I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials. We are resuming consideration on Committee Stage of the Garda Síochána Bill 2004. We previously adjourned having agreed section 12 and now turn to section 13, amendment No. 17.
While listening to discussion during the previous meeting, it occurred to me that the provisions of section 12(4) are punitive. Having reflected on the matter, I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage which will enable the High Court to compel a person to comply with his or her duties in respect of such an inquiry. The same provision arose with regard to the Tribunals of Inquiries Act, whereby it was a criminal offence not to comply with a tribunal's order. However, we amended that to enable the High Court to direct a person to comply and I intend to include a similar provision in this Bill. A criminal penalty is sometimes not sufficient and a person might be willing to serve six months in jail and not comply with the requirement. That is not satisfactory.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 15, before section 13, to insert the following new section:
"13.—The Commissioner, in consultation with the Minister shall establish guidelines and structures so as to encourage members of police forces outside the jurisdiction to—
(a) apply to become permanent members of an Garda Síochána,
(b) apply for secondment to an Garda Síochána.”.
Section 13 provides for the appointment of members to other ranks. The Garda Commissioner can appoint persons he or she sees fit to the ranks of Garda sergeant or inspector. A procedure should be put in place to encourage members of police forces from other countries to join the Garda Síochána. There are already measures that allow members of the PSNI to be seconded to the Garda and vice versa. Should we not expand this approach to allow the Garda to avail of the experience and expertise of members of other forces, not only in respect of secondment arrangements but also in terms of permanent membership? The Garda would benefit greatly from such a measure.
A person who recently visited my clinic had been a police officer in Australia and wanted to join the force in Ireland. I was struck by the fact that there must be expertise available from other countries which could be utilised here. I would like the Garda Síochána, if it considered it appropriate, to be in a position to avail of such expertise, either by way of secondment or through permanent membership. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is an enabling provision which I believe is necessary because this matter is not already covered in the Bill.
As I stated in the Seanad, I am not in favour of accepting this amendment. The Deputy raised the issue of secondment from other police forces to the Garda Síochána. I would have to think long and hard about whether I wanted to provide that persons can be seconded from the Chinese, American or other police forces to become members of the Garda Síochána. I would be obliged to give careful consideration to the implications of that proposal. Ideally speaking, I would like members of the Garda Síochána to be trained as members of our force.
The arrangements relating to Northern Ireland are part of a special international arrangement. That arrangement is based on a number of specific criteria relating to Ireland. For example, we are party to the Good Friday Agreement, in respect of which there are in place security provisions on both parts of the island. I do not want, without examining the consequences, to create a situation whereby the force would be subject to secondment on a much broader basis. The Act does not, however, prevent this happening. For example, age of entry, qualifications and training are subject to regulation. If it became necessary in the future to provide for a member of the Australian police force to join the Garda Síochána, this could be done by altering the regulations. I would not need a statutory basis, of the kind offered by the Deputy, for doing so. I am not generally attracted to providing for such an arrangement.
There are people who, having completed their service with other police forces or being over the age of 35 years, might be of potential assistance to the Garda Síochána who may wish. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the recruitment of civilian staff. In addition, the establishment of the volunteer reserve will provide people with an opportunity to serve as volunteer gardaí. I do not want to create a false impression among members of the Garda Síochána that I am opening up membership of the force to members of other police forces throughout the world. That might be counter-productive.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response. He stated that he would have to think long and hard about this issue. By the time he has done so, he will be out of office. The amendment seeks to include an enabling provision in the Bill. It does not require that he recruit people during the remainder of his time in office as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
In not accepting the amendment, the Minister is excluding such recruitment. The Bill, as drafted, is too narrow and introverted in its approach. I will make the Minister an offer. I do not think we should make a final decision, one way or the other, in terms of whether we should allow a person from outside Ireland to become a member of the Garda Síochána. Such a person might be of benefit and could be a specialist in tracking people in possession of semtex or in the utilisation of radio equipment against criminals and so on. I am merely proposing an enabling provision to the Bill. I am also making the Minister an offer which I hope he will consider for Report Stage.
The amendment provides that the Garda Commissioner, in consultation with the Minister, shall establish guidelines. I could substitute the word "may" for "shall". That would address the Minister's hesitation and enable the next, more progressive, Minister to allow for such secondment if he or she so wishes. I cannot accept the Minister's statement that such provision is not excluded. Unless we provide some statutory cover in that regard, commissioners will be slow to use the provision. In terms of such a provision being counter-productive, I would like to think that in the future there would be cross-fertilisation between the Garda Síochána and other police forces within and outside the European Union by way of regular exchanges on short or medium-term bases. That could only be of benefit to the Garda Síochána. The issue of hordes of people coming in and taking up jobs here does not arise. Perhaps the Minister will consider accepting an enabling provision. If so, I will be prepared to remove the imperative and replace the word "shall" with "may".
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has raised an interesting point. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform recently discussed the issue of community policing and looked abroad to other jurisdictions such as Northern Ireland, Britain, Canada and Europe in that regard. There is an aspect of cross-fertilisation which is beneficial for all police forces in terms of their not being purely monolithic, given the rapidly changing aspects of crime, technology and expertise.
The emphasis should not be on members of other police forces becoming permanent members of the Garda Síochána. It should rather be on such people being able to apply for secondment thereby allowing us to avail of their expertise from time to time. It could be indicated to the Garda Commissioner that the Oireachtas regards such a process as desirable by inserting in the legislation provisions and structures relating to cross-fertilisation in the area of technology and so on. We are currently encountering problems with PULSE equipment. Gardaí are encountering problems with mobile telephones which cannot be used when they become wet.
As the Minister stated, there is much to be done in terms of civilian work. We need academic expertise in terms of compiling proper information and statistics from which the Garda Síochána can work and on the basis of which the Minister and Garda Commissioner may make plans. There is scope to be proactive in terms of allowing members of other police forces to become members of the Garda Síochána.
Between now and Report Stage I will look at a proposal to insert a new section in Chapter 7 to the effect that the Minister of the day can apply the provisions of the chapter to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other police forces.
I have no further questions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I suggest that we amend section 13, which deals with the appointment of members to other ranks in the Garda Síochána in order that the board of the Garda Síochána, not just the Government, would have an input into appointments. Subsection (1) would then read: "The Government may appoint, subject to the board of the Garda Síochána and in accordance with the regulations ...". I will table an amendment to that effect on Report Stage.
I am seeking clarification on the use of language in section 13(2), which states, "The Garda Commissioner may appoint, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, such numbers of persons as he or she sees fit to the ranks of garda, sergeant and inspector in the Garda Síochána." Would it not be more correct to draw a distinction between the mechanism of recruitment and appointment in order that the subsection would read that the Garda Commissioner may recruit to the ranks of the Garda Síochána and appoint sergeants and inspectors?
I take Deputy Costello's point and will look at the matter again. In regard to Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point, I will await his Report Stage amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 18. As amendment No. 27 is related, I propose we deal with the two together.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 15, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
"14.—(1) In making provision for any Garda recruitment process, the Commissioner shall set a target percentage of the minimum level of recruits who shall be ordinarily resident in an area designated as a RAPID or Clár area,
(2) In recruiting members of An Garda Síochána, the Garda Commissioner shall ensure that at least the minimum target level set under subsection (1) is achieved.
(3) In the annual report, the Commissioner shall provide details of the numbers recruited pursuant to subsection (2).”.
Perhaps this amendment is a blunt instrument for raising issues that need to be raised in regard to the recruitment process and composition of the Garda Síochána. An effort should be made to have a minimum number of recruits from what might be classified as urban or rural disadvantaged areas and to have the number of recruits from these areas recorded and published in the annual report. The idea would be to set an annual target for recruits from the parts of the country designated as RAPID or CLÁR programme areas. We need to increase radically the number of new recruits to the force from disadvantaged areas. The thinking behind my amendment is similar to the argument that Mr. Chris Patten made in Northern Ireland in respect of increasing the number of Catholics in the PSNI.
References have been made recently to the ethnic mix of the force. Because of increasing diversity, I am very much in favour of ensuring as far as possible that this ethnic mix is reflected in the force. However, the effect of the amendment would be to create a social and cultural mix as opposed to an ethnic mix.
In amendment No. 27 I am seeking to make it a requirement that as far as possible we encourage members of the Garda Síochána to live in the communities in which they are stationed. I accept that making this a requirement in law might be a blunt way of dealing with the issue but I am very much in favour of Garda and community integration. The thinking behind the amendment is to try to find a way of achieving this. There are significant advantages in having members of the Garda Síochána living in the communities in which they are serving and I tabled the amendment in an effort to find a way to achieve this.
I welcome a delegation from the offices of the National Assembly of Slovenia who are in the Visitors Gallery. I hope they have a very fruitful trip.
I am delighted to see them here. Last year I had a marvellous holiday in Slovenia, which is a lovely country.
I am half tempted to comment that if they had a decent police force, the Deputy might not have come back.
That is just wishful thinking.
I join the Chairman in his warm words of welcome to the Slovenian parliamentary delegation.
I sympathise with the underlying sentiment that the police force in any country should be broadly representative of the society it polices. This applies to urban and rural areas and socio-economic groupings. I fully accept those propositions. The problem with RAPID and CLÁR programme areas is that, despite the best efforts, they are somewhat arbitrary definitions of socio-economic geographical representation. One could have a large apartment block where people live in a gated community in a RAPID programme area and a very wealthy person living in a CLÁR programme area, even though the rest of the community is disadvantaged on a comparative basis.
I fully understand what Deputy O'Keeffe is trying to bring about, that the Garda Síochána should be broadly representative of the communities it represents. As I said in the Seanad, no section of the community should feel it is at a level below which the Garda Síochána does not recruit. I fully accept that proposition but by the same token, it is probably best dealt with by other means, including the policing plan and other issues provided for in the Bill. The amendments are too rigid and I think, on reflection, the Deputy would agree with me.
In regard to amendment No. 27, it is obviously desirable up to a point that members of the Garda Síochána should live in the communities in which they are stationed because one cannot ask some gardaí to live in areas in which they would be vulnerable. There was a time when members of the force were told where they had to live.
And provided with houses.
They were told they had to live in what were former RIC barracks until they were given permission to marry. Those were different days. I want to bring the force with me in this process of change. Ordinary members of the Garda Síochána might regard this as a worthy proposal. On the other hand, they might ask why they are being told they must live in the areas where they work while nurses, teachers and others do not. It is important for gardaí to have roots in society but nowadays, in an increasingly urbanised, mobile society with different property values and high stamp duties, it would be unfair to impose a residence requirement on them.
Every area in Ireland, rural and urban, should have somebody who is of the community and also part of the Garda Síochána. That is one of the reasons I strongly support the concept of a volunteer reserve. With great respect to the representative associations, which have been reticent on the subject, it would be immeasurably in their interest. It would enhance their safety, effectiveness and well-being if we could have volunteer gardaí in virtually every parish. It would not subvert their way of life, lifestyle or earning capacity to be supported in this way. The experience in other common law countries, nearly all of which have volunteer reserve police members, has never been that it detracts from the economic or social status of permanent members or that it tends to drive down their earning capacity. It is desirable that every community should have links with the Garda Síochána. A volunteer reserve is the right way to achieve this.
If the Garda Commissioner, in consultation with the Minister, believed there was a case to be made for encouraging members of the Garda Síochána to live in particular areas, there is nothing in the Bill which prevents that from being done. I have no doubt that a system of financial assistance could be put in place if it were considered that would be effective. While I understand the underlying spirit of the two amendments, I do not believe they need statutory expression.
I also welcome the Slovenian delegation and hope its members are enjoying their visit.
The spirit of Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment is agreed on by all sides. As far as possible, we should encourage and provide incentives for members of the public from disadvantaged areas to apply to join the Garda Síochána and locate themselves in the areas they serve. A recent passing out parade in Templemore included the first ever member from Sheriff Street, which in itself is ground-breaking. That possibly came about in the context of the community policing forum, which has been operating in the general locality of Store Street in recent years.
In the context of community policing, there is scope for people in various communities to be recruited by the Garda Síochána and located in the communities in which they would serve. It would be good policy to investigate ways of providing both recruitment and financial incentives for people to locate in areas where it is desirable they should be located while serving. That was done in the past by providing houses for prison officers and gardaí. It could be done by providing financial help towards the cost of mortgages and so on.
It is time for change. Our police force is very much a rural based one whose roots are in the country rather than in the cities, yet the policing that must be done is done in the cities. We are now in excess of 60% an urban population but we do not have 60% of gardaí from the major urban centres. If one goes into Store Street, Fitzgibbon Street or the Bridewell Garda stations, or any other Garda station in Dublin, one is far more likely to hear a country accent than a Dublin accent. That in itself is a problem and gardaí are not quite the same as teachers or nurses. They are in a position of very considerable power in relation to the people they are policing. They have the right to arrest, question, take into custody and deal with people on the street. There are rural and urban cultures, different backgrounds, different inputs and so on, and the balance is out of kilter. There has been some movement on the recruitment of women which could be encouraged to a much greater degree in the context of community policing, which is a different style of policing. It is thought of as much more out-front policing, dealing with people on a day-to-day basis in more ordinary instances rather than the usual "them and us" situations.
For these reasons, we need to do something rather than merely expressing the wish to see improvement in all of these areas. We must be proactive to effect greater recruitment, on the one hand, and the putting down of deeper roots, on the other. We cannot leave it to a volunteer force which may or may not materialise. In any case I understand nothing will happen in that regard for at least 12 months. Effectively, the Garda will be the police force and that is where our policies should be based. Any volunteer force would be an adjunct, a subsidiary to the main force.
I strongly support amendment No. 18 and urge the Minister to take on board its vision and common sense. It is essential that gardaí should be representative of the community. The urban-rural issue is a major one in urban areas, particularly in disadvantaged communities. We must wake up to the reality that confidence building measures need to be undertaken, particularly in disadvantaged communities, because the gap between the Garda and sections of the local population is too wide, a problem about which something must be done. Amendment No. 18 attempts to do so.
On a recent trip to London, we spoke to community police officers on the ground and discovered that 80% of their eight-hour shift was spent in the community. They were physically present in the estates and blocks of flats implementing crime prevention measures, dealing with anti-social behaviour and similar issues, and preventing crime. Deputy O'Connor and I spent two hours in the back of a police van travelling around London to different sites before a Chelsea football match. The officer who was driving the van drove us down by the block of flats where he had been born and reared. Here was a police officer involved on the front line of policing who was from the heart of inner city London. That is an important statement because he knew the community inside out. He knew the people and the places where the football hooligans hung out. He was able to give the message to the guys involved that he knew they were on the way to the match and that if there was any kind of grief or hassle, they would be nicked. That was his philosophy for preventing crime.
We need high standards of policing in the Garda Síochána. There must be a basic academic standard but a high standard in the calibre of person recruited into the force. I would not like to see us go down the road followed by other professions where if someone gets eight or nine A grades in the leaving certificate, he or she will automatically qualify to be a teacher, for example. Having those grades does not necessarily make someone a good teacher. The calibre of person placed in a community is a crucial part of the philosophy. Everyone feels gardaí have to be rooted in the community but we have to face the reality that we cannot tell people where they should live. However, constituents often complain that they do not know their local garda.
Those of us who want to support change in the Garda Síochána are not anti-gardaí, the line sometimes spun from elements among gardaí. I do not accept that mentality but it is evident within the force. While Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's amendment is important, I urge the Minister to absorb the principles, vision and common sense within it.
I have reservations about the RAPID and CLÁR programmes idea because they are not necessarily indicative of what we are trying to achieve here. I welcome the point made by Deputy Costello that it is great to see a young man or woman from Sheriff Street join the Garda Síochána. However, it should not be an automatic assumption that such a person will be sent to Sheriff Street to police the area. Having got into the force, such persons should not be earmarked for a return to their own community just because their background is unusual. I want to be fair to everyone. I do not want to start social engineering because it may not be effective. However, I will consider whether to make explicit provision on Report Stage to take into account ethnic and geographical criteria in the recruiting process. This could be done through the policing strategy statement, policing plans or directions made by the Minister.
