Amendment No. 4 is related to amendment No. 3 and both may be taken together by agreement.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 20, to delete "such" and substitute "the".
In the legislation the Minister proposes that "An association established pursuant to subsection (1) of section 13 of the 1924 Act, as amended, for the rank of Garda shall have the support of such majority of the membership of that rank as satisfies the Minister that, in matters which concern that rank as a whole, the association can speak and make agreements on behalf of that rank as a whole." The difficulty, from whichever side of the argument one is coming, is that there is a clear interference by the Minister for Justice in the democratic affairs of the association. That begs the question whether such interference is desirable. In an ideal world, for the purposes of dealing with an association representing the welfare of its members, ministerial interference should be minimal and the reason is obvious. It is for the Association to represent the welfare of its members and the person with whom they will be negotiating will invariably be the Minister for Justice. Can it then be reasonably argued that the Minister for Justice should have the discretion to decide whether the association enjoys a sufficient membership of the Garda?
In terms of industrial relations, this is a unique provision and would probably be rejected by any union. I cannot envision any union that would accept this lying down and I am not convinced it is in the interests of the Garda Representative Association, the Garda Federation or the four divisions who have absented themselves from the central executive of the GRA that this measure should go through. I assume the reason for this provision is to ensure that, if there are difficulties, the Minister or her successor would be in a position to intervene directly to right what might be perceived as a democratic wrong. In any democracy one of the difficulties is that there must be a majority and a minority and it is where they refuse or cannot operate together that there is a breakdown which can be extremely difficult to resolve, as in this context.
I am concerned that the Minister deciding what is or is not a sufficient majority is an interference with the democratic process. If the Minister feels it absolutely necessary this provision should go in, she should say why. The very existence of the provision in the legislation is an admission by the Minister for Justice that the legislation alone will not resolve the problem. That is accepted. It is also an admission that the Minister for Justice may be seeking to impose a solution and in doing so, reserve unto herself powers which would not otherwise exist in legislation dealing with a body representative of the interests and welfare of their membership. In turn, that leads to the conclusion that this may not work because an imposed solution may not be acceptable to either side. There is then the dilemma of what should be done next to resolve the problem.
Following discussion of the legislation and before Report Stage, the Minister for Justice should meet with all parties to this dispute again and try, in the context of the legislation at Report Stage, to come to some agreement. The admission by the Minister that this kind of interference is required indicates that we may be wasting our time. In those circumstances, it is desirable that the matter be discussed again by the Minister and those directly involved before the legislation goes to Report Stage.
I say this in the interests of the Garda Síochána, who are the people affected by this. It is their welfare which is at the root of this because if they do not have a relatively united and strong association which can represent their views in a unified fashion, then they will be the ultimate losers. It is the ordinary garda I am concerned about in this respect. The fact that the Minister for Justice will decide what constitutes a sufficient majority takes, whether we like it or not, from the powers of the Garda Síochána who make up the association about which we are speaking. They are of the utmost importance and that is why the Minister should not throw her hands up and say: "I am at my wits; this cannot be resolved". An English lord once said he had the solution to the problem of the North, and that was that there was no solution. There is a solution to this problem that can be achieved, difficult and maze-like though the journey may be. What I propose is sensible.
I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue's closing remarks that, at any stage, if the Minister felt sanity would prevail, rather than imposing legislation, she should talk to the associations. We are discussing this as a situation that is good for nobody. It is no good for the Garda, as they admit themselves. The public is beginning to lose faith in them because they cannot agree among themselves. It is a pity this dispute is still going on when we have a top class commissioner who has instilled confidence in people that he is dealing with serious crime. I would welcome any discussion that might lead to a solution without legislation but it looks as if two Ministers have failed. It is always more difficult to settle a dispute as people who set up a union or association invariably have goodwill starting off because they want to organise themselves. This association has been established and there is an internal row. Generally we cannot have breakaway unions without somebody feeling dissatisfied and now we have two dissatisfied groups. This problem is not easy to solve but the sooner it is solved the better.
I am not sure whether the replacement of "the" for "such" makes any great difference. "The" conveys a definite agreement to what the majority is but where a Minister is trying to deal with an impossible situation, the changing of a word will not make matters any easier.
