Amendment No. 2 is related to amendment No. 1 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 14, after "rank" to insert "save and except the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors".
In the Dáil, I quoted the remarks of the late President Jefferson who, when told of a judgment by Mr. John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the USA, said "John Marshall has given his judgment; let him now enforce it if he can.". It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to legislate a resolution to a dispute. I accept the Minister for Justice is well intentioned in regard to this legislation as she tries to resolve the Garda Síochána dispute but it is important to recognise that, unless there is agreement between the main groupings within the Force, all the legislation on earth will not solve the problem. We will participate in this debate and do our best to improve the legislation but there has to be agreement, particularly between the Garda Representative Association and the Garda Federation.
Section 1 dissolves the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors because it states:
For the purpose of representing members of the Garda Síochána in matters affecting their welfare and efficiency, there may be established, in accordance with regulations to be made under the Garda Síochána Acts, 1923 to 1996, one association (and one association only) for each rank of the Garda Síochána—
Curiously, it then states "below the rank of Surgeon"; that should refer to sergeant. The effect of the section is to abolish the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors. However, I do not doubt this is unintentional. I propose on page 3, line 14, after "rank" to insert "save and except the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors." and in line 15 to delete "Surgeon" and substitute "Sergeant".
Deputies would prefer if we were legislating to copperfasten an agreement. There is a great deal of unfinished business in terms of healing the rifts and fractured relationships between the main groups but the Bill will form a backdrop against which progress can be made. Hopefully a new start can be made in this affair which has gone on for far too long. It is not in the public interest that such a conflict should continue.
The Bill does not deal adequately with weighted voting. One of the measures proposed in the Minister's draft Bill was to meet a perceived democratic deficit in the voting to the CEC. It is not a perceived democratic deficit, if the figures are examined a real democratic deficit exists. It is disappointing that the compromise which the Minister has introduced in this Bill in terms of elections to the CEC still means there is a 10 per cent shortage of pure proportionality with regard to the federation, for example. The so called "perceived democratic deficit" means that 43 per cent of Garda strength has only 27 per cent of the total vote.
There will be four new members to represent large Garda divisions in Dublin. There is unease that the Minister's compromise does not go far enough to redress the democratic deficit in terms of voting on that executive. Is the Minister open to change on that? She said on moving the Bill that weighted voting would have carried too many practical difficulties. Will she outline those practical difficulties?
The Garda Federation has many members in Dublin which I represent. We rely on them as they are in the vanguard of the fight against crime, particularly drug related crime. It is important that, so far as possible, their grievances should be addressed in this Bill. The elections provided for under this legislation are not based on a fresh start.
There is currently a review of the role and effectiveness of the force. It is an important review and the new commissioner is committed to implementing proposals which will result from it. Will the Minister consider at that stage whether there is a role for the new GRA or whatever body is established on foot of this legislation? It is important that there be an external independent arbiter to avoid current difficulties.
Using a legislative process is not the best way to solve disputes between members of same rank of the Garda Síochána but every effort has been made to find a mechanism to bring both groupings of gardaí together. As Deputy O'Donoghue said, people cannot be forced into agreement. I hoped publication of the legislation might have led to a mechanism whereby members would have found an end to their differences. I do not have a power, nor have I received advice on it, that allows me to dissolve the association as it exists. The only mechanism open to me was the introduction of democratic processes in the association. When the 1977 Act was passed, legislators never envisaged this type of dispute between members of the same rank.
It could be argued that because the legislation did not anticipate this, it left nowhere for me or my predecessor to make a fresh start. This legislation is a constitutionally safe mechanism to bring the democratic deficit to an end which members of the Garda who have withdrawn their support from the GRA want. There are members in the GRA who have told me they are not overly happy with the democratic process as it exists in the GRA.
Short of pulling people's toenails out, as one of my ministerial colleagues said on radio, every effort was made to bring the sides together and it just has not happened. I make no apologies for having to introduce this legislation and I hope when it is passed it will have the effect of making people recognise that democracy has to exist so that all members of the Garda Síochána will feel they are in a position to give their support to the single association that must exist to represent them.
The issue of whether the Garda should be allowed to join congress has been on the agenda for a number of years but, in view of what is being tackled through this legislation, I have given no consideration to that because I spent my time trying to get other people to solve the existing problem. The commissioner said the ongoing dispute does not affect the efficacy and the effectiveness of the Garda in its day to day work. Perhaps there are people who do no talk to each other or do not get on well with each other as a result of this dispute but the commissioner has assured me that the operations of the Garda are not affected. However, there is a public perception that is not good for the image of the Garda Síochána and we must bring that to an end.
There is concern among Garda ranks that, as long as the dispute is exercising the energies and minds of the members of their elected association, the other issues for which the association exists are not getting attention. An association exists for the good of the members it represents, to take up their pay conditions and rights. There is always the fear if a great deal of energy is being spent trying to sort out differences with other people, the energy is not there for the other work that has to be done. I have received a large volume of representations about his dispute and this legislation.
Deputy O'Donoghue's amendments are based on a misinterpretation of what exists. The section allows for the establishment of one association for each rank of the Garda Síochána below the rank of surgeon. It does not prevent, nor is it intended to prevent, one association being established to represent more than one rank. For example, in the Association for Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, the sergeant rank has only one association called AGSI and the inspector rank also has only one association also called AGSI. That association is not in conflict with the provisions of the Bill because each rank has one association representing them; it just happens they are under one association.
In the past the Association of Garda Superintendents and the Association of Chief Superintendents were represented by one association and nothing in this Bill prevents such an amalgamation again if both desired it. Whether it is an amalgamated association or a single association for each rank, it would not be possible to have AGSI and a group of inspectors setting up a group of their own for inspectors only. The inspectors would be as entitled to go it alone as the superintendents and set up a separate association. There is no need for the first amendment.
I could not accept amendment No. 2. If it was accepted a representative association could only be established for the rank of Garda or below the rank of sergeant. Superintendents and chief superintendents could never have an association. That is why it states below the rank of surgeon because it allows for associations representing superintendents, etc.. This Bill is to cover more than the GRA; it is to cover all ranks in the Garda force. The wording of the 1977 Act gave rise to confusion. It stated that associations can be set up for individual ranks. This section makes it clear that each Garda rank can have an association representing them if they so wish and the amalgamation of two ranks under one association is not precluded. Neither of the Deputy's amendments are necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.