I accept the spirit of the Minister's response. He has taken on board my thinking as supported by colleagues on this side of the House. On that basis, I will not press the amendment at this stage. My other amendment would not have required gardaí to live in communities. I had hoped there would be some encouragement for them to live in their communities because there would be enormous benefits. However, I accept the Minister's point that we should not insist on gardaí living in areas where they might be vulnerable. I am not sure whether some——
It occurs to me that some bright spark might decide that it was ultra vires of the Garda Commissioner to pursue ethnic or geographical policies without some statutory basis. He or she might claim that he or she had been unfairly discriminated against. From that point of view, it might be no harm to provide for explicit recognition.
I have seen cases in California about positive discrimination and so on. I am happy to withdraw the first amendment and resume discussion on Report Stage. The second amendment was about encouraging gardaí to live in their communities. I am glad that the issue was raised here. I accept that having such a provision in the Bill might be a little blunt but it may be something that could be included in policing plans. I emphasise that I want encouragement rather than insistence. I am delighted to see the lad from Sheriff Street in the force and understand some people in his own area may not be enamoured with him as a member of the force. I would not insist on him being stationed or living there. Is there some way we could provide encouragement? We can return to this issue on Report Stage.
There is no question that someone who comes from a specific area should not be required to live or be stationed there. The idea is that there may be a better balance of urban recruits in the Garda Síochána. Regardless of where recruits come from, there should at least be an incentive to dwell in the relative vicinity of where they are stationed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 14
Amendments Nos. 19 to 21, inclusive, are related and may discussed together.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 17, to delete "volunteer".
This deals with the Minister's view of volunteer members. There must be support for the Garda Síochána, of which I am in favour. It is a question of how best to achieve this. It is urgent that it be provided at the earliest possible date. I am sure the Minister has heard me bemoan the fact that the 2,000 extra gardaí are not around as promised. Let us be blunt and admit that they will not be around for a long time. The sooner we provide this resource, the better. I do not understand what the Minister means when he uses the expression, "volunteer members". Anyone who joins an organisation volunteers to do so. He or she is not conscripted. Is there confusion in the drafting of the Bill between full-time, part-time, paid and unpaid? Why use the expression "volunteer members" at all?
Everyone is agreed that there is a need for higher visibility. The more bodies available, the easier it will be to achieve this. What back-up support should we provide? In the United Kingdom there are two types, one of which is community support officers while the other is the special constabulary. I get the feeling that the Minister is thinking along the lines of the special constabulary. My thinking is that we should have something along the lines of community support officers. That is the difference between us.
I encourage the provision of a reserve support body for the Garda Síochána. I suggest that we have it in place as soon as possible to support the force. We should model our approach more along the lines of the community support officers in the United Kingdom. I do not want this resource to replace the Garda Síochána but to be available to operate with and under the specific direction of the Garda Síochána. I do not want its members to have, as the Minister has provided, the full powers of the Garda Síochána, in particular powers of arrest. It takes two years to train a member of the Garda Síochána, who must undergo practical and academic training. Having completed their training, we entrust them with serious powers, including powers of arrest. While members of the volunteer reserve will undergo training, it will be modest. I have grave concerns about entrusting its members with powers of arrest. Such persons will have the power to make a citizen's arrest, just like the rest of us.
During a visit to Anfield last week to discuss how the police force there was managing I spoke to some community support officers who told me they had the power to restrain a person for half an hour, at which stage they were required to hand over the person to a full-time member of the police force. I have tabled the amendments for discussion and by way of suggesting to the Minister that we should take a different approach to the volunteer reserve than that envisaged by him. The amendments outline my thinking on the matter but I would like to hear the views of other members.
The proposals raise a great many complexities and difficulties. Section 14(3) provides that, while on duty, a volunteer member will have the same powers, immunities, privileges and duties as a person appointed under section 30 to the rank of garda. However, such a person will not receive the same training. He or she will receive the training prescribed by the Garda Commissioner.
It is proposed to give considerable powers to volunteers. How do we define the term "volunteers?" Will they be paid or unpaid? Will they be living within their own communities? It will be difficult to find volunteers who will travel great distances. The likelihood is that they will be people stationed and rooted in their communities and that problems will ensue should they have the same powers as members of the Garda Síochána with very limited training. Therefore, the proposal needs closer examination before we can move forward with it.
Are we to have a yellow pack constabulary which will have enormous powers and receive limited training policing our communities? That is not far removed from vigilantism. I have serious concerns about this and the type of vetting that will be undertaken.
When the Dublin City Manager, Mr. John Fitzgerald, appeared before the joint committee, he expressed reservations about these proposals. He enunciated the system operated by the city council for city wardens, who have no powers but who nevertheless play a major role in monitoring what is happening within the city. They are a valuable resource in dealing with by-laws and other problems.
Is it intended the volunteer reserve will be a community policing back-up resource which will operate across the police force? What relationship will such persons have with the police force? I am not sure if volunteers are to be paid but they are to operate in the community, which may result in members of the Garda Síochána being seen as blow-ins. They will be cheek by jowl with those who have the same powers of arrest but have received limited training.
The position of volunteer reserves must be clarified if they are to be effective. I am not, in principle, opposed to providing support for the Garda Síochána. However, I can understand the difficulties which the Garda Representative Association has with such a proposal. When visiting Fulham two weeks ago, I spoke to a member of the police force about community support officers, who have no powers of arrest. The Fulham police officer stated they were not of much advantage. It is an auxiliary volunteer force whose members are paid almost the same salary as members of the police force but who do not have powers of arrest. They are merely being placed on the street to give the impression that there is a Bobby on the beat, although that is not the case. Therefore, the authorities in the United Kingdom are not getting it right either. I am interested in hearing if the Minister believes the volunteer reserve can operate efficiently in the context of the powers he proposes to give it.
I share Deputy Costello's concerns and will table an amendment on Report Stage seeking deletion of the section as it is an add-on that has not been fully thought out. It is proposed to provide volunteers with the same powers, immunities, privileges and duties as a member of the Garda Síochána who has undergone two years' training. Members of the Garda Síochána are also required to upskill on a regular basis. I am concerned about a proposal that means volunteer members will enjoy the same privileges. The section does not provide a proper explanation as to how this issue is to be dealt with. I suggest the Minister withdraw it and present the committee with a stand alone Bill outlining how a volunteer reserve or special constabulary will operate and be financed.
B Specials.
Our history, in terms of special constabularies and volunteer forces, is not good. It is for that reason I urge the Minister to get it right first time. I do not believe the section, as presented, provides enough detail on which to make a decision.
Much of what we know relates to proposals submitted by the Garda Commissioner on how volunteers will be trained. Members of the Garda Síochána should be fully trained personnel. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell the committee if members of the volunteer reserve will be required to undergo two years' training before being appointed. Will it be compulsory for them to regularly upskill to deal with new technology and changes in the law? Will they have powers of arrest or, as Deputy O'Keeffe stated, be a support organisation with lesser powers than those of the Garda Síochána? If they are to have lesser powers, how and when will they be regulated?
Will the volunteer reserve be a part-time police force which will permit part-time work in the case of, say, a member who worked in the force for a number of years prior to retirement or childbirth and wishes to return on a temporary basis? We need to spend more time teasing out this issue; otherwise we should deal with it in a separate, stand alone Bill, which I would prefer. Some of the representative organisations have also asked that this proposal be explained in much greater detail.
This measure has received overwhelming support from the public. Many communicated with me on the subject, both before and after the Bill was published. It is a very popular measure which does not suffer from a lack of democratic mandate. A significant number believe it is appropriate that Ireland, like all other common law countries, should be in a position to provide its policing function with a volunteer reserve.
The reservations enunciated interest me because they are not applicable. In other jurisdictions with a similar legal system to ours, which I describe as a common law system, where they have a police reserve, one will find the reserve is virtually universally regarded as a good idea and tdhat there is not an antagonistic relationship between it and the full-time police force. What amuses me about Ireland is the scepticism about doing things which in other countries are regarded as perfectly natural and reasonable.
I am glad that members of the committee had the opportunity to travel to the United Kingdom and visit London recently to see the police force operating in the context of community policing and to see an entirely different concept, namely, community support officers operating on the ground. They are qualitatively different from what I am talking about. The community support officer concept would require a separate statute because, although they do not have the power of arrest, they have the limited power to detain persons for 30 minutes and so on, which makes it very clear they are primarily seen as an urban phenomenon in conurbations in the United Kingdom.
At the same time as committee members were in the United Kingdom, I was walking along Oxford Street and noticed the number of such officers on the street. It was quite striking, as Deputy O'Keeffe said, how at a distance they looked indistinguishable from members of the police force. One would have to be up close to work out to which category the officer belongs.
Apparently, their salary is indistinguishable too.
That is another point. Some have suggested that this concept is yellow pack policing. A volunteer reserve is much less open to the accusation of cut price policing than the notion of community support officers.
There is a great deal to be said for the proposition that they might impinge upon the earning capacity of members of the Garda Síochána, whereas volunteer reservists will not. If we had a cohort of community support officers who could be placed on the streets, one could well imagine the secretary of the Garda Representative Association saying the earning capacity of his members would be diminished. One could well imagine a relationship of antagonism.
I have spoken in the Seanad about what I see this volunteer reserve doing. While I do not propose to repeat myself at length, I believe in every part of Ireland there are younger men and women who do not want a career in the Garda Síochána but who, out of a sense of practical patriotism, would enlist in a volunteer reserve, if it were established. It would be similar in spirit to the FCA, where people believe they should support their community and give something back to society and are willing to undergo a form of training to enable them to discharge a useful function.
It would be immeasurably beneficial to the Garda Síochána to have a group of people who would tog out in uniform in certain circumstances where they were needed, for example, for searches of a community or, if members of the force were unavailable, agree to serve on weekend nights in areas where there were public order difficulties or, if a local sergeant was short of manpower, agree to preserve the scene of a crime while other officers went about other duties to try to investigate the crime. There is nothing wrong in principle with such a force, which is common to every other country in the world which has a legal system similar to ours.
I take the point that in the past reserve constables and special constables had certain connotations in Ireland, North and South, but particularly in Northern Ireland, and I am mindful of that history. However, the time has come for Ireland to mature a little and consider the circumstances in which members of the public can act as volunteer reservists. There are two groups — younger people who have decided they would be willing to join such a force and those who retire at the age of 50 or 53 years, as the case may be, from the Garda Síochána and who would be willing to give some of their time to serve as volunteer reservists to assist the force.
What I have in mind is that in every part of Ireland there would be people who would come forward and act as reservists in this way. The Garda Síochána, in terms of building loyalty with the community, would be enhanced rather than diminished by such a step.
There are arguments against it but one might as well scrap the FCA and ask why we train people to be of assistance and why people choose to join the FCA to do this duty for their country. I salute those who are willing to serve in the FCA and the reservists in the United Kingdom who are willing to act as reserve constables. I see no reason we should not have the same here.
In the section they are called volunteer members because it is not seen as part-time policing but something different. These are people in the community who are willing to help the Garda Síochána. Section 14(3) states: "While on duty, a volunteer member has the same powers, immunities, privileges and duties as a person appointed under section 13 to the rank of garda”. This bears out that they cannot be promoted up through the system and can only serve at the rank of garda.
Deputy O'Keeffe proposes that the duties should be removed in order that volunteers will not have the same duties as a member of the Garda Síochána. I find this disturbing because those who will be out there will have to uphold all the duties imposed by the Bill on members of the Garda Síochána. The experience in neighbouring and similar jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and parts of America is that the people concerned normally serve under the direct supervision of a member of the police force and very frequently in his or her company. Unlike an ordinary member of the force who, if he or she is woken up in the middle of the night, has the power of arrest and the power to do various things, the members of the volunteer reserve will only have such rights when on duty. That is a distinction. By contrast, members of the Garda Síochána, as long as they are attested members, are invested with their duties at all hours of the day and night, regardless of whether they are on duty. This must be borne in mind.
Reserve constables do far less training in terms of time than full-time members of the metropolitan police. In the United Kingdom, for example, training is a six-month process for most members of the police force whereas in Ireland it is a much longer two-year process. We must remember that during that two-year process they become attested members of the force and serve as members of the Garda in stations with the full powers of members of the Garda Síochána before their training is complete. It is not, therefore, a "two years or nothing" approach with which we are dealing.
The public wants this to happen but whether people want the community support officers we saw established in London in the past fortnight is another question. That is an issue on which I would have to reflect long and hard. It would involve a significant industrial relations issue with regard to the representative associations. I could not put my hand on my heart and say here that I would have backing. It would also have serious financial implications. I would have to go to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, and ask for permission to recruit community support officers along the lines of the British model. All sorts of questions would have to be considered carefully in those circumstances. That is another day's business which I will not deal with now. I do not have Government authority to take that route or agreement to establish an officer along the lines of those mentioned in the United Kingdom.
I support this approach and believe we are taking the right route. It should be appreciated that it is only a garda's functions that are given to volunteer members. They cannot be promoted through the ranks but enjoy the powers, immunities, privileges and duties given to a member of the Garda Síochána.
I will consider between now and Report Stage, in response to Deputy O'Keeffe's proposal, whether the unqualified language of section 14(3) should be qualified by saying "subject to subsection (5)" and whether we should include a power for the Garda Commissioner or somebody else to reduce their powers or declare certain matters off limits to volunteer members. I have not yet come across any power or function which would be likely to be given to a volunteer member on duty which would be inappropriate for him or her as a garda to carry out.
Let me give an example. Under public order legislation, in certain circumstances, members of the Garda can demand the name and address of people and have a power of arrest if not given the true name and address or if they have reason to believe they have been given a false name and address. Public order legislation would be meaningless if that power was not available. If any officer, be it a community support officer, a member of the Garda Síochána or a reservist, was in the public domain without those powers of arrest, he or she would be a sitting duck and useless to carry out his or her functions. Likewise, if he or she was preserving the scene of a crime and did not have full Garda powers, he or she would be in difficulty.
I will consider whether it would be wiser to include that extra subsection (5) to accommodate Deputy O'Keeffe's point that there may be some circumstances where, by regulation, the volunteer members may have their powers curtailed. However, in general terms, just as an FCA man may have the function of a corporal when on duty in the service of the State, the same will apply to a volunteer member of the Garda. He or she will have the same functions as a member of the Garda Síochána, subject to the fact that he or she will be under the control and direction of others and that it is a disciplined force.
Dealing with Deputy Ó Snodaigh's objection, I strongly support a volunteer reserve. I have never encountered any significant reservation on the part of the public about this proposal and believe 80% of the people support the creation of a Garda reserve.
First, I cannot say whether there is public support for a Garda reserve force. However, Fine Gael and I are 100% in favour. The case for it is unanswerable. A point not mentioned so far is that the section, as drafted, provides that the power to appoint persons cannot be exercised for 12 months. Is there an explanation for this? I would like to see that power available straight away but perhaps there is a reason for the delay. There will be popular support for the volunteer members — the Minister has done his survey on this — because people want high visibility of gardaí on the streets of our towns, cities and villages. This is a way of achieving that, and the sooner the better.
The question is how it will be organised and what powers these members will have. We are not breaking new territory. My father told me he was in the local security force during the Second World War. In a way, he was a reserve garda of the LDF, the local defence force, the forerunner of the FCA. When the LDF was wound up, it was succeeded by the FCA but the local security force was wound up and not succeeded by anything. People were prepared to do their bit and go out on their bicycles during the war. People will be prepared to volunteer for this force.
What does the word "volunteer" connote? I spent 20 years in the FCA and saw the volunteer spirit of an organisation derided in some quarters by people with a reason to deride it. I could see the volunteer spirit involved but there was an element of return. There was an annual gratuity paid. When one went into camp for a few weeks of the year, one was paid at the same rate as one's status, whether corporal or captain.
I would envisage an element of reimbursement to volunteer members of the Garda but would not see them in competition with paid members of the force. It is a matter of working out how this will be done. I take the point raised by Deputy Costello but there is no question of that happening. At the same time, there should be reimbursement, if only from the point of view of expenses. Take the FCA as an example. It has 13,000 members who volunteer to do quite an amount of training. The annual cost of the FCA is only €13 million.
There was a time when people here caused much pressure to be put on the members of the PDF and the FCA was a useful resource. It went in and manned barracks and did guard duty, etc. It provided significant support for the members of the regular Army, who were needed on the front line to preserve the security of the State against those who would subvert it.