This committee has over recent months received lengthy submissions from the Garda Federation and the Garda Representative Association. We are grateful to both groups for furnishing us with such detailed documents.
A reference was made by the GRA to section 2 in that any argument about independence is brought into focus on reading this section. The GRA was of the view that the only protection available to it was the court option. It stated, however, that it did not wish as an association to be seen to be seeking the protection of the court. It felt that section 2 was dangerous from the point of view of any association in so far as it would encourage a vocal minority to agitate and thereby seek its implementation. The GRA then cited that 69 per cent voted in favour of the package on pensionability of allowances. It asked if it was right that the will of more than two thirds of any organisation should not be heard and acted upon. It is the view of the association that this measure guarantees disruption for it and its sister associations in the immediate future.
I am not sure if Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment would address that. It brings us back to the question of how far legislation can force a decision on any organisation. I would like if the Minister could allay the fears of the GRA that this section is extremely dangerous.
I share with the other Deputies the desire to resolve this issue without the need for legislation. If anyone has a magic formula which can end this dispute, please make it known because there is no mechanism which has not been examined. I will state briefly what has happened.
In May 1994 the Garda Commissioner offered the assistance of an Assistant Commissioner to act as a mediator. This was not accepted by the GRA. In October 1994 the GRA rejected one of Kieran Mulvey's proposals — that legal recourse should not be availed of and that all issues should be referred to an ombudsman for adjudication. In February 1995, I met separately with the three groups — the GRA, the Garda Federation and the group of four as it has become known. I had four meetings with the GRA. In March 1995, I again met with the three groups and issued a discussion paper. In July 1995, John Horgan agreed to act as arbitrator. In October 1995, the Horgan arbitration process collapsed. In January 1996, the GRA rejected an attempt by former general secretary Jack Marrinan to bring the parties together.
All known mechanisms have been availed of by me and my predecessor when the dispute came to a head in Galway in May 1994 and every known industrial relations mechanism has been tried. The two associations — the Garda Federation and the GRA — met with John Horgan as mediator and that did not work. I have not met the two associations together but have met them separately. Even if I were to invite them to meet together with me, I could not guarantee they would come or if such a meeting would be useful. However, I take note of the suggestions made.
The section is not extremely dangerous. Deputy O'Donoghue's amendments are to remove the judgment call of a Minister as to whether a sufficient majority exists and to say that a simple majority, 49 per cent to 51 per cent, would be enough for the Minister to accept that the association is valid. I must satisfy myself that the association's majority is sufficient to enable it in matters of concern to the whole rank to speak and make arrangements on behalf of that rank as a whole. The reason the legislation is so worded is that it must be considered against the background that only one representative association will be established or can exist for the rank. It is not right to equate this with other areas of industry or society where workers can join different unions for representation. In this instance, we allow for only one organisation and I must be satisfied that it can speak for the rank as a whole. I recognise there is no obligation on a member to join the association but, by and large, the bulk of the 8,500 to 9,000 members of Garda rank have been part of an association. There will always be a percentage of people who do not want to be part of an association or trade union and they have a right not to be. An association must have more than a bare majority to make a claim that it speaks on behalf of the rank as a whole. The Bill cannot specify the extent of the majority required to be deemed sufficient.
A number of factors must be considered by the Minister in determining whether such a majority exists. The extent to which members voluntarily choose not to join an association must be assessed. A situation might arise where a vote on joining a representative association has been taken resulting in a bare majority. Large numbers of gardaí have decided not to join the association. A Minister must be able to say that this will not work because a large number of gardaí will be outside this organisation who will have no allegiance to it and will feel they are not represented by it, which defeats the purpose of having an association to lobby for Garda pensions, rights, pay, awards and other matters for which representation is required. Flexibility is required. Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment would mean that a single vote cast in favour would allow an association to claim it represented a majority of gardaí. Hence, the required flexibility would not exist were I to set a precise figure.
