only a small number will be there after the year 2000. It is a minor and fair demand. As politicians and legislators we should be in a position to accommodate them. You have spoken on the matter, Chairman. Deputy Sheehan attempted to ignore the fact that the Minister had no involvement, for which we will forgive him. Practically every Deputy and Minister agrees to the need for change.
May I quote two paragraphs from a letter I received from one of the people involved?
That is acceptable provided you do not name the person.
The letter states:
We believe that our request is not unreasonable. We are prepared to be co-operative. We have operated fairly successfully for many years at less than 40 per cent manpower, a system which was basically inoperable, in an effort to keep the show on the road. We have been denied promotion in the Garda and in the cutbacks of 1988 our working arrangements were changed, resulting in a loss of £40 per week. We are the only group in the Garda that did not get it rectified.
Still we soldiered on, but now this Act will deprive us of our status and powers as Garda sergeants, compel us to transfer to a semi-State company, Forfás, and to be based up to 80 miles from our present base without recompense. Our only alternative is that we will be facilitated in the Garda Síochána as far as possible. This is not by any means a guarantee that a suitable station will be located for us. That means that we will have lost all our allowances and expenses and be back to where some of us were 20 years ago. Under the arrangements as outlined, whatever way we jump, we lose. It is not good enough that this should be forced upon us.
In asking the Minister to think again, I want to make two brief points. This is precisely what happened to the Garda sergeants. The Minister will know, better than anyone, that if an agreement is reached and the fine print read, it is possible for people to think about it and reject it because they are not happy with it. It is better to say that now rather than adopt this new system which would result in trouble. We can avert all that on the basis that if people see it is not suitable at any time, they are quite entitled to change their minds.
Finally, since 20 gardaí are involved and the term of office of some is short, the matter will wear itself out. That is the road to go rather than have them dictated to by a Commissioner or anybody else.
I am conscious that the skilled negotiators from the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors understand this Bill, knew what was happening and were in contact with that organisation's members. I do not have any skill or knowledge superior to those of the association's negotiators. However, if sergeants are moving from the Garda Síochána to Forfás, will they be compelled to retire at Garda retirement age? If those gardaí who would not move to Forfás wished to continue working longer than members of the Garda Síochána would normally be allowed, can they be facilitated?
I sympathise with the amendment. I know one of the people involved. He approached me and it appears to be a genuine case. I have listened to the Minister's response and I can appreciate what he is saying with regard to the responsibilities of the Garda Commissioner.
It is unfortunate that we are talking about a small number of people. Indeed, the point has been made that some of them will be retiring within the next few years. It is unfortunate that we cannot find an accommodation, that is, a secondment for that period of time for the existing people.
If new personnel come from the Garda Síochána in future, I am sure the parameters could apply. People have given loyalty and service to the Garda Síochána and to trying to implement the Act. While I know many of the terms and conditions are satisfactory from their point of view, the issue of secondment appeared to be a fundamental point with them when I met a representative of their group. I can appreciate the Minister's difficulty.
Was an accommodation made to the existing people? Was it said it would apply to those already in the process and within the Garda system, that it would only operate up to the time those people retire and that, subsequently, the ground rules would be completely different?
Apart from Deputy Eric Byrne, who posed a question, the other Members have made a strong appeal to the Minister to re-examine the matter. It appears that there is all-party support for that approach.
I appreciate that all sides of the House feel strongly about this matter. However, I would not want it to be thought that I have come here glibly supporting a position enshrined in the Bill without having questioned it in great detail. I have met the people directly. I have met deputations arranged by Deputy Hugh Byrne, by my colleague, Deputy Eric Byrne and by people right across the political spectrum.
On the face of it, the problem of secondment has been met before. What is novel about this matter is that the people concerned are serving members of the Garda Síochána and, as a result, are subject to different Acts than would be the case with a normal employee transferring, or not transferring as the case may be, from one employment to another.
It is not quite true to say that we will lose no matter which way we jump, which was the phrase used in the letter from which Deputy Hugh Byrne read. Great care has been taken in the agreement to ensure these people will not lose out.