In practical and emotional terms, I support the creation of the volunteer Garda force. However, I am worried about the use of the expression "volunteer members" because it implies they will be paid nothing by way of expenses, gratuity or otherwise. Those who are patriotic enough to become involved in the Garda volunteer force in local communities should be given some payment such as that given to members of the FCA to reimburse them for their expenses. I remind the committee that the 6,000 members of Civil Defence are engaged in equivalent activities in their own areas of expertise. I do not doubt that those who have mastered certain disciplines as a consequence of their membership of the FCA or Civil Defence, retired gardaí, community workers and others will make themselves available to participate in the Garda volunteer force. We should not ignore the possibility of reimbursing such persons. I, therefore, ask the Minister to delete the reference to "not earlier than 12 months after the commencement of this section", which might mean that volunteer members will not be recruited for a couple of years, or at least explain why it is included in the Bill.
I would like to consider whether the members of the volunteer Garda force should have the same powers as ordinary members of the force. I have the highest regard for my local postman and milkman but have concerns about whether people who perform such functions in the community in the morning should be allowed to wear a police uniform in the evening. Should such a person be allowed to put his or her hand on a person's shoulder, say "I arrest you in the name of the law" and take him or her to the local Garda station? I wonder if we want such a system to be put in place.
What use will we make of the volunteer resource? I envisage that volunteers will be of use when crowds need to be controlled at big football matches and concerts. If a superintendent believes a police presence is needed in an estate but does not have the three or four officers needed, he could send a member of the force accompanied by two or three members of the reserve. It would make sense to get such individuals to help to preserve the scene of a crime, as the Minister suggested. I agree that volunteers could be used to prevent people from trampling all over the scene of a crime.
I have serious reservations about giving members of the volunteer force powers of arrest. It is inevitable that there will be a reaction against such persons in local communities, especially if they abuse their new powers, through foolishness or otherwise. Members of the Garda undertake a tough training process which generally ensures they use their powers sensibly. I am worried about giving such powers to persons who have not undertaken the same process. The Minister and I do not differ greatly in our opinions of what is wanted. This worthwhile discussion can be continued on Report Stage.
Before the Second World War, many members of Deputy O'Keeffe's party were prepared to wear the uniform and put on the blue shirt to do the business for the State.
It was badly wanted, considering that certain men were breaking up meetings at the time, with the connivance of the then Government. I imagine that the Minister might not entirely disagree with me in that regard. We will let it be.
Does the Deputy refer to the party which broke away from the Progressive Democrats?
I ask the Deputies to return to the 21st century.
I presume the new reserve force will be seen as the new volunteers also. While I do not oppose the Minister's proposal per se, I have many problems with it. I would like to know how it can be done. The Minister has said many people have contacted him to express their support for the proposal but I think they are looking for greater police visibility. They want to see more officers in uniform on the streets and the Minister’s suggestion will achieve this, regardless of whether the individuals in question are actually full members of the Garda. People want to see more uniformed police on the streets.
What will be the purpose of the volunteer members being proposed by the Minister? Will they provide manpower in certain instances such as sports events and crime scenes, as Deputy O'Keeffe suggested? Will they be asked to patrol housing estates and complexes where many problems are found, as existing gardaí are asked to do? Given that the volunteers will be drawn from local communities, it will not be possible for them to engage in a metamorphosis from a postman in the morning to a superman, with all the powers of a regular garda, in the evening. As they will be so recognisable, they might become isolated as targets in their local communities on the basis of their public order dealings.
Although the powers of the proposed volunteer force are made clear in the Bill, its actual purpose is not stated. The Bill does not make clear whether the volunteer force will be a subsidiary or back-up force. It does not state the volunteer members will be under the control of fully fledged gardaí. Will they be able to act under their own levels of command? It is obvious they will not be able to do so because they will not be able to assume positions at any level other than the level of garda. What will be the level of command when fulfilling their duties? When will they be called out and at what level? What supervision will they receive? Will the local superintendent, sergeant or inspector be able to call them out at will, or will such decisions be taken by the Garda Commissioner? At what level will they begin to exercise their duties? Under whose jurisdiction and command will they do so?
If members of the volunteer force are to be used to police certain events where problems may develop such as football matches or gatherings organised by groups like Reclaim the Streets, they will have to be transported by bus from one area to another. Such challenges will not arise if they are only used in their own communities. Will they be paid or reimbursed in terms of expenses? That matter will affect the force's level of availability. If the volunteer force is unpaid, its members will not generally be available between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. They will mainly be available at weekends and evenings.
The Bill does not make clear the purpose of the proposed volunteer force. It does not outline how the volunteers will carry out their duties, or even what those duties will be. It does not mention the persons under whose guidance and direction the members of the volunteer force will operate. It does not state whether the function of the volunteers will be to provide the police visibility not being provided by gardaí. The Garda representative organisations have argued that the Minister should speedily recruit more gardaí rather than establishing an ill-defined volunteer force.
In case the Minister misunderstood me, I did not say I was opposed to the idea in principle. I only suggested we delete this section because I did not think it had been fully thought out. The questions raised by Deputies O'Keeffe and Costello only add to the point I make because they are not answered in this short section. These 20 or so lines do not answer the questions raised.
As Deputy Costello asked, of what use will these volunteers be? They will not be like FCA members, who are only called out in emergencies or as back-up. The Minister seems to suggest this volunteer force will be available on an ongoing or daily basis. If that is the case, will its members be paid? I understand it is a volunteer force but, as Deputy O'Keeffe said, there is some remuneration for members of the FCA, especially if they are called to training for two weeks during the summer. What about protection? If volunteers on duty are assaulted, will they be able to claim from the Garda Síochána, and how will they be looked after if they end up in hospital? What is the situation with regard to insurance?
There is also the issue of industrial relations. Will the volunteers have to be accompanied at all times by a garda who has received full training and graduated as a garda until they have completed their training? Will they be considered trainee gardaí until they have served two years' training, which may be extended over a period of four to ten years? Will they be considered trainee gardaí on block release? Many trainees, for example, electrician apprentices, are sent out on block release.
If the volunteers will have all the powers of a garda, what is to stop the Commissioner deciding that everybody below the level of sergeant should be a volunteer? This would mean we would have almost a totally volunteer service representing us. The reason gardaí have a two-year training period is that it is a tough job. Training used to last six months but was increased to two years. Gathering from what I see here, volunteer members will be able to bypass this training period because nothing is set in stone to say they must fulfil the full criteria to become a member of the Garda Síochána as required for existing gardaí.
Although the Minister has said the volunteers will be similar to members of the FCA, there will be a big difference between them. The FCA is only called upon occasionally to fulfil its duties and privileges. Not very long ago we discussed with the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, whether the FCA would be allowed to operate overseas. He implied that would not happen in the near future because of the different training provided and the insurance aspect but that it was being considered. This issue has not been worked out in this section of the Bill. We need much more detail before we can agree on it. It should not be all down to a sea of regulations or orders but covered in stand-alone legislation.
I did not say I was opposed to the concept but we have had a bad history. If we intend to produce this force, we must get it right. The legislation before us is not adequate. It does not provide enough detail and I would not be confident with it.
I respectfully disagree with the Deputy. I am quite confident the people want a volunteer reserve to support the Garda Síochána.
I did not say that they did not want it.
Therefore, I am making provision for it in this legislation. It is time to get on with it.
I share Deputy O'Keeffe's view that a 12 month moratorium is, perhaps, surplus to requirements. It was included to make it clear that this was not an effort to rush something through on top of an unsuspecting public and Garda force. It was also to assure people that there would be other items that Senator Maurice Hayes and his implementation advisory group would have to get up and running before this measure took effect, for example, the ombudsman commission, the inspectorate and so on. I wanted it to be clear when I proposed the Bill that it was not a substitute in any way for the Government's commitment to increase the strength of the Garda Síochána to 14,000.
In that regard, the number of attested members of the Garda Síochána will reach 14,000 in 2006. The number of fully graduated members will exceed 14,000 in late 2007 or early 2008. The numbers in uniform will reach 14,000 by late 2006, unless there are some unforeseen circumstances. The building needed in Templemore to help achieve this is ahead of schedule. Deputies are welcome to come and see it. I am very confident that the schedule for increasing the size of the force is more than on track.
Section 114(4) of the Bill makes it clear that volunteer members may be the subject of separate regulation. It is clear from section 114(4)(c) that different provisions may be made for different ranks or grades in the Garda Síochána or for different categories of members. It is possible, therefore, to provide by regulation for different regulatory regimes for different gardaí. The Bill explicitly contemplates different regulations being made for volunteer members of the Garda Síochána.
Remuneration is another issue. In the United Kingdom such officers are paid expenses but there is agitation for them to be paid compensation or receive a payment when they support the police in particular circumstances. I do not want to close the door one way or the other on that issue. As Deputies can see, if they look at section 114(1)(h), the question of payments, allowances and gratuities is provided for. If they look at section 114(4), it will be clear there is adequate provision to make payments, allowances and gratuities to members of the volunteer force, should that be decided.
In this legislation I am intent on providing for an enabling power to enable the reserve force to be established. The Bill is immensely complicated in getting the force up and running. That is the reason I am deeply grateful to Senator Maurice Hayes and his colleagues, whom I met briefly last night at their first get-together. They will advise the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on how, presuming the Bill passes through both Houses by the summer, it can be fully up and running by the beginning of next year.
The recruitment of staff for the ombudsman service is a serious issue, as is the staffing of the inspectorate. Many sections of the Bill will reconfigure the Garda's audit procedures in order that the Garda Commissioner can function as the force's Accounting Officer. A considerable amount of preparatory work will need to be done before such changes can be brought into effect. We will have to put in place the ethical guidelines and codes provided for in the Bill. One should not underestimate the substantial volume of work that will have to be done rapidly in order that the provisions of the Bill can be brought into full working order as quickly as possible after it is passed by the Oireachtas.
It is not necessary to include more detail in section 14. There is no need to put in place a separate Bill or to mention in this Bill all the functions for which it is or is not suitable to use volunteer members. If I were to start drawing up such a list, it would quickly be as long as my arm. I do not doubt that volunteer members of reserve police forces in other countries serve alongside full members of police forces on certain occasions. Volunteer members should be given the same powers — for example, the right to arrest and demand names and addresses — as ordinary members of the Garda. In certain circumstances they should be allowed to demand that motorists produce their driving licences or insurance details.
I do not believe the Garda Commissioner or local Garda management will usually use reserve members of the Garda to deal with cases from which court appearances are likely to result. It would be an imposition to say to reservists that they are likely to be called to give evidence in court two or three times if they get involved in certain incidents. If a reservist were to be asked to work at a road traffic checkpoint, for example, to check for licences and insurance details, he or she would be exposed to the possibility of having to give evidence in court as a witness on many occasions. I imagine reservists will not be asked to perform such functions, or they will be asked to do so in the company of a regular garda who could act as a prime witness in such circumstances.
I am absolutely confident that the establishment of a reserve police force will be a good development for the Garda Síochána. It is essential that the Garda should have roots in the community. Section 14(1) states the function of the reserve will be "to assist" the force "in exercising its functions". It will have a broad mandate. If community-based Garda reservists are employed in places such as Rathmines, Crumlin and Ringsend — I mention places in my part of Dublin but there are equivalent places on the other side of the city — the Garda will be immeasurably strengthened. The establishment of the volunteer force will bring the community and the Garda Síochána much closer together.
Those who have expressed doubts about this measure on the basis that gardaí are driving from places such as Dunshaughlin and Ashbourne to police parts of Dublin's north inner city should bear in mind that it would be hugely beneficial to such communities if local people could assist the Garda in certain circumstances. The members of the proposed reserve force will act as links between the community and the Garda. The character of many communities would change if young men and women in particular localities were known to be identified with the Garda. If such a link is put in place, the Garda will be seen as a police force of the people to a much greater degree. During the generous two years of training given to Garda recruits in Templemore, trainee gardaí engage in periods of in-service training, during which they have full powers, subject to the conditions of discipline and supervision to which they are subject as members of a disciplined force.
I do not doubt that the length of training — no more, no less — that is deemed in other countries with a common law system to be sufficient to make reserve constables effective will be offered in this jurisdiction. If one wishes to become a reservist in the United Kingdom, one does not need to undertake a six-month training course in Hendon. I do not believe equivalence of training is required. The fundamental training given to members of the Garda in Templemore is supposed to last them for the rest of their careers, subject to ongoing updated training at certain times.
The training one receives in Templemore is de facto supposed to lay the foundations not only for functioning as an ordinary member of the Garda but also potentially for functioning at a higher level within the force. It is supposed to produce the type of person who can progress through the Garda ranks to Commissioner level. While I would not describe it as being equivalent to a university degree, it is a third level qualification of sorts. Although it will not be necessary for every volunteer reservist to receive what is, in effect, a third level qualification to assist the Garda Síochána, I do not doubt that many of those who join the Garda reserve will have such a qualification. If one examines the uptake of third level qualifications, one will appreciate that many in the community have access to further training after secondary school, in universities, institutes of technology and other colleges. Ireland is changing.
I stress that the proposal to establish a volunteer Garda reserve is receiving significant support. Those who are sceptical about it represent a narrow band of the community.
It has been useful to discuss this section of the Bill, although a number of issues remain to be clarified. I intend to return to this matter on Report Stage.
The first issue I would like to raise is the need for a name for the new unit. I like the name "Garda support resource". It is not appropriate simply to call them "volunteer members".
If the Deputy wants me to call them "reservists", I will do so.
I ask the Minister to think about it.
Certainly.
Perhaps we should call the new unit the "Garda reserve" or the "Garda support resource", as I have said. There is a need for a name. I will not press the issue any further. This has been a useful discussion.
The second matter about which I am concerned is the statement in section 14(2) that "a person is not eligible to be appointed as a volunteer member unless he or she has completed the prescribed training". I have a problem with this in practical terms. What is the status of a person who is engaged in training? When I was a member of the FCA, one had to enlist before being trained. One is not immediately trusted with a 303 rifle, or the more modern equivalent. I envisage that a great deal of the training that will be given to Garda support members will be provided on the job. Those being trained as reservists will need to have some status. Under section 14(2), they will not be eligible to work as volunteers while being trained. I do not think they will be able to go away for a month to——
I do not accept that proposition. Reserve constables in the United Kingdom are trained over a six-week period. We can wait until people have finished their training before allowing them to exercise their powers or engage in active duty as members of the reserve.
We could have a variable situation. A retired member of the Garda who is prepared to join the reserve would not——
I will look at that issue. That is a good point.
We should not be tied by the provisions of section 14(2). What will be the status of a person who has enlisted to be a member of the Garda reserve but has not yet completed his or her training? I imagine the list of requirements in such instances will vary, depending on the background of the trainee reservist.
The Deputy will appreciate that I am keen to fireproof myself from the accusation that wholly untrained people will be sent out on the streets having done nothing more than take a Bible in their hands. He can imagine the capital that would have been made if I had not taken precautions in that regard.
I am usually concerned to ensure the Minister is fireproofed against all such possibilities. I think about such matters before breakfast every morning.
The propaganda on the café-bar issue shows this. It was specifically stated such licences would not include takeaway premises but almost inevitably the vested interests started to say every McDonalds restaurant would be selling whiskey, gin, etc.
I supported the Minister on that issue.
We will let the narrow band speak in a moment.
The Minister can be provocative at times. I will leave aside the issue of café-bars, a matter the Opposition can and will discuss reasonably. There are concerns about them, other than from the vintners, but it is a separate issue.
The third item on my list of reservations is the question of powers and whether such persons should have powers of arrest. The fourth issue is that of the 12-month wait. I would like this to be removed. As soon as we are ready to move, we should. I accept there are practical problems but we should work on and address them straight away.
The fifth issue is that of remuneration and terms. It would be helpful if we had a better idea of what pay levels, terms, conditions, gratuities, etc. will be available to such members, although I appreciate this is all subject to the ultimate fiat of the Minister for Finance. However, if we are putting a resource in place, we should have some idea as to how it will be handled. While I agree the matter should be subject to approval by the Minister for Finance, we should have some idea as to what arrangement should be made with regard to terms and conditions.