What I am concerned with is whether the association is one with which the Minister can negotiate agreements with which the rank as a whole will agree. The simple majority which Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment proposes could not satisfy any Minister that any agreements reached with an association could be agreed to by the rank as a whole. Deputy O'Donoghue has said openly and frankly that it is an admission that legislation alone will not solve the problem. I never claimed that once legislation was enacted, everything would be sweetness and light and all divisions would be healed. It will take human effort to bring about a change when this legislation is passed. I am not trying to impose a solution as is being said but trying to find one through the law to increase democratisation in the GRA and ensure that association can command the respect and support of the majority of the Garda. That is why this flexibility is built in and I strongly urge against changing the wording to make it a bare majority. That would be a disservice to the Garda.
The Minister listed the long series of measures taken by her and the previous Minister. In relation to weighted voting, what were the practical difficulties to which she referred with regard to the dropping of her original proposal, which was to include weighted voting at the CEC to correct the democratic deficit? It is still the case that 43 per cent of the total Garda strength has only 33 per cent of the voting strength in elections to the CEC. Why was it necessary for the Minister to go back on the original proposal to provide for weighted voting? She will agree that this democratic deficit and representation at the CEC was fundamental to much argument over the years.
It will not come up again. When weighted voting was considered the emphasis of representations and concerns expressed by larger division, such as those in Dublin and Cork, was that smaller rural divisions had a greater proportionate say in decision making than divisions with large numbers of members. We looked at weighted voting and at giving the larger divisions more people.
One of the matters at the heart of the dispute is the lack of democracy that members representing smaller numbers had a greater say in the decision making of the central executive committee. I recognised that and to compensate for it I felt it was better to have people physically in the meeting where this was going on as opposed to putting the votes in one body. Weighted voting means that if someone is missing and they carry the weighted voting with them, they and the weighted votes are all missing. That could cause a problem so, by increasing the number of members, those divisions could have meant one physically had a chance of having people present when the voting was done. I explained I would go for weighted voting and then opted for giving more people to the bigger divisions.
I also wanted to guard against going from the frying pan into the fire. Part of this is trying to remove the perception that divisions with fewer members have the same level of voting strength. I do not want to build something inherently ineffective and wrong into the legislation. The adding of extra people was our way around that.
I know no other trade union or association uses weighted voting. If one has a minority of members on the CEC with majority voting power it will lead to a permanent urban-rural split. That is not to say that all urban people or rural people will vote the same way but there can be a confluence of wishes among those in an urban station and the same for those in the rural stations. I am trying to get as much balance as possible into the legislation so that, down the road, another Minister will not have to face the reverse complaint to the present one: everyone is complaining that urban members have a greater say than rural members appear to have now.
I have listened to Deputy O'Donnell and the chairman and I will have another look at it before Report Stage. However, there is a problem that makes this unwieldy. It sounds great for the CEC but one would have to have weighted voting in the divisions and it was unwieldy when one looked at its operation. I do not have a closed mind and if Members thought it was worth reviewing it before Report Stage I would be prepared to do so provided I do not build any of the imbalances into this legislation that we are trying to do away with in the existing legislation.
I thank the Minister for her response. Our objective is to achieve the fairest voting pattern for the CEC and the divisional committees.
Whatever about weighted voting, I want to return to the Minister's original response. I cannot follow her logic. The section says that the association to be established must have "such majority . . . as satisfies the Minister". The Minister's analogy about industrial situations where different groups are represented by different unions is not correct. We are talking of one association. In industry different categories of worker can be represented by different categories of union, but a simple majority will suffice to speak for any individual category. There may be organisations of which I am unaware which have a specified majority of two thirds or 70 per cent in their rules but it is at least set out clearly. Here we are not allowing a simple majority to speak for the rank and file but such a majority as will satisfy the Minister that it truly represents them. I do not understand that; there is an element of making it up as we go along. At what stage is this to be decided? Is it envisaged that, when this magic figure is reached and the Minister is satisfied that there is a sufficient majority that will be for all time or if another issue arises could the Minister decide on a different majority? If that is so, the situation would be bizarre.
At the heart of this section is the fact that there will only be one association allowed for Garda rank. For that reason it must be able to speak on behalf of the 8,000-9,000 Garda rank whether they are members of the association or not. The Minister will have to be satisfied that having entered into such an agreement with such an association on behalf of the Garda rank, that the agreement will stick.