The answer to Deputy Eric Byrne's question is yes; they must retire at 57. One cannot, on the one hand, seek to maintain existing conditions, and on the other, pick á la carte different conditions. It is considered generally an advantage to be able to retire early, that is, either compulsory retirement, getting the benefit of a double year for the immediate years, or the voluntary option at 50. However, the people concerned did not make any argument to me about losing out in terms of pay and conditions. They may harbour some thought at the back of their minds about losing out in future, but the agreement provides for their protection, the protection of their existing pay, major allowances, etc.
Maybe we have thrashed this out as far as we can. Against the background of what I said, I am willing to take on board the views of both sides of the House and arrange to talk to my colleague, the Minister for Justice, about the major existing impediment. I do that without commitment because I cannot presume the outcome of those discussions having regard to what I already said. I do not want it to go abroad that I am not sympathetic and do not understand the arguments which have been made by Deputy O'Keeffe and other Deputies on a purely human basis for the small number of people concerned. People who have spent their lives in the service, who feel they have done a good job and of whom it is believed generally that they have done a good job, do not want to be uprooted at this stage of their careers. That seems to be a real factor rather than a factor relating to the loss of pay or anything like that, which does not arise. In deference to the all-party phalanx with which I am confronted, I will talk to the Minister for Justice to see whether there is a feasible solution.
I am glad the Minister has taken that line because it appears there is all party support or sympathy for this point. Within the constraints placed on the Minister and his problems, I ask the proposer of the amendment to accept that undertaking.
I accept it but reserve the right to reintroduce the amendments on Report Stage. As the Minister realises, if these people go back into Garda service they will have to go back into uniform to go on the beat, do point duty, etc., which they have not done for some time — if they stay in the other service, that is fair enough. They have also lost their chances of promotion within the service because they were in a different niche. Many matters have not been taken into account but I will not labour the argument. I hope the Minister will be able to reach a compromise on middle ground with his Cabinet colleague and I have no doubt that, with his negotiation skills and his ability to do a job, he will be the winner.
The Minister of State is a former colleague of mine and was a senior national negotiator, so he understands the art of negotiation and compromise.
That is a hospital pass if ever I received one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. The Deputy is free to refer to both amendments in the discussion.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 9, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) A person referred to in subsection (1) shall not ordinarily be required to retire from Forfás until he has attained the normal retirement age for Forfás staff.".
Amendment No. 12 will insert the following provision into section 8 (8):
Provided that, where the conditions relating to the time of retirement of members of the Garda Síochána are altered following the establishment day, they may, at the option of persons to whom this subsection applies, be applied in the case of such persons also.
All my amendments are related to the problem we have already discussed. I ask the Minister to comment on these amendments.
The provisions in the Bill on superannuation and times and conditions of retirement, including the provisions relating to promotion or transfer subsequent to initial transfer, have been formally recorded in the Garda Conciliation Council agreement, report 511, to which I referred. The relevant paragraph states:
Those members who join the new service shall no longer be members of the Garda Síochána. They shall be subject to the same superannuation provisions and time and conditions of retirement as apply to them immediately before the date of transfer. However, should they subsequently accept promotion or transfer to another post in Forfás, they shall be subject to the superannuation provisions and time and conditions of retirement applicable to any other Forfás employee and service in the Garda Síochána shall be reckoned for superannuation purposes as service in Forfás. Former members of the Garda Síochána who transfer to the new service on the basis that they hold existing conditions of employment and superannuation terms must also accept the times and conditions of retirement applicable to gardaí at the time of transfer.
As to amendment No. 12, I am informed that amending the Garda Síochána superannuation scheme to extend the compulsory retirement age from 57 to 65 has been on the agenda of the Garda Conciliation Council for some time but there has been no progress on the matter. Current indications are that the status quo will prevail for the foreseeable future. That is a polite way of saying it is going nowhere.
Or until such time as there is an agreement, if any.
Given his position in the Department, is the Minister prepared to reach agreement and to make a decision in favour of members of the Garda Síochána?
Having regard to the debate, if these people are to be kept in the Garda Síochána, which is the main focus of the arguments of the Deputies opposite, I will be happy to leave it to the Commissioner. I know the Commissioner would appreciate my assistance at present in a number of areas but I think Deputy O'Keeffe is trying to have his cake and eat it. We will have to wait and see — the Deputy has made a good attempt.
I am prepared to co-operate because I want to get satisfaction for these 20 forgotten people.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.
Section 8 agreed to.