I will not oppose section 14 because I fully support the concept of a Garda reserve. However, I still have concerns on a number of issues, in particular, the five matters mentioned. I will return to these reservations on Report Stage, before which I urge the Minister to do further thinking on this section and its provisions.
I propose that rather than calling them members of a reserve force, we should call them volunteers.
Is the Deputy in favour of or against the use of the term "volunteers"?
I favour the use of the term "volunteers". Who could oppose a volunteer? My difficulty is that I am still unclear on their role and what they will do. Will the Minister give us some details in this regard and an idea of how they will operate? He has already said it will be difficult for them to deal with matters that may require them to come to court. As volunteers, they will not have time for this. In what areas will they operate? If they make an arrest, they will have to appear in court. They will not be able to avoid the courts in such circumstances. The powers the Minister is giving them automatically give them the right and duty to appear in court. What directions will they be given in regard to these duties?
The Minister says section 114 makes everything clear. It does not. It is silent on how they will be directed. All it states is that the Minister can assign different duties to the different ranks of the Garda Síochána. There is nothing to say how this new volunteer membership will be directed. The force will have no officers of its own. It is disbarred from having them. Therefore, it will not be able to operate by itself because there will be nobody with rank; all members will be of the same rank — gardaí. Will one garda be able to presume a rank for direction or leadership purposes?
It appears this volunteer force will not be able to operate under its own jurisdiction. The Minister should include with the phrase "while on duty", a provision that would make it clear that it would always operate under the direction of the Garda. This important provision should be included in section 14. If the Minister is including a reference to the powers of the Commissioner in the section, he should make it clear that the force which will assist gardaí will operate at all times under the direction of an officer.
These are the two areas with which I have a difficulty. I want a clear idea of the purpose of the new volunteer force. We require greater numbers of gardaí in areas where people are crying out for a garda presence, including disadvantaged areas where policing is difficult and there is significant anti-social behaviour. We need gardaí on the beat all the time, for example, in the Chairm an's or my constituency. If the volunteer force will not operate in these areas, the private security sector should be asked to deal with the policing of matches and events, etc. Civilian groups could deal with such events.
I would like the Bill to provide greater detail on the role of the volunteer force, explain the chain of command and how the force will operate in terms of direction and leadership.
I will not go over the ground already covered. I am still concerned we do not have all the details. The volunteer members of the Garda Síochána will not just be available to assist gardaí. If the Bill is passed in its current form, they will have the same powers as a garda. However, it has not been detailed properly how they will be held to account, how they will enjoy the same protections as existing gardaí or how they will operate.
Despite the fact that the Minister has pointed out that different regulations may be made under section 114, training is also an issue. The public hopes a person with the title of garda has undergone the required training or, while training, is a trainee garda or a garda of lower rank. I do not dispute the Minister's point that many are clamouring for a reserve force, nor am I saying I am opposed to this. However, we do not have sufficient detail before us. It would be better to have stand-alone legislation.
While I am open to correction, I presume the FCA is covered by separate legislation or that a substantial part of Defence Forces legislation deals with the FCA's duties, powers of call-up and remuneration, etc. That is preferable to the way the matter is dealt with in this Bill. As I said, this seems like an afterthought that was stuck in the middle of this substantial legislation dealing with the Garda Síochána. We should have a stand-alone Bill. It would have been preferable if a great deal more thought had been given to it in order that it could become a substantial part of this legislation. I will propose an amendment on Report Stage to delete this section and the related references throughout the Bill.
This is an enabling provision. It is not designed to provide an exact picture of how the reserve force will be constituted. If one examines the rest of the legislation, one will not be able to establish exactly the functions and regulations which will be made in respect of gardaí, etc. We need to be reasonable about all of this. If one examines the Bill carefully, one will not find a list of things that sergeants, inspectors or ordinary members of the Garda can and cannot do. It is unreasonable to expect me to specify in section 14 everything a reservist will or will not be able to do, or the circumstances in which a reservist will or will not serve.
I reiterate that this proposal is designed to enrich the Garda Síochána, ensure the force is more closely linked to the community, solidify it within the community and improve its relationships with the community. It is designed to enhance the conditions of service of ordinary members of the Garda, who will know they have allies in every community in which they serve. The members of the reserve force will have the same loyalty to the Garda as members of the FCA have to the Defence Forces. The existence of the FCA does not detract from the status of the Permanent Defence Force. On the contrary, it gives the Permanent Defence Force a loyal set of community-based allies on whom it can call for assistance as it carries out its functions.
If one examines the Army regulations in the Defence Acts, one will not find huge tracts about the circumstances in which the FCA can and cannot be used. It is all done by means of regulation within the Defence Forces. I am convinced the public supports the proposal I have made. It is in the interests of every member of the Garda that the force should have roots in the community. Based on current social and demographic trends, I am also convinced there is a clear and present danger that the Garda will become dissociated from the areas it polices, simply because Ireland is becoming a commuter society. That people in every sphere of Irish life travel long distances from their homes to the places where they work has consequences for the Garda.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh is aware that I do not consider that it would be a disadvantage if people in places in his constituency such as Ballyfermot, Crumlin, Drimnagh, Terenure and Rathfarnham were to support the Garda by participating in its voluntary reserve force. The force would be immensely strengthened by such participation. The local roots which would result from it would bind the Garda much more closely to communities in advantaged and disadvantaged areas.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I would like to raise a minor point about the oath to be taken by volunteer members of the Garda reserve which begins with the words, "I hereby solemnly and sincerely declare before God". Section 15(2) states the words "before God" may be omitted. Why does the Minister not remove those words from the oath in the first instance?
The Deputy can table an amendment on the matter on Report Stage.
I do not seek a substantial debate on the matter. I would like the Minister to explain why the words have not been omitted. If a person can request that the words "before God" be omitted, why has the Minister not left them out of the Bill, as it stands? That would cover all angles. I do not propose to make this a major issue.
I would like to speak about the section of the oath that requires volunteer members to state, "I do not belong to, and will not while I remain a member form, belong to or subscribe to, any political party or secret society whatsoever".
It might be difficult for volunteers to live up to that.
It might be. Is there a problem with one being a member of a political party while one is a member of the Garda? It is certain that high level appointments within the force are political. The Bill stipulates that members of the volunteer force should not be members of political parties while serving in the reserve. Is there a real conflict? It could be argued that conflicts can arise in some circumstances but surely it does not matter whether one is a signed-up member of a political party, or a member of that party at heart who has not signed a membership form. Secret societies are a different matter. There has been a significant growth in fundamentalism in recent times and many cults are in existence. I wonder if we should state one cannot become a member of the Garda reserve if one is a member of a religious cult, given that members of such organisations often have fundamentalist views.
The reference to God should remain in the oath. Those who believe in God and want to make a declaration to that effect should be entitled do so. The words in question should stay in place to reflect the nature, solemnity and importance of such a declaration. There is nothing wrong with this — it is a good idea.
Deputy Costello spoke about political parties. I will return to the issue as it relates to the Garda reserve. It would be undesirable to see ordinary members of the Garda knocking on doors at election time to canvass for particular political parties. I would not like to see such persons shaking boxes outside churches during national collections for such parties, which continue to take place in certain parts of the country. It would not be desirable for members of the Garda to be seen in attendance at parties' Ard-Fheiseanna and annual conferences, particularly if speaking about topics relating to the force.
I raised the matter as it relates to Garda volunteers.
I do not know whether my good friend, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, ever used the phrase "that is all right in practice, but how does it work in theory?", which has been attributed to him. Deputy Costello's remarks were along the same lines. One can make theoretical arguments but the practical consequences of allowing members of the Garda to take an active day-to-day role in party politics would be manifestly unacceptable to most. The public would not be comfortable with seeing the local Garda sergeant knocking on doors at election time.
The Minister has spoken about political activity. A number of people want to be associated with certain political parties in the full knowledge that they will not be asked to knock on doors or rattle collection boxes.
Such people can engage in certain activity. They can send subscriptions to political parties, for example. There is nothing to stop a member of the Garda from doing so. I will happily accept such subscriptions, by the way. I am only joking.
They will be sending the Minister their overtime payments.
Exactly. There is nothing to prevent a member of the Garda from having views and reading political tracts, etc. I do not doubt many gardaí have very strong political convictions but I do not think it would be acceptable to the public at large if members of the force were known to be card-carrying members of a political party. It would also feed the wholly false notion prevalent in some quarters that one's advancement in the Garda Síochána would be somehow assisted if one had a certain card in one's wallet.
I will consider the position regarding reservists between now and Report Stage. The same will apply in respect of these individuals. If a reservist ——
They will be obliged to resign their membership. No paid up member can be——
They may be obliged to make a choice. It might be better to make the choice than having a situation where the local chairman of the local cumann or branch would tell the person what to do. This is a matter I must consider. I would like to discover whether the authorities in the United Kingdom require this or whether they have had any difficulty with the issue. I would also like to look at other countries to see whether it is considered good or bad practice.
In Northern Ireland, for example, I presume that most policemen and policewomen in the PSNI have strong political convictions, because society there is polarised. I do not think it would be a good idea if they functioned wearing badges ——
Many of them are members of the Orange Order.
I do not think the Orange Order is a secret society.
It is not a secret society but it is an organisation which operates in secret.
On the issue of cults, one man's cult is another's minority religion. I cannot distinguish between Scientologists and Seventh Day Adventists by means of a ministerial regulation. The Deputy might call one or other of those a cult but I do not want to make a judgment of that kind. Asking gardaí to remove themselves from the political sphere is sufficient. Asking them not to pursue their religious convictions would be going a step too far.
I do not believe there is any rule preventing members of the FCA from being members of political groups. I mentioned the Orange Order and, in that context, another point arises in terms of secret societies. Would it be possible to add a section which might stipulate that a person will not belong to an organisation which promotes hatred of another group? Could that aspect be considered? That would allow for some of that——
I do not think the Orange Order would accept the Deputy's definition.
I did not define it. In England, for example, Combat 18, which is a type of racist organisation, is not a political party as such.
What about fans of Chelsea FC?
Perhaps the Chelsea supporters' club is similar. I do not know because I do not follow soccer closely.
What about Millwall fans, they are very loyal?
Perhaps the Minister will look at that matter and consider a small extension.
In the same way as there is difficulty with various cults, we could have difficulty with secret societies and people's interpretations of what constitutes such a society. Who decides what is a secret society? It could be a friendship organisation. I can see a difficulty arising if the Minister proscribes some secret organisations.
Masonry was regarded as a branch of trade unionism.
Secret organisations are not known about so if I put them on a list, they are not all that secret. I am considering whether members of the PSNI on secondment will have to take this declaration. There is an argument that they should not be required to do so because it requires them to uphold the Constitution. If they are here upholding our Constitution, it might be better that we do not ask them to subscribe to the references in it to unity of the Irish people, etc.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to refer to one issue. The section states that the Minister may, by regulation, establish a code of ethics. If we have a solemn declaration, we should have a code of ethics. This means we should use the word "shall" rather than that of "may". I do not see a problem with this. When we discussed the word "may" with regard to the provision of equipment, it was stated that the State may provide equipment, etc. This involved a financial requirement which might have proved difficult in terms of compensation and legal action. However, in terms of a code of ethics, something every police force should have, there should be no question of the Minister and the Commissioner not putting a code in place for gardaí, particularly as there is a substantive list of consultative processes involved here. It is clear from the list that the Minister intends there to be consultation on a code of ethics.
One never knows what will happen. The election may come before the Minister gets round to it and another Minister might not proceed with establishing a code of ethics. Why, therefore, will he not use the word "shall" instead of using "may"?
I shall consider that between now and Report Stage.
Why should the Minister for Finance be consulted on the preparation of a draft code of ethics, as it has nothing to do with financial regulations? Section 16(4) states "in preparing a draft code of ethics the Garda Commissioner shall have regard to" and proceeds to list various points. I suggest we include here the Patten recommendations and, perhaps, the UN standards and norms.
The Patten report refers to the PSNI. Northern Ireland is also in the European Union.
I will table an amendment to that effect on Report Stage.
Perhaps the EU Convention on Human Rights is included in corporation law and does not need to be included. Is that the thinking behind it?
Will the European Convention on Human Rights be considered?
The Council of Europe is effectively the same body. The European Convention on Human Rights is part of our law now.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.50 p.m. until 5.05 p.m.
SECTION 17.
As amendments Nos. 22 to 25, inclusive, are related, they may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 16, subsection (2), line 38, to delete "not" and substitute "may be".
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are technical amendments. I would like to discuss amendment No. 25 in the Minister's name. Will the reserve gardaí be allowed to hold membership of a representative association?
Amendment No. 24 in my name proposes to delete section 17(3), which provides that a member of the Garda "shall not be or become a member of any trade union or association" other than the GRA, the AGSI and similar existing organisations. I have proposed the deletion of the section because I consider that trade union and industrial relations practices have moved on significantly since the early years of the last century, when people engaged in certain confrontational activities. Perhaps the Minister will not agree with me on some of these points. Industrial relations are now governed by law. Industrial relations legislation is extensive. There is no good reason a member of the Garda Síochána should not be a member of a trade union or other association dealing with pay, pensions and conditions of service. We had "blue flu" when gardaí wanted to act out a scenario, were not allowed to do so properly and adopted another mechanism. We should be up front about this and allow gardaí to join trade unions.
We are now entering a new era of volunteer gardaí. We are coming close to the situation we discussed earlier in which a volunteer garda might have to resign membership of a political party in order to become a garda. Are we now saying a stalwart member of the community who wishes to do duty as a volunteer garda must resign his or her membership of a trade union? That is certainly a demand too much. The reason people join a trade union in the first place is to establish rights and conditions of service and employment. That is a desirable action, not something people should have to desist from. I suggest that we allow section 17 to stand but that we delete subsection (3), which vetoes membership of a trade union for members of the Garda Síochána or members of the volunteer garda structure.
There are other questions the Minister must ask himself. I am not sure what it costs to join the Garda Representative Association and be able to attend its annual meetings. What entitlement will volunteer gardaí have? Will their entitlement be on a par with that of the current members of the Garda Representative Association, considering that they may not have the same rights? Will they have a pension? Will they have pay and conditions of service? The legislation is silent on all these matters. We do not know yet whether volunteer membership will be paid or unpaid, whether there will be expenses or remuneration. Most volunteers will probably be working in full-time jobs before joining as volunteers but some may not be, for example, retired gardaí or people who have retired from other professions and wish to hold onto their trade union membership, as well as people who have not retired and are active members of their trade union.
There are some complications. I would like it established that gardaí are the same as everybody else in terms of their entitlement to join a trade union and influence their pay, pensions and conditions of service, which is forbidden under this subsection.
Section 17 largely reproduces the existing law. Subsection (1) deserves close reading. It provides: "For the purpose of representing members of the Garda Síochána in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency (including pay, pensions and conditions of service), there may be established, in accordance with the regulations, one or more than one association for all or any one or more of the ranks of the Garda Síochána below the rank of Assistant Garda Commissioner".
There can, therefore, in theory be more than one association for any individual rank.
Subsection (2) provides: "An association established under subsection (1) must be independent of and not associated with any body or person outside the Garda Síochána, but it may employ persons who are not members of the Garda Síochána”. This is subject to subsection (5).
The third provision reads: "(3) A member of the Garda Síochána shall not be or become a member of any trade union or association (other than an association established under this section or section 13 of the Garda Síochána Act of 1924) any object of which is to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of the Garda Síochána". This means there is a prohibition on joining an association or a trade union, any object of which is to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of the Garda Síochána.
Section 17(3) states members "shall not be or become" a member of a trade union or association. That means volunteer gardaí will not be able to join a trade union or an association
The words "or become" are a little old-fashioned because if one is not allowed to be, one cannot become either. A volunteer member who is a member of SIPTU in his or her ordinary job would not contravene this subsection by remaining a member of SIPTU because it is not an object of SIPTU to influence the pay, pensions and conditions of members of the Garda Síochána.
Section 17(4) provides that if any question arises on the issue of whether any body or association is a trade union or an association as defined in subsection (3), the Minister's determination shall be final. This means it is not a matter for disputation but for the Minister's decision.