When something drastic occurs, such as a large number of gardaí leaving the association — 2,500 from one group, 1,000 from four others and more recent murmurings from other members of the GRA — I consider that a strong signal that people are unhappy with the association representing them. If this section had been included in the 1977 Act, it would have given flexibility to the then Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, when such a division arose to examine whether the association was representative and could make arrangements and reach agreements with the Minister or the Garda Commissioner which would hold. The Garda Commissioner also deals with the Garda Representative Association on various day to day matters.
I am dealing with a specific and unusual set of circumstances vis-�-vis Garda representation which is not the same as for other employments because there are regulations, rules and rights attached to gardaí. For example, they do not have the right to strike. Therefore, their association is different from the standard traditional trade union. I am satisfied that this flexibility is required by the Minister to say that an association is one with which he or she can do business and can reach agreements. That is where democracy comes in.
Someone mentioned earlier a certain percentage voting in favour of pensionability. As I understand it, the differences which exist between the GRA and those members who have left the organisation or are still members but have withdrawn their support are expressly related to the lack of democracy within the organisation; not so much the question of pensionability itself but the way decisions voted on were arrived at. The lack of democracy perceived by members in the operation of the organisation is at the heart of this dispute. I must tackle all the elements of what I perceive, and what has been put to me, as the basis of the dispute for this legislation to be effective. However, it will also depend on human beings coming together to make it work, which I hope they will.
I have carefully listened to what the Minister said. I would be the last to say she does not have a problem here or to minimise its scale. However, it is still fact that, under sections 2 and 4 of the Bill, the Minister for Justice is essentially reserving unto herself the power to say whether an association represents the Garda Síochána. That creates a problem. While I recognise that, for any such association to do its business well, it is desirable that the vast majority of the association agrees with a decision, I nonetheless see a problem in the Minister's approach. At what point does the Minister for Justice say that the majority is sufficient or insufficient? It strikes me that what is happening is that the Minister for Justice is usurping the power which rightly belongs to the members of the association.
I recognise that the nub of this problem is that there is only one organisation. While it is desirable that that be so, it highlights the intractability of the problem when approached from a legislative viewpoint. It must be clear to all, and the Minister has admitted it, that legislation alone will not solve this problem. If the problem continues after enacting legislation, the question then arises what we are doing here. I agree with the Minister about the desirability of certain objectives and every mechanism possible should be utilised to achieve them but I still strongly maintain that there are still other avenues which must be explored to see if a solution to this problem can be found. I recognise that members leaving the GRA was indicative of their unhappiness and that it is extremely important that, in the context of one association, the members of the Garda Federation be accommodated. That is of fundamental importance because, unless that is done, there will be no resolution of the dispute. I appeal to both the Garda Federation and the Garda Representative Association to recognise that, as legislation enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas can only contribute minimally, if at all, to the resolution of the dispute, the people who can reach agreement are those who are directly affected; no one else can do it for them.
That said, rather than press these amendments today, I reserve my position until Report Stage and, perhaps, hold further discussions before then. I withdraw them until then.
I understand and sympathise with the point the Chairman and Deputy O'Dea make. It is a sad reflection on society and the Garda that this legislation was necessary. We wish there was no legislation before this committee or the House but the situation was drifting and had to be tackled. No one wants a servile or obsequious Garda force. As a trade Unionist for 37 years, I understand all about the right of people to organise themselves. There is much good will in this House to the Garda and much more understanding than exists between Garda members judging by some of the abusive comments I have read in some Garda magazines and some unnecessary criticisms of the Minister; some have been very abusive and totally unnecessary in the context that none of the good will necessary to resolve this matter has been shown. As far as we are concerned, we would like to see gardaí putting their house in order and, unless they have respect, tolerance and good will towards each other, that will not be possible. We cannot allow one section of the Garda force to up the ante on the other. Nobody can allow that happen in any democratic society.
The Minister referred to John Horgan, the former chairman of the Labour Court. When I spoke to him about this matter he described it as "mission impossible". He could not get a meeting of minds. That is not good enough. The