Section 17(5) provides that, notwithstanding subsection (2), the Minister is entitled to authorise an association established under this section to be associated with a person or body outside the Garda Síochána in such cases and in such manner and subject to such conditions or restrictions as he or she may specify, and may vary or withdraw any such authorisation. There is, therefore, room for a representative association to form an alliance or linkage with another group subject to ministerial agreement.
The new subsection states: "(6) An association established under this section for the purpose of representing members of the Garda Síochána holding the rank of Garda may include persons admitted, in accordance with the regulations, to training for membership in the Garda Síochána". It has been agreed with the representative associations that trainee gardaí can be covered by the GRA or its equivalent. In other words, students in Templemore can now be members of an association which represents gardaí.
Which section is that?
The new section 17(6) as proposed in amendment No. 25.
On subsection (3), could the widow of a garda who is a member of an association which is trying to improve the pensions of the Garda Síochána become a volunteer garda?
She would have to choose between one or the other. She would not be allowed to be a member of a trade union or association other than a Garda representative association. If I opened that loophole, the reservists would be in a very different situation.
On the issue of whether volunteers would be entitled to join the Garda Representative Association, the right to associate implies freedom to dissociate. I do not believe I could impose an obligation on the Garda Representative Association to accept reservists if it felt that was not in its interests. It might feel reservists would not have the same fundamental economic interests as its members. On the other hand, if it wanted to accept them, that would be another issue to consider. I would not exclude the possibility of the GRA accepting reservists as members, instead of there being a separate reservists' or volunteers' association. It is not a matter of ministerial diktat.
Regarding Deputy Costello's fundamental point, amendment No. 24 would remove the prohibition on members of the Garda Síochána joining trade unions and ultimately give them the right to withdraw their services to the detriment of good order, the detection and prevention and crime and the security of the State. It is firm Government policy, not just my own personal predilection, that the prohibition on trade union membership should remain. I support this. I do not accept that joining a trade union is a legitimate garda aspiration. Gardaí have significant powers but we cannot extend to them the notion of participation in industrial disputes. It is a disciplined force, just like the Permanent Defence Force, for which PDFORRA is a representative association. I could not contemplate a situation whereby industrial action would be taken by members of the Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána because both are disciplined forces on which the State relies.
There are times when gardaí must intervene, sometimes tangentially, in industrial relations disputes. They must sometimes cross picket lines and arrest picketers, which is not to suggest members of the Garda Síochána cannot hold a sympathetic personal view with regard to the trade union movement which plays a valuable role in social partnership within our society. However, sovereign government must be in a position to carry out its wishes and not be inhibited in that respect by industrial relations.
There is a sophisticated scheme of employment relations in respect of Garda conditions which operates day in, day out. The relationship is special and has been described as sui generis. I cannot, therefore, go down the road of allowing members of the Garda Síochána to join trade unions or become subject to conventional industrial relations law. While I appreciate Deputy Costello’s point of view, I am not for moving.
Even if the Minister is not for moving, I will nevertheless make a number of further points. I belong to a party which was established by the trade union movement. The ATGWU came first. James Connolly and Jim Larkin established the Labour Party for the purpose of advancing trade unionism and the rights and conditions of pay of ordinary people. It is hard for me to say, therefore, that any working sector of the population should not be entitled to trade union recognition. While I can understand what the Minister is saying to a certain extent, I could have understood him to a greater extent in the past. Current legislation provides for boundaries and parameters in respect of strike action which is very much the last resort. Industrial relations are part and parcel of everyday life with regard to pay, conditions, pensions and so forth.
Forbidding gardaí to organise a trade union is an excessive restriction on a professional working force. We live in more enlightened times in terms of the relationship between workers and the Government. We should look afresh at providing for full freedom of association for all citizens, as indicated in the Constitution. The Minister fears gardaí would be in an invidious position, considering that they may be asked to cross a picket line. It is difficult and the Army is in a similar position. We are talking about industrial relations and operating within the terms of legislation, which is extremely comprehensive in this area. This can and should be achieved.
Section 17(5) states the Minister may allow association with other bodies. Does this mean he would allow an association with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which has long wished to include the various Garda representative bodies? Gardaí are outside the tent when it comes to negotiating terms of pay and conditions, which often gives rise to a considerable degree of anger because they are not allowed to be part of Congress and, therefore, have no voting powers or manoeuvrability in that respect. However, various agreements are made on their behalf.
There is a problem in that gardaí are allowed to be part of an association but have no say whatsoever in respect of the pay and conditions which affect their family lives and pensions. Many of their grievances arise from not being allowed to participate in negotiations under the various partnership agreements between the Government and the trade union movement, farmers and business community. These negotiations determine the level of trade union activity. It is time to take a fresh look at the matter in that context because we have moved on in terms of how trade unions operate. We are still referring to the relevant section of the original legislation, namely, section 13 of the Garda Síochána Act 1924. We should be moving forward.
I agree with the Minister to a certain extent. Every state needs a police force and an army whose first obligation and loyalty is to the state. However, this is not just a cosmetic difference between associations and trade unions. An incident such as the "blue flu" dilutes the situation in the sense that gardaí were not going to go on strike. It is worth discussing if the difference is only cosmetic.
With regard to amendment No. 22, I agree with Deputy Costello. I suggest a change to the wording that refers to a trade union or an association which may be a staff association. It might make sense to include other bodies which might have opinions on standards within the Garda Síochána such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties or Amnesty International. While they are not staff associations, they would be acceptable.
I agree that members of the Garda Síochána should be entitled to join trade unions. I remember that at the time PDFORRA was being set up there was opposition to it and the argument was made that members of the Defence Forces would not be allowed to become members of workers' associations, trade unions and so on. The world has not collapsed around us since PDFORRA was established. In fact, to the credit of the Army authorities, some of the founding members of PDFORRA have done well and been promoted in the Defence Forces. PDFORRA still ably represents its members.
The original wording of section 17(2) included the words "in an administration or advisory capacity". I question why that wording was deleted.
RACO and PDFORRA are not trade unions. Therefore, what has happened in the Defence Forces is analogous with what is happening in the Garda Síochána and not a reason for changing the situation in the force.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions is free to get involved in political campaigns. If members of the Garda Síochána were allowed join the ICTU, they would inevitably end up doing what ICTU does on occasion, such as taking a political stance against one Government or another, or engaging in generalised politicking such as on referenda and so on, where the ICTU has been uninhibited about taking a stance for or against one side or another. I do not accept the proposition that the ICTU is an appropriate body for members of the Garda Síochána to be associated with. We want the members of the Garda Síochána to be impartial.
The Garda representative associations have done very well under the conciliation and arbitration scheme. The pay and conditions of members of the Garda Síochána compare very favourably with those of other public servants. As plenty of applicants have continued to apply to joint the force, it is not as if the special arrangements made for the Garda Síochána make it a Cinderella organisation.
It is appropriate, as in the case of PDFORRA and RACO, for the various representative associations in the Garda Síochána to vigorously pursue their members' interests. I will not talk about the "blue flu" but in the last analysis the Government, as the legal representative of the State in Executive matters, must be in a position to rely on the unalloyed and unconditional loyalty of both its police force and the Defence Forces.
Deputy Costello put his finger on the matter in one respect when he said the Labour Party, as originally established by Larkin and Connolly, was a body which was intended to be the political voice of trade unionism but that cuts both ways. As the Deputy said, it would be strange if he did not favour maximising trade union membership. I fully appreciate that point but by the same token if members of the Garda Síochána were allowed to join a trade union, why would they not be allowed to support or be affiliated to a political party which advanced the interests of trade unions? That would bring us down the slippery slope again.
The current situation is the best one and I do not believe there have been developments since the foundation of the Garda Síochána which justify membership of a trade union, with all this implies under law. I do not believe there should be a statutory right for members of the Garda Síochána to withdraw their services, refuse to serve, go on go-slows, take other forms of industrial action or contemplate strike action. The quid pro quo is that members of the Garda Síochána have their own special arrangements which have served them well.
I understand, although I have never been there, that when it comes to conciliation and arbitration the representatives frequently remind the people who are the referees in their various disputes on the status of their terms and conditions of service of this special status and their obligations and get due recognition in return. If it were the case that we had a weak, underpaid and corrupt Garda force, I could well imagine people saying this was the result of inadequate representative bodies but since we have an honourable, professional, well paid Garda force which has kept abreast and ahead of the terms and conditions of others in the public sector, the argument for a change of this type has not been made.
Does this mean the Garda representative associations cannot join the ICTU for the purpose of collective bargaining?
It means no Minister has agreed to the Garda representative associations joining the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I believe in the freedom of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to take overtly political stances and positions but I cannot have a situation where I authorise the Garda Síochána representative associations to enter into political alliances because I might as well tear up other provisions of this Bill and the existing law if I did. The Deputy will be aware that some of the representative associations are members of bodies with which they have common interests and collegial meetings on issues but they are not affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
God be with the days when Jim Larkin was able to organise the RIC in 1908 in Belfast. At the time there was nothing to stop members joining a trade union and striking. Matters have changed for the worse.
We will revert to the RIC days if that is what the Deputy wants.
In tabling amendment No. 22, I am seeking to amend section 17(2), which reads, "An association established under subsection (1) must be independent of and not associated with any body or person outside the Garda Síochána...”. Am I correct in saying this changes the position?
No.
My understanding was that it was reversing it.
There will be a change in that I am proposing in amendment No. 25 to allow the representative association for the Garda to include trainee gardaí but the rest of the section is as was. The one exception is that when the Bill was introduced, a section was missing. We added two more which had fallen off the word processor as representative of the existing law. There was no evil intent behind it.
I accept that but I had an understanding that under the 1924 Act representative associations could associate with other bodies.
If the Deputy looks at section 17(5), he will see they can, with the permission of the Minister.
Yes.
That has always been the position.
Are we changing it now?
No.
I will not press the issue
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 16, lines 41 to 45, to delete subsection (3).
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 17, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) An association established under this section for the purpose of representing members of the Garda Síochána holding the rank of Garda may include persons admitted, in accordance with the regulations, to training for membership in the Garda Síochána.".
I do not mean to reopen the issue because I am not opposed to the change as such. Will volunteer gardaí who are members of a trade union have to renounce their membership in this instance?
No, my reading of the section, as amended, is that they will not be obliged to do so. The ban on associations or trade unions in subsection (3) is on trade unions or associations, the object of which is to affect the terms, pay and conditions of members of the Garda Síochána. If, for example, one was a member of SIPTU and one joined the reserve, SIPTU would not have as one of its functions the affecting of Garda pay.
What if, as I mentioned earlier, one was a member of the ICCL or Amnesty International and wanted to affect the conditions of Garda employment?
The ICCL and Amnesty International are not secret societies or political parties.
They are associations.
There is no ban on them. One can join the local tiddlywinks team as a member of the Garda or, if one has a farm, the Irish Farmers' Association. There is no outright ban on joining associations. It is purely the bodies with which this section deals. Perhaps I should make it compulsory for gardaí to join the ICCL, since that would change the ethic.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Has the issue of the membership of representative bodies by proposed members of the garda reserve been dealt with?
Yes. I made the point that a representative association can be established in respect of any rank or that a number of associations may be established in respect of an individual rank. I pointed out to Deputy Costello that the GRA might or might not want to bring into its membership a reserve or volunteer category. I do not envisage anybody forcing it to do so.
Can it refuse them?
It could refuse them at present because its rules probably do not allow for their membership.
There is no distinction, since they will be fully fledged gardaí.
They will be volunteer members.
They will have the duties and the rights of gardaí.
They will be members of the Garda Síochána but they will not hold the rank of garda. They will be volunteer members.
Surely they will hold the rank of garda. That is all they will have.
They will be members of the force but they will not hold the rank of garda.
The Bill states that they will have the same duties as gardaí.
They will have the same powers as gardaí but that will not mean that they will hold the rank of garda. They will hold a different rank.
If they will not hold the rank of garda, they will not be gardaí.
They will be members of the Garda Siochána and, in that broader sense, they will be gardaí. However, they will not hold the rank of garda.
That is a Jesuitical statement. What will be their rank?
Their rank will be that of volunteer members.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 17, before section 18, to insert the following new section:
"18.—Prior to the implementation of any significant work practice changes or reorganisation, the Commissioner and the Minister shall consult with Garda representative associations.".
I wish to raise my trade union flag at this point. Any significant work changes should be discussed in advance of implementation. That is good practice. This amendment merely raises that issue. I am not raising a red flag but it is reasonable to expect that work practice changes be discussed in advance.
These changes are generally discussed as a matter of course. There was a recent case where I changed the maximum age of recruits to 35. Some of the representative associations, the GRA in particular, were unhappy that I did so in the circumstances. I had to do it because it was no longer open to me to leave it at the existing age. I regretted the fact that I was forced by circumstances to move the goalposts without having as generous a period of consultation as I would have liked. That apart, the Deputy may take it that everything is the subject of some degree of discussion. The Department generally takes a partnership approach to most issues. The force is not run on a series of fiats with regard to these issues.
The very point raised by the Minister proves the need for this provision. I recall raising the age issue — following a visit to the police college in Northern Ireland where the age was much higher — approximately six months before the Minister made his announcement. I met a recruit there who was 52 years of age. I felt that was somewhat over the top. Following the visit to which I refer and discussions with members of the Garda Síochána, I took the view that the age of 35, whether by coincidence or otherwise, was the appropriate age and I indicated this accordingly. Six months later, a backbencher from one of the Government parties, presumably suitably primed, sought a change in the age requirement to 35 and the Minister duly made the announcement the following morning. I do not know whether this was——
Telepathy.
The backbencher to whom I refer is Deputy Glennon. I am sure it was all coincidence that a Government Deputy sought this change but it struck me——
Deputy Glennon's prescience was not inspired by me.
I had my suspicions but I presume that the Minister would have brought one of his own backbenchers on board. The point is that the age issue did not arise overnight.
No, it did not arise overnight. However, the Deputy should be aware that I was under pressure, not least from him, to proceed with the recruitment programme. I was not, therefore, in a position to place advertisements which referred to the old age limit in newspapers because I was advised that it would be unlawful to retain that age limit. Whereas it is a matter of judgment as to what should be the limit — Northern Ireland takes a different view from us in this regard — the Deputy must remember that we have a two-year training process. In those circumstances, it is reasonable to say that the cost of training, which is borne by the State, does not have to be accorded to people in their early 50s.
The Minister should not be mistaken. Six months earlier, I called for the age to be raised to 35.
I know that.
That was partly as a consequence of having seen the system in Northern Ireland, which is good, although I felt the authorities there went over the top in respect of the age of admission. However, there were special reasons for that.
I will not press the point unduly but I genuinely believe that, where possible, there should be consultation on significant work practices and that is the purpose of the amendment. I would expect support from those on this side of the House who might be more closely aligned with the trade union movement.
We support it 100%. I was going to put the previous amendment in my name to a vote just to check how the Fine Gael-Labour pact is progressing.
The Deputy should not press me too hard.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe made a good point because a significant number of work practice changes will take place as a result of this legislation in areas relating to civilian staff, volunteer members and community police, which are dealt with in Chapter 4. All of these are changing roles for the Garda. Perhaps the Minister might comment on how the Garda is dealing with this because, as he stated, this will be one of the most fundamental changes in the operation of the force since 1924. It would be interesting to hear what the representative bodies think about it.
We have all been persuading the Minister that the specific age at which people may be recruited to the Garda should be raised. There is no reason a person in his or her 20s, 30s, 40s or 50s would not make a good garda. There is no reason to impose an artificial age limit.
Like others, I have also suggested to the Minister on a number of occasions that the force was haemorrhaging many solid, well-trained, veteran gardaí at the other end because the age of retirement is still 57. Many gardaí have left the force in their 50s because they had attained full service and were in a position to obtain their pensions and, because of their experience, seek employment in the security industry, in particular. A significant amount of experience, as well as members, was lost to the force. I still maintain the Minister should reconsider the position. Is there any reason for the artificial cut-off point at which gardaí must retire?
The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, stated today that he does not understand why anybody should be obliged to retire at 65 and that there should be a certain degree of flexibility. No doubt he is trying to save on pensions. Nevertheless, there is considerable experience among those in their mid-50s and the danger is that the Minister would lose people, not just those aged 57 but also aged 47, 48, 49 or 50, when they are in a position to embark on a new career and when there is an incentive to retire. If they were able to remain in the Garda until they reach 60, the incentive to retire early would not exist.
I will not enter into a discussion on increasing the retirement age from 57 to 60. It is a complex argument and if we started discussing it, we would be here until the crack of dawn. However, I will say that it is not as easy as it may seem.
I entered office thinking I had a clear view on the issue and now I have a less clear view on it. There are two sides to that story. Nobody is forced out of the Garda Síochána at the age of 50. Many gardaí regard the right to retire at the age of 50 as an important economic right which allows them go away on full pension at that age. That is a cherished right. Although some forget this, it also applies in the Prison Service. To earn a full pension at the age of 50 is a significant bonus which is not available generally across the public service.
It is true that recent recruits will be required to work to the age of 53 before they get that right. At present, it would not be wise, without selectivity, to increase the retirement age. Selectivity carries so many problems and so many causes for dissatisfaction, argument, judicial review, etc., that it is not easy to just shift the goalposts in the way one would imagine. It certainly is not easy to do it. I will not say more.
May I make my position clear? Like the Minister, I initially looked at this issue and thought there was an obvious case for an extension. I spoke to many members of the Garda Síochána. Many of them have had enough at that age.
Many of them are relying on it for promotional opportunity and the first few years after changing it would not be happy ones from the point of view of many of the people following.
There is a further problem, namely, that providing front-line service at 3 a.m. outside a nightclub is not really apt in the case of someone aged 60. This is particularly true when one considers the way society has developed and what people who have consumed much drink get up to at that hour. I took the view that there probably was not a case to raise the retirement age for members of the Garda Síochána. I would, however, make an important exception in that there is a shortage of middle management to supervise new recruits, particularly if these long-promised recruits, tested or otherwise, come on stream. There is a strong case, subject to a medical, for increasing the age of retirement for sergeants and inspectors. They would have a role supervising younger, new members of the force and I understand that they are caught by the same requirement to retire aged 57. At present, the force is short of sergeants and inspectors. We will be in greater need of them, particularly if more young recruits and the new reserve members come on stream.
The latter are the B Specials.
There is a certain sense in what Deputy Jim O'Keeffe says but I ask him to remember that a garda aged 54, who realised he or she would have to retire at 57 unless he or she was promoted to sergeant, might see matters in a slightly different light if a colleague aged 57, who should be retiring and making way for such a promotion, would now be able to continue until 60.
I accept that.
One would be surprised. A seemingly simple issue is not that simple.
I understand that. I discussed this with members of the Garda Síochána in Tralee, where I dallied a little longer than the Minister. They informed me that 82% of members of the force are never promoted. The likelihood of somebody at the age of 54 or 55 being strongly in line for promotion to sergeant would not be enormous.
My view of the overall picture dates, to some degree, back to my days in the FCA. To a large extent, the people who kept hands-on control on matters in the FCA and, I thought, in the Army were the sergeants and the corporals. The same applies, to a great degree, to Garda sergeants, in particular. There is a shortage of sergeants in the force, solely from the point of view of supervision. That need will become far greater in the years ahead. I wish to give notice of my fairly strong views on this issue and if I ever get the opportunity to put these people in place, I will do so.
I am glad to hear those views. The Deputy should be conscious of the fact that, while what he says is true, most gardaí do not obtain promotion and are not always pleased about that. If one were to say that, as a general rule, those who have obtained promotion can serve longer than those who have not, then one would be reducing the promotion opportunities of the 80% who do not obtain promotion. I do not know what hour of the morning it was when the Deputy was discussing this issue in Tralee but I can tell him that there are different attitudes in the clear light of day.
The Minister is making some insidious suggestions at this stage.
What is the situation in respect of middle management? Almost as many members of the Garda have left the force in recent years as have been recruited into it. That has been one of the most significant problems experienced by the Minister as he has tried to increase the number of recruits to the level that was originally suggested. There has, however, been a special recruitment push in recent times.
The Deputy is straying away from the amendments.
It seems that many gardaí between the ages of 50 and 57 have left the force. A garda who is thinking of retiring will not wait until his or her 57th birthday, by which time he or she might be unemployable. They will leave after they become eligible for the full pension, possibly at the age of 50.
That might be the case for some members but many gardaí serve until the age of 57.
I am not suggesting that every garda leaves before that age. Many gardaí leave before that age, however, because it is attractive for them to use their experience in different fields. Can the Minister not incentivise such people to stay until the age of 57? What arrangements will be put in place for the new volunteer gardaí? Can the Minister give the committee details of the age categories which will apply to the new volunteers?
I have not considered the age guidelines I will put in place for those who will work as volunteer members of the reserve force. I do not believe, however, that 35 would be an appropriate upper age limit. The argument I made earlier to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, which related to recruits getting two years of training to cover the remainder of their life as gardaí, does not apply with as much force to a 37 year old who wishes to become a volunteer member. One cannot really distinguish between a volunteer member aged 37 and a volunteer member aged 33. Such people will not spend two years in Templemore. We can discuss this issue at a later stage when the regulations are made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
Section 18(1) states that "the Garda Commissioner may appoint such numbers of persons as civilian staff of the Garda Síochána as may be approved by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance". I ask the Minister to explain what he intends to do. We have heard various suggestions about the locations and duties of civilian staff who will be used to relieve ordinary gardaí from desk duties. Does the Minister propose that some existing gardaí will be civilianised?
Section 18(3) states that "a member of civilian staff of the Garda Síochána is a civil servant of the Government". Should that not read "a civil servant of the Oireachtas"? Civil servants serve the Parliament as well as the Government. They are employed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Are they supposed to respond to the Government? It does not seem that civil servants are being referred to properly in this section.
Section 18(6) states:
Before making an order for the purpose of subsection (5), the Minister shall—
(a) notify in writing any recognised trade union or staff association concerned of the Minister’s intention to do so
What is the intention behind that section?
Section 18(1) states that "the Garda Commissioner may appoint such numbers of persons as civilian staff of the Garda Síochána as may be approved by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance". As well as being the Accounting Officer, the Commissioner will be given the right to appoint civilians as civil servants of the State, with my approval and the consent of the Minister for Finance. Section 18(2) states "the Garda Commissioner shall determine the grades of civilian staff and the numbers in each grade" and this shall happen on the same terms.
Section 18(3) uses the standard phrase "a civil servant of the Government" to describe a member of civilian staff of the Garda. I understand that the term "a civil servant of the Government" is generally used to describe civil servants. I imagine that the phrase "civil servant of the State" is also sometimes used. I assume that it is a convention to use the phrase "a civil servant of the Government" because such individuals can be dismissed by the Government, subject to the ordinary rules governing the work of civil servants.
Section 18(4) states that "The Garda Commissioner is the appropriate authority (within the meaning of the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956 and the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 1996) in relation to civilian staff of the Garda Síochána". This means that workers in certain grades can be dismissed by the appropriate authority without a Government decision.
Section 18(5) states that "every member of the staff of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform designated by order of the Minister for the purposes of this section shall, on being so designated, be transferred to and become a member of the civilian staff of the Garda Síochána". This means that some civil servants under the aegis of my Department will be transferred to the authority of the Commissioner, on foot of an order made by me. Section 18(6) states that before making such an order, the Minister must:
(a) notify in writing any recognised trade union or staff association concerned of the Minister’s intention to do so, and
(b) consider, within such time as may be specified in the notification, any representations made by that trade union or staff association in relation to the matter.
Section 18(7) states that "Schedule 2 has effect in relation to staff transferred under this section" to ensure that their rights are preserved.
As the Garda Commissioner will become the Garda Síochána's Accounting Officer, in effect, and the boss of the force's civil staff, some members of staff will have to be officially transferred from me to him. Section 18 puts in place the system under which that will be done. Schedule 2 to the Bill provides for the terms and conditions of transferred staff, which are no less onerous.
The section does not just refer to transferred staff. I presume that civilian staff will be recruited by the Garda Commissioner who, under section 18(1), can "appoint such numbers of persons as civilian staff of the Garda".
This section is a transferral mechanism. The Commissioner is entitled to appoint people as he wishes, subject to ministerial approval and the consent of the Minister for Finance. This Bill will put in place a mechanism whereby civil servants in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform can be transferred. They will continue to be civil servants but they will be under the direction and control of the Garda Commissioner.
Is it limited to that? It does not say in the Bill that this is the case.
No, it is not limited to that.
If the Garda Commissioner transfers people to such positions, he or she will be operating in line with the section which states that he or she can "appoint such numbers of persons as civilian staff of the Garda". I presume, however, that he or she will also be entitled under this section to recruit people as civilian members of the force.
The Office of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commissioners, which is the public service recruitment agency, will be used as the vehicle of employing civilians in the Garda Síochána.
The Minister has said that some civil servants who are under his jurisdiction at present will be transferred to the authority of the Garda Commissioner. They will be accountable to the Commissioner, who will be responsible for them. I presume that the Commissioner will also recruit other civilian staff.
Yes.
Can the Minister indicate how he envisages that such civilian staff will fit into the new Garda arrangements? Will all the civilian staff have full trade union rights?
They will definitely have such rights. All public servants, without exception, are entitled to trade union rights.
Will that be the case when, for example, public servants are responsible for inputting information into the PULSE computer system?
Yes.
The force could grind to a halt.
The inputting of information into the PULSE system will be done under the supervision of gardaí.
Deputy Costello also inquired about civilianisation. The Garda Síochána, when compared to its international counterparts, has a remarkably low level of civilian support. For example, it would be quite normal in a British constabulary for senior executive public servants who are not police to assist in putting together the British equivalent of the book of evidence in a serious murder case. In Ireland, we tend to have a police to civilian staff ratio of 10:1, whereas in Britain it is 6:4. In other words, we have a under-civilianised police force compared to the United Kingdom.
Changing that is not as easy as might be thought. A simple and obvious suggestion would be to recruit more civilian staff and get more gardaí on the streets. However, the public service embargo on recruitment comes into play when recruiting more staff. It is not easy to get more staff into the Garda Síochána. We are in the process of making arrangements for staff who have found their functions affected by developments in other parts of the public service to become available to the Garda Síochána.
Was a clear commitment given some three years ago that 474 Garda posts would be civilianised?
It was given much earlier than three years ago. I am working towards the achievement of that goal. One of my problems is that I was not allowed to recruit a single extra person until relatively recently. Civilianisation ground to a halt, in effect, because I could not bring in extra staff.
The handcuffs were applied by the Government. It made the promises.
That is true. The Deputy will appreciate that although Government acts as a single collective authority, financial procedures and employment procedures in Government have, under successive regimes and not just this one, always operated on the basis that the Department of Finance imposes disciplines on other Departments.
I am well aware of those provisions, having served as Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for the public service.
The Deputy knows the score better than I do.
I had assumed that the previous Government would have been aware of the restrictions before it made the promises during the most recent general election campaign.
It was a rash promise.
It was not rash. In light, for example, of changes to the Common Agricultural Policy and because payment systems have changed dramatically, resources are now available in the public sector. Staff who were dealing with multiple payments, headage systems, etc., are now in a position to assist the Garda Síochána in carrying out its duties.
It was suggested to me — not late at night — that there would not be great enthusiasm on the part of all members of the Garda Síochána for the completion of the civilianisation process. A practical point was made to me that gardaí recovering from illness or injury might, as a halfway house before returning to front-line duty, sometimes be accommodated with a spell behind a desk. Is that the case?
That is true. Some people have a crude view that the only way to police is to be away from a desk. If, however, one is carrying out many functions which are police work, one must have a desk, a telephone and so on. It is somewhat crude to suggest that any officer not on the beat is not carrying out a policing function. At the same time, however, highly visible policing is generally what members of the public want.
I would have thought all these issues would have been carefully considered before absolutely unconditional commitments were made prior to the last election. They seem not to have been fulfilled since then.
The Deputy forgets that, in politics, one sometimes has to challenge oneself with commitments.
That is a new excuse for broken promises. I will have to remember it.
Did the Minister state that future appointments of civilian staff will be made through Civil Service recruitment procedures?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 17, before section 19, but in Chapter 2, to insert the following new section:
"19.—With reference to the powers conferred upon the Minister by this Chapter, the Minister shall at all times furnish full and prompt responses to parliamentary questions relating to the past or proposed exercise of such powers.".
I take this opportunity to highlight the need for accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I will make two points. First, I do not want accountability to the Oireachtas — this is an important point — reduced as a consequence of the greater powers accorded to the Garda Commissioner. Second, the Minister has had a propensity to occasionally provide responses to parliamentary questions to the effect that "The information sought is currently being compiled and will be forwarded to the Deputy as soon as it is available". I find it annoying that one might still be waiting for the information perhaps three months later and that one would be obliged to table another question. This is no way to treat not just Deputies but the Parliament. I have always felt that an essential ingredient in our system of democracy is that Deputies, particularly those in opposition, should have a right to table Dáil questions and to the information sought.
Those are the two aspects to my amendment. The answer to the latter point is, to a large degree, in the Minister's hands. The first aspect arises from the new powers given to the Garda Commissioner.
As one who tables questions from time to time and receives somewhat inadequate responses, I support the amendment. The only adequacy of the responses relates to the quantity of verbiage. The process leaves much to be desired, particularly when one receives repetitive answers. If one asks a question on immigration, for example, the reply details the Minister's immigration policy, or lack of it, over three or four pages and gives perhaps a paragraph in answer to the question. When I table a specific question, I do not want to know the Minister's policy on immigration. The position is similar in regard to many other issues. Answers involve much verbiage, with perhaps a paragraph or, if one is very lucky, two in answer to the question.
Parliamentary questions were intended as an opportunity for parliamentarians, spokespersons in particular, to elicit relevant information and facts and not to be subjected to a lecture or a five-page answer on a subject about which they did not ask. The position is worse in regard to Priority Questions for oral answer in the Dáil in that very little genuine information is provided.
Who is responsible for wording the replies to questions? Has the Minister given instructions to his civil servants and advisers that answers should reflect the questions asked, that they should not contain a great deal of filling and that they should merely include a few facts, statistics and the information sought? One gets such information in some replies but we have all received replies which concealed at least as much information as they delivered. The Minister might enlighten us on how he goes about answering parliamentary questions.
My Department answers questions with remarkable frankness and fullness. It is interesting that, instead of being told I issue telegrams, I am being informed that I sometimes, to the disappointment of the questioner, contextualise the answers I supply. There are occasions when if one issues a simple answer to a question, one runs the risk that the context will be misrepresented later. In some cases, particularly with questions for written answer where one is not using up time in the Dáil, it is important to place the answer in context. If my Department is asked about the number of gardaí recruited over a certain period, for example, it is useful to also provide the general direction of the matter so that somebody reading the Official Report may see the full picture. I make no apology for doing that.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's amendment, which he proposes should be inserted as section 19, but in Chapter 2, deals with "the powers conferred upon the Minister by this Chapter". If one peruses the provisions of the chapter, one will see that there are few powers conferred on the Minister. Powers are only conferred under sections 14 and 16. The latter deals with the code of ethics. I do not know what full and prompt answers will be asked of me on those issues but no doubt full and prompt answers will be given.
Since we are discussing this issue, I should say that on occasion I find that there is an absence of what I would describe as the virtue of continence in questions tabled. Departments are thrown into chaos by broad questions seeking every penny spent since 1997 on paper clips, lawyers or whatever. This takes much valuable public servants' time to put together. If some of the questions require a good deal of research, the questioner gets the answer that the material is being compiled. The issue people must bear in mind is that if somebody wants to know the number of paper clips issued in the years between 1997 and 2002, it is late in the day to be asking that question.
The sense of urgency is difficult to appreciate when one is asked to carry out colossal trawling exercises in the short number of days appropriate for questions under the rules of the House. One does not get much time to answer a question but if one is asked a colossally involved question to which it takes a great deal of time to respond, then an accurate and decent reply will, in certain circumstances, take time to compile.
The Minister has pointed out defects in the way my amendment is drafted. I had intended that I would be speaking about two matters, one of which relates to the powers generally exercised by the Minister. I make the point that the Minister sometimes responds on the basis that he is compiling information and will contact a Deputy in due course. In fact, he does not do so for months. In one instance, this went on for six months and it took a second parliamentary question to stimulate a response.
The other matter is my concern that accountability, which the Minister presently has, may suddenly be diminished or reduced as a consequence of the changes being made in the Bill. In particular, I refer to what happens increasingly in other Departments — I do not wish to put the Minister's officials in the way of temptation — where, for example, in respect of issues raised about a hospital or an industry, the relevant Ministers will provide responses worthy of Pontius Pilate — that is, that he or she has no responsibility in the matter — and to the effect that these are matters for the Health Service Executive or Enterprise Ireland, respectively. My concern generally relates to the possible danger of the Parliament becoming increasingly less relevant. That is the basic thinking behind the amendment to which I will be returning in an altered form on Report Stage.
I do not intend to diminish the level of accountability to Dáil Éireann under any circumstances. I ask the Deputy to consider section 40, which opens up many lines of parliamentary inquiry.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 18, subsection (2), between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(a) secure and allocate any additional resources which are required as a result of his or her actions under subsection (1),”.
This amendment relates to the roles of the Minister and the Garda Commissioner and the resources to enable the work in question to be done.
I am grateful to the Deputy for suggesting that I should have the powers of the Minister for Finance in this regard.
It boils down to the fundamental issue, namely, that it is all very well to set priorities for the Garda Síochána. I am in favour of doing so and I am also challenging the Garda Síochána to do the kind of work we want it to do. We must provide the resources to the Garda, however, if it is to be encouraged to rise to this challenge. That is the intent behind the amendment. Perhaps it is a blunt instrument. I want to see a position where the Minister will set priorities but where he will also provide the resources to enable those priorities to be fully achieved and implemented by the Garda Síochána. That is the purpose of the amendment.
In the context of the moneys available to the Exchequer and of the demands involved, I cannot understand why more moneys would not be available to bring Garda IT and communications up to date. I cannot understand why gardaí are expected to operate, in many instances, with totally outdated equipment. I cannot understand why they are involved in an inordinate waste of time because of the inadequacies of the PULSE system. If money — these are not enormous sums — is the problem, why is it not provided? The Minister will state that the budget so many years ago was a certain amount and that this year's budget represents an increase on that. It seems to be bad management, or a bad way of doing business, to fail to make more resources available to help the force to become more efficient. That is my basic thinking.
I will speak about the various resources mentioned by the Deputy. I have been anxious to ensure the digital radio project is completed adequately. The delivery of such a service has been fast-tracked. In that context, the Centre for Management and Organisation Development in the Department of Finance is preparing a competitive public procurement process which should be finished by January 2006. I am anxious that the digital radio project which involves the development of a service rather than just the acquisition of equipment should be advanced. We need to buy a service rather than a system.
Is the Minister tying it in with other services?
In principle, the new service should be available to all blue light services. I refer to emergency ambulance and Garda services.
Yes.
I do not want to buy a pile of antennae and receivers. I want to reach a deal with a service provider which can offer a suitable service. In the past 20 years there have been many examples of the Government in this State, our neighbouring state and other European states buying a great deal of new equipment, only to be told at a later stage that the equipment is out of date or irrelevant. There is substantial potential throughout the public service for Ministers and officials to make errors when acquiring technological services. I want to change the system of acquisition for that reason.
I share the frustration of many Deputies and members of the Garda with the PULSE system. While it is fundamentally a good one, it can take a long time to input and access information. A call centre for inputting is being established for that reason. Gardaí will be able to input information over the telephone, rather than having to travel to PULSE centres to type in their entries. I agree with the Deputies who have argued that the system should be available to every Garda station on the broadband network. It has even been suggested that the system should be accessible in every squad car. It is possible that it will be available in every member's pocket via the blackberry system at some time in the future. We need to move towards this. Perhaps the digital radio system will be used to access PULSE in years to come. That would be of huge significance. I share Deputy O'Keeffe's frustration.
I am impatient at the interminable delays.
I have outlined the progress we are making. I am taking steps to improve services such as closed circuit TV, which is being laboriously introduced, to concentrate the attention of the relevant sections of the Garda. Such services should be outsourced, wherever possible. I intend to publish proposals for a major CCTV outsourcing exercise in the near future. We are asking the Garda to do too much by asking it to manage the digital radio, PULSE and CCTV systems on an in-house basis. We would be better off outsourcing such tasks, wherever possible.
It seems the closed circuit TV resource is not being used to a sufficient extent. While I accept additional demands are placed on members of the force who have to check CCTV footage, I often wonder if such demands are over-emphasised. I understand CCTV footage is checked only if gardaí want to get information about an incident at a particular time on a particular date. Is it the case that CCTV monitors are not being perpetually watched?
There are perpetual CCTV monitors in major Garda stations. I agree with the Deputy that lesser species of CCTV should be used in high risk communities or local shopping precincts. I would like to relax the need for State involvement in CCTV systems by encouraging organisations which want to install CCTV surveillance systems to do so. Some argue that there are civil liberties issues in this regard. The Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has told me today that a survey conducted by Liberty, a civil liberties body in Britain, has found that there is overwhelming support for CCTV systems in that jurisdiction. According to the survey, most consider that their rights are protected, rather than compromised, by such systems.
How can their rights be protected if the number who can access CCTV footage is limited? If we are talking about moving away from the Garda——
The Deputy is tempting me very strongly.
It is a valid point, regardless of whether the Minister wants to go down the other road.
I will not say any more about it.
Computers can store many hours of CCTV footage, as a result of advances in technology in this field. Certain associations in my constituency are seeking the installation of CCTV systems in playgrounds and other public spaces. The debate in this regard centres on whether the Garda or a similar identifiable body, rather than a private company, should have permanent access to CCTV footage.
Did the Deputy suggest at one time that CCTV footage could be monitored in Malaysia?
Many pub owners and similar interested parties are employing new forms of technology which permit footage to be transmitted on a secure basis such as over the Internet. In theory, one could watch one's pub from Malaysia. A single garda could have access to CCTV footage from many different locations.
A key aspect of this important issue, which relates to issues of civil liberties, for example, is determining who has access to CCTV footage. I do not doubt there is a huge popular demand for CCTV cameras. While I have asked many parliamentary questions about this issue, I have received the same reply, that the matter is being dealt with by the Garda. The process of installing CCTV systems is like the peace process — it never seems to be coming to an end and never delivers a final product. When I mention the many communities which have sought CCTV systems, I am told their applications have been taken on board by the Department and that the Garda is examining the issue. Is anybody responsible for dealing with this aspect of the matter?
That is the precise point with which I will deal in the near future.
The Minister has said he is thinking of outsourcing it but that is not necessarily——
We are dealing with amendment No. 29, which calls on the Minister to "secure and allocate any additional resources" required under section 19(1).
That is what we are talking about.
Amendment No. 30, which calls on the Minister to "supply the Gardaí with modern and effective communications systems", has already been discussed with amendment No. 5.
I have not spoken about this matter during the debate. It might have been discussed by other members of the committee but I have not mentioned it.
I ask the Deputy to conclude his remarks.
I thank the Chairman for his generous allocation of time.
The Minister went AWOL during the debate on the amendment before the committee.
That is a good description.
I ask the Deputy to continue.
I have asked many parliamentary questions about this issue. I will ask the Minister another question about it at a later stage. He does not seem to be making progress on the roll-out of the CCTV systems for which the Garda is responsible. Does he propose to establish another body? Is any section of his Department responsible for the matter? Is it lost? We are told time and again that the matter is being considered by the Garda Síochána but that it has not yet made a decision. It has been considering such applications for years.
I call Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on amendment No. 29.
Perhaps the Minister will respond.
The Deputy's question is out of order.
It is not.
I deem it out of order in the context of the amendment.
It is related to it in that it deals with additional resources. How could it be more relevant? Chairman, you are out of order.
Is Deputy Jim O'Keeffe withdrawing the amendment?
I will reserve further comment until Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 18, subsection (2), between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(b) supply the Gardaí with modern and effective communications systems and leading edge technology for the recording of crime and the collation of data, and”.
We have discussed this amendment effectively. I feel strongly about it and will revert to it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
On Report Stage I intend to bring forward amendments proposing that the Minister does more than simply consult or supply the Garda Commissioner with a copy of the determined priorities as stated in section 19(2)(a) and (b). He should go beyond this and also supply the different bodies referred to in the Bill such as the joint policing committees and the inspectorate — I will call it a “board” in my amendment — with a copy of the determined priorities.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
I again suggest that the Minister should not simply consult the Garda Commissioner but should go further and deal with the joint policing committees, the inspectorate, which I will call the "board" in my amendment, and the community policing partnerships. I also intend to seek to have a new subsection inserted after section 20(3)(d) to the effect that in preparing the strategy statement the Garda Commissioner should have regard to certain matters such as the promotion and protection of human rights, including the European Convention on Human Rights.
Section 20(3)(a) refers to “relevant Government policy”. Does this subsection influence the Garda Commissioner too much in the preparation of a strategy paper? I am not suggesting the Garda Commissioner would necessarily go against the requirement.
The Deputy has given notice that he will table an amendment on Report Stage.
Sections 19 to 21, inclusive, are important. Through them, the Minister will cause a copy of the priorities, strategies or plans to be laid before the Oireachtas after the event. At that stage all of the priorities will be established, the strategy determined and the three-year plan in place. This process does not involve any role for the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, other than if the committee wants to discuss an issue that has been completed or dealt with. It will only get a chance to consider an issue post factum.
Section 21, at least, allows the joint policing committees to be consulted but there is no consultative process for any other body, apart from the Minister and the Garda Commissioner, in regard to priorities and strategies. We are putting in place a new mechanism for all priorities, strategies and the policing plan. Should we also provide an opportunity for the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to consider these three areas?
I presume the strategy and priorities will be prepared together and while the plan deals with a three-year period, there should be some opportunity for the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to have a hearing before the Minister and the Garda Commissioner decide what will happen to the Garda Síochána for the next three years — how resources will be used, what the strategy will be, what priorities will be targeted and so on. Rather than simply stating at the end of each section that "the Minister shall cause a copy of it to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas", the Minister might be prepared to insert an amendment into the Bill to the effect that there would be some discussion of the draft proposals prior to their agreement and being laid before the Houses. They will not be of much use to us after the deed has been done.
Section 19(1) states:
The Minister may—
(a) determine, and from time to time revise, priorities for the Garda Síochána ... and
(b) establish, and from time to time revise, levels of performance ... to be aimed at ...
This is a continuing obligation and right. The Minister can be brought before this committee to be asked why he or she is not making revisions. It is not as if the Minister's priorities are fixed in stone. They can change.
That must be tied into a three-year strategy.
That is true. However, if we are to have three-year strategy statements, there must be some date on which they must begin.
How can we have a three-year strategy, given that priorities can be made at any time and it is intended that there will be an annual policing plan? Surely the plan and the strategy will be the same.
It is the SMI process applied to the Garda Síochána. It is not like the Queen Elizabeth which, once it starts moving in one direction, cannot change course. The SMI process is supposed to give more than an annual timeframe for strategic management. That is the best we can do.
Can a reference to an oversight mechanism, apart from the Minister and the Garda Commissioner, be included with the brief reference to the joint policing committees? Some provision might be made for the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to meet the Garda Commissioner and the Minister in regard to their annual plan or three-year strategy. I accept that it is proper protocol to lay a copy of such a document before the Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as is practical after approving it but the matter is all done and dusted at that stage. If we want to build in a certain level of accountability to the Houses, what I suggest might be a way to achieve it.
That is a matter to consider before Report Stage.
I will consider it but will the Minister do so?
I am sure the Minister will do so. If the Deputy tables an amendment, he will have to.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
The views of the community policing partnership and the board or inspectorate, whichever title will be appropriate when we finish dealing with this body, should be taken on board. I intend to propose changes to this section on page 18, lines 33 to 36, and after line 43.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 20, subsection (4), line 17, to delete "to limit the independence of" and substitute "in respect of the role of".
The amendment reflects what we discussed at a previous meeting with the Minister in regard to the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the fact that gardaí will no longer prosecute offences in the same manner as previously. The independence of an individual garda is already limited in performing his or her functions relating to the investigation and prosecution of an offence. Section 22(4) states that "The Minister's power under subsection (1) may not be exercised to limit the independence of a member of the Garda Síochána”. However, that independence is limited by the DPP, who has taken on the role. Would it be appropriate to remove the word “independence”, as it is hardly proper in the circumstances? I propose instead that we substitute the phrase “in respect of the role of”.
I see the Deputy's point. A garda is now wholly independent of the DPP in carrying out a prosecution or investigation. However, there is nothing wrong with the section. It states that I, as Minister, cannot issue a directive telling gardaí how to conduct an investigation relating to a specific offence.
The section suggests that the independence, which is currently unlimited, will be limited.
No, it does not.
"Independence" is quite a strong word. It seems that only the Minister can limit the independence but it is already virtually gone by virtue of the fact that only the DPP——
I will consider the matter. I might insert a formula of words such as "may not be exercised to affect the performance of a member of the Garda Síochána in relation to the investigation of a specific offence".
"Independence" is the wrong word in this context. If the Minister will consider the matter, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 22 agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 21, subsection (2), line 10, after "information" to insert the following:
"(subject to the putting in place of sufficient safeguards to protect personal information relating to individuals)".
Section 24 states:
(1) With the prior consent of the Government, the Garda Commissioner may, on behalf of the Garda Síochána, enter into an agreement with a police service or other law enforcement agency outside the State.
(2) The agreement may provide for the co-operation of the parties or the exchange of information or such other matters as the Garda Commissioner thinks fit.
This will give enormous power to the Garda Commissioner. While I do not doubt that the Garda Commissioner is a very upright person, and the holder of that office will always be so, some caveat or safeguard is nevertheless required. I suggest that we insert the amended wording "(subject to the putting in place of sufficient safeguards to protect personal information relating to individuals)". Information winging its way from one jurisdiction to another does so in an increasingly computerised form. It is possible that much information could be misconstrued, that its contents might not be sufficiently restrained or that inappropriate personal information on individuals could be included.
An example in regard to the PULSE system may illustrate the point. It is not long since I tabled a question on the Minister's favourite family, the McBreartys, and the information its members obtained by discovery during the Morris tribunal, namely, that while they were accused of murdering Richie Barron, this information was changed on the PULSE system without reference to anybody. Three years passed before the family was informed that the murder charge had been dropped and that it was now a question of misadventure. In that case, there was information that somebody had deleted the offence from PULSE and changed it to a less serious one but nobody knew about it at the time.
It is not known exactly what is on the PULSE system. I would be interested to know what protective measures are in place to safeguard information that is input. How long does such information remain on the system? Can it be interfered with? Can it be accessed by hackers? I am concerned that the Garda Commissioner will, under this section, be able to enter into any agreement with a police service. Subsection (2) states "The agreement may provide for the co-operation of the parties or the exchange of information or such other matters as the Garda Commissioner thinks fit."
The Minister should reconsider this matter. Data protection for Irish citizens is necessary in regard to information leaving the State. While everything might seem fine in terms of international police co-operation, there is little control, if any, over computer data, including that contained on the PULSE system.
This is an enabling section designed to allow the Garda Commissioner to enter service agreements with police services and law enforcement agencies outside the State. Subsection (2) states that it can provide for "the exchange of information or such other matters as the Garda Commissioner thinks fit." However, this is subject to the prior consent of the Government. The Government and the Garda Commissioner must act in accordance with the Constitution and the law in regard to privacy. It is not, therefore, as if these matters can be exercised in any old way that occurs to the Garda Commissioner on any particular day of the week. Moreover, the power conferred as a result of the passage of European Convention on Human Rights law must be interpreted, if at all possible, in a manner consistent with that legislation. Simply throwing into the public domain information on individuals or not taking appropriate steps to ensure that it is given to responsible people is not an option.
The point that must be made is that in the exchange of information about individuals between security services and police forces, it is obvious that an element of private information about them will be exchanged. That is inevitable and nothing can be done to gainsay it.
Deputy Costello referred to the McBreartys as my "favourite family", although I realise he did so in good humour. This family suffered a major injustice. No matter what arguments I may have in regard to the McBreartys, their legal representation or their legal rights, they are by no means bugbears of mine. Like every other family in the State, I stand for the vindication of their rights. I am doing everything in my power to ensure that their rights are vindicated, as appropriate.
I would not suggest it was otherwise. Nevertheless, we are talking about an amendment which refers to "such other matters as the Garda Commissioner thinks fit". A fair amount of subjectivity can, therefore, be used. I am referring to matters of personal information on individuals that might be transmitted. In that context, there are no safeguards.
I appreciate that. However, the Deputy will also appreciate that there is no such regulation or formal agreement of which I am aware between the police forces on these islands at present. Information about people is regularly exchanged between the two forces. I do not want to insert into law propositions, the meanings of which I will not know in particular circumstances. At present, the Garda Síochána and the PSNI or the Metropolitan Police in London can exchange information without such an agreement being in place. However, many police forces, particularly those in continental countries, require formal agreements, protocols, etc., before they will exchange information.
This is purely an enabling section. The CIA, the FBI, Metropolitan Police in London or the PSNI can currently contact the Garda Síochána and request information about people in Dublin. If the Garda considers its provision appropriate, such information will be supplied. The Garda expects reciprocity, subject to security considerations, from the organisations to which I refer. I do not want to put in place unnecessary limitations on inter-police force co-operation.
This section refers to an agreement, which is a separate matter. Under it, the Government will delegate all power to the Commissioner.
Under the section, the Commissioner will be able to execute formal agreements in respect of the matters to which I refer.
That is correct.
I want to make it clear that information is exchanged without agreements or Government consent. I have no doubt that the Commissioner and the Garda Síochána supply information to the PSNI every day of the week without contacting me to discover if it is appropriate to do so. The police forces on these islands trust each other in respect of the exchange of information on an informal basis.
It is depressing when one attends meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Europe to see various legal bases being elaborated and developed in respect of inter-police force co-operation. If one wants to co-operate under normal circumstances, one need merely lift the telephone. However, many continental systems require that formal and elaborate written agreements, protocols and restrictions be in place before two police forces may contact each other. One of the regrettable aspects of European procedures relating to justice and home affairs is that they are so formalised, police forces cannot contact each other to discover whether Michael McDowell might be wanted for A, B or C or whether he is currently under suspicion for X or Y. This type of information is regularly exchanged between co-operative police forces.
What, then, is the purpose of the agreements to which the section refers? We are establishing formal agreements which may, with the consent of the Government, proceed. If information is constantly being exchanged, why should we bother to make statutory provision? What is the purpose of this provision?
Many countries and police forces require formal agreements. I do not want a situation where formal agreements will, without Government input, be put in place. It is reasonable for the Government to be informed if a formal agreement is being entered into. In general, however, in respect of friendly police forces we trust, we do not operate on the basis of formal agreements and protocols; we simply share information. That is the way police forces in common law jurisdictions function.
I assumed the reason for introducing these agreements was that we might establish, on a formal basis, relationships with bona fide countries which have decent police forces.
What is the point in having a formal basis——
The Minister is saying agreements of this nature will only be needed where they are demanded by another country and that the informal process already in existence in respect of other states will continue to obtain. Only where they are demanded by outside jurisdictions will we establish formal agreements.
Exactly. One of the major problems relating to the European Union and the civilian system of governance is that a formally elaborated legal basis is required to be established in respect of simple activities. It is much better to have a system under which people may co-operate informally without violating domestic principles. I do not want to put Ireland on the continental side of that line and state that in future all our relations with other police forces will be carried out on the basis of formal agreements.
If, for example, the Israeli or the Turkish governments request co-operation, will Ireland enter into formal agreements with them?
We do not normally demand formal agreements from anybody. There are, however, instances where there might, in certain circumstances and depending on the origin of the request, be hesitation in supplying information. In instances involving, for example, children being abused, the political complexion of the government of the country making a request for information does not matter. If the Garda Síochána can give information which may be useful to detect a crime of such seriousness, it will do so.
If Scotland Yard, the FBI, the CIA, Mossad or some other investigative force contacts the Garda Commissioner, he can supply them with information on the grounds of co-operation.
If he considers it appropriate, that is the norm. If, for example, the security services of the German Federal Republic contact Garda headquarters in the Phoenix Park seeking assistance, it is usually provided. The Garda Síochána does not ask to see the particular subparagraph of the protocol under which the request is being made. That is the difference between Britain, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, which — as members of the European Union with broadly common law backgrounds — operate on an informal basis, and many other member states which require a formal written basis for the sharing of information between police forces.
The special branch sections of various police forces employ questionable tactics and are well known for assassination and other——
I hope the Deputy is not referring to forces within the European Union.
I am referring to forces in countries that are situated close to the Union.
I would like to make the point that it should also work the other way around. I accept the Minister's comment that the more information that is passed freely between police forces, the better. However, if it is accepted that information may, from time to time, be sought by police forces with questionable methods or motives, the Commissioner should have instructions from the Minister it should not be supplied in the absence of a formal agreement.
If North Korea requested information about somebody, it is unlikely that it would receive the same type of response that——
South Korea.
North Korea is much the same as Israel. It possesses nuclear weapons. That is about the only difference.
Is Deputy Costello pressing the amendment?
Yes. I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. This section involves the granting of an enormous amount of power. Under it, any type of information may be transferred without any safeguards being put in place. For example, the material contained on the PULSE system in respect of 50% of the citizens of the country will be at the disposal of the Garda Commissioner and there are no safeguards in place. In that context, the next amendment in my name proposes that agreements entered into must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The latter eventuality is not even covered in the Bill. As matters stand, we will not even be able to see the contents of agreements
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 21, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) An agreement pursuant to this section shall be in writing and shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and shall not enter into force until such time as the terms thereof have been approved by Dáil Éireann".
This is the type of situation to which I am referring. If we were, for example, to arrive at a particular conclusion following contact with Mossad regarding a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist, does the Deputy seriously expect that I would delay an agreement so that it could be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas?
The Minister has contradicted himself. He is saying that agreement will only result where countries demand one. For example, Ireland will not demand agreements. The Minister will give information, without an agreement, to any police force that seeks it. He cannot have it both ways.
I will do so where it is necessary and where another country demands a formal agreement. I will not lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas every agreement——
Does the Minister think for a minute that Mossad will demand an agreement? The KGB or Mossad will not demand agreements. A decent democracy will demand one but Ireland will not demand such agreements. At least when the deed is done under other sections, such as the drafting of the strategy, the priorities and the annual report, copies will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas so that Members may examine them.
If a witness protection programme was agreed, would the Deputy want that laid before the Houses?
The Minister will not be obliged to give the details of the persons involved. What is an agreement? The identity of the country might be useful. All power will be handed over to the Commissioner to do what he or she wants. The Oireachtas should at least be provided with a copy of agreements with other police services and law enforcement agencies.
That depends what the agreement involves. For example, an agreement could be reached in terms of sharing the cost of a surveillance operation. The Deputy cannot ask me to lay all these agreements before the Oireachtas.
The agreements will be with a police service or enforcement agency outside the State and will involve the co-operation of the parties and the exchange of information but no reference is made to a detailed presentation of information. The only reference is to agreement on the principles of the agreement.
The Deputy will not be able to approve or disapprove of it. He will not have the power. Democracy is gone out the window.
Democracy is in short supply.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 24 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
Sections 25 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 23, line 33, to delete "administration" and substitute "administrative".
This is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37, 43 and 44 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 23, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(b) In this Chapter, ‘committee’ includes a local community policing committee.”.
I understand that these amendments are covered by the provisions relating to community fora and, as a result, I am satisfied with the position.
The amendments suggest that the term "committee" should encompass local community policing committees. We are all of the view that greater prominence should be given to local community policing committees or community policing fora. The proposal that their establishment might be granted at the discretion of the Garda Commissioner leaves a great deal to be desired. Community policing fora should play a major role in activities under this Chapter and the establishment of a community forum should include local policing committees. That would bestow greater substance on these bodies. In addition, it would reflect the discussions the joint committee had on the establishment not only of joint policing committees but also of community fora to deliver on the ground. These amendments are desirable.
Our proposal is that local policing committees will be entitled to establish local policing fora. That is the wedding cake structure, so to speak, of local involvement in policing. The Fine Gael amendments suggest something different. However, it is proposed to delete the requirement for the Garda Commissioner's consent and to replace it with a different provision in a later amendment. It is too draconian to provide that the Commissioner could veto all fora but, on the other hand, a proliferation of fora, which cannot be serviced by the Garda, is not desirable. There must be a consensus and it is proposed that a qualified majority will be used. This will at least require that the Garda and other interests will have their views taken into account.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 38 to 42, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 24, subsection (2)(b)(i), line 3, to delete “members” and substitute “elected members and officials”.
The amendments in my name relate to the membership of the local policing committees. The wording used in the Bill is imprecise and it should be provided that officials of local authorities can become members of the committees. As drafted, membership is confined to local authority members who are elected and, therefore, excludes local authority officials. If the fora are to become a partnership between local authorities, public representatives and the Garda, officials of local authorities should be members of these fora.
The second amendment in my name seeks to extend membership of the fora to representatives of local communities and businesses. We had an extensive debate on whether a committee would include members elected to represent the interests of local communities, the Garda and local authorities or whether the broader community and business should also be formally represented.
The Minister has gone some way towards addressing that in his amendment. As he indicated, he has been won over to the idea of having local community and business representatives on the committees. His amendment to include persons representing local community interests covers the intention behind amendment No. 39.
Community sector involvement was a key issue when we discussed this matter and we examined various ways of achieving it. One of the suggestions made was to give committees the power to co-opt people who have expertise in a particular area for the specific period during which a committee is dealing with an issue. To a certain extent, that links in with what Deputy Costello stated about people in local authorities, health boards or business who might have special expertise and whose advice on specific issues would be valuable to committees. Only in that context would committees have power to either co-opt people or hire their expertise.
Does the Deputy wish to comment on amendment No. 42, which deals with holding some meetings in public?
There is no doubt that, due to its nature, a certain amount of the committees' work must be done in private. From a general point of view, however, the more transparent that work will be, the better.
Deputy Costello and I are at one in amendments Nos. 39 and 40 in terms of representing local community interests. With regard to amendment No. 38, officials could be included with the "such other persons" mentioned in section 31(2)(b)(v). It is, therefore, not necessary to make specific arrangements for them. Engaging persons with specific expertise to assist for a period does not require a statutory basis.
The circumstances in which a committee meeting may be held otherwise than in public will be dealt with under the guidelines. Such meetings should normally be held in public but they may be held in private. What I had in mind in this instance was not that it would be a matter of having a simple vote to hold a meeting in private but that the nature of the business to be discussed would have to justify this.
An issue such as the prevalence of drugs in south-east Dublin would require a public hearing. If, however, a committee wanted to speak to officers of the local drug squad about a particular issue, its members might feel that there would be no point in doing so if local criminal elements were in a position to be present to listen to the strategy being discussed with local authority members. The general idea is to hold meetings in public but there will be individual circumstances where they should be held in private.
On amendment No. 38, section 31 currently states that the guidelines may include provision for "members of the local authority concerned nominated by it for such appointment". This seems to refer to local authorities and not necessarily to the elected members thereof. If one states that any officials of a local authority may be included under the phrase "such other persons as may be provided for in the guidelines", this relegates local authorities to also-rans. Elected representatives, members of the Garda Síochána, representatives of the local communities and businesses and even persons nominated by other public authorities — whatever that means — are referred to but no mention is made of persons nominated by local authorities.
This concerns members of local authorities. A members is not an official. The city manager is not a member of Dublin City Council.
The members are the elected members.
That is correct. They are the people to whom I wish to give prime position in this process. If they want their city manager or a city crime official to be on a committee, provision may be made in that regard.
In the Seanad, I was given a clear steer that I was to regard local authority members as the linchpin of these committees and that they were not to be equivalent with their own officials or local residents groups. I was given to understand that they should be the core of non-Garda representation on these bodies, that they should be in the driving seat and that their status should be afforded every possible respect. In other words, the fact that they hold a mandate is to be crucial to their presence on this body. I received a whacking in the Senate in respect of the original text of the Bill, which took a county development board type approach to this matter. Originally, the committees were planned as corporate entities and people would be appointed to them in various ways.
I am not going to reverse thrust a second time. I want local authority members to have prime position on these committees because I want them to exercise their mandate. I do not want to put them on the same level as their officials or other individuals. I want to make it clear that they and the gardaí are the prime movers on these committees and that Members of the Oireachtas and others will follow their lead.
I welcome the Minister's comments. He was not with us when we discussed this matter at length during our deliberations on community policing, its report on which the committee has now published.
During the deliberations to which I refer a number of members strongly emphasised that joint policing committees should be comprised solely of elected members, perhaps local government staff and gardaí. As the Minister and his officials are aware, there was much debate about the matter. Following representations from LAMA, the AMAI and the General Council of County Councils, the committee included a proposal in its report that the Minister be given leeway in this area. We recognised the contribution of local organisations but we also emphasised the need to include elected members. Seanad and Dáil Members commend the Minister on giving due recognition to elected members in this instance.
Is Deputy Costello withdrawing the amendment?
No. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. Local elected representatives, national elected representatives, gardaí and representatives of local communities and businesses quite clearly have a role. However, we are also giving a role to the local authorities. These will facilitate the process and will stand on an equal footing. Is it intended to provide that the only people on local authorities who will be allowed, as of right, to participate will be the elected representatives? Some of the funding will come from local authorities, which will also deliver on a certain number of requirements relating to good estate management. Given our demand for the delivery of service, we will have to provide for the participation, as of right, of full-time local authority officials on joint policing committees. While I will continue to insist on the prioritisation of elected representatives, partnership will require the bringing on board of county and city managers and other significant participants at local authority official level.
If officials are to participate only at the beck and call of everyone else involved in the process, they may not provide the enthusiastic service one would like. The role of local authorities should be strongly asserted on joint policing boards. We will depend to a great extent on local authority area managers to deliver the service. If they are not, as officials, prepared to carry out the good management of estates, the process will not succeed. I did not realise there was an intention not to provide local authority officials with the right to participate in joint policing committees. I do not see why we should exclude them.
While they are not excluded, they are not included as of right. If I mention officials in the same breath as councillors, the effect would be to say that they had as much right as elected representatives to sit on committees. These committees are to be democratic and, as far as public representatives are concerned, they are not merely officials' committees.
They would not be officials' committees. However, the relevant local authority official should sit on a special policy committee that requires his or her expertise.
Officials will not be members of special policy committees.
They will not be members.
Why?
It is their job, as staff, to provide support to members.
I know they are staff. Did the Minister intend the phrase "members of the local authority concerned nominated by it for such appointment" to refer solely to elected members?
In general, I want to give elected members primacy in this area. It never occurred to me that a coalition of local authority officials, gardaí and business and local community interests could outnumber elected local authority members on joint policing committees.
There is no question of that. However, relevant local authority officials should be included. On one side will be the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and gardaí — the latter will be the major participants — while, on the other, will be local elected representatives. However, no provision is made in respect of officials.
The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will not be represented.
The key is to make a clear distinction between voting members and the officials who will facilitate the operation of a committee and advise members on issues which may arise. A local area manager or housing officer will be required to contribute from time to time and it should be possible for them to facilitate members in the same way as officials on special policy committees.
Another matter is the need for a convenor or facilitator to connect with local authorities to allow joint policing committees to work properly.
If one is to have effective operation of joint policing committees, elected and non-elected local authority members should be present.
Does the Deputy mean that they should be present as equal members?
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 24, subsection (2)(b)(v), line 10, after “persons” to insert the following:
"(including persons representing local community interests)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 31, as amended, be agreed to".
The joint committee's first recommendation was that the early part of section 31 should be amended to include — along with the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government — the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in the consultation process. We discussed the recommendation with the then Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern.
I will table an amendment to that effect.
According to section 31(1), the Minister shall issue to local authorities and the Garda Commissioner guidelines on the establishment of committees and other relevant matters. Is it possible to issue draft guidelines to local authorities to facilitate discussion and subsequent review?
That is a good idea.
After the question is put, the committee will adjourn. We will continue our consideration of the Garda Síochána Bill 2004 at 5.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 18 May 2005. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending and the members for their participation. We will meet tomorrow to consider the Disability Bill 2004.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 7.40 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 11 May 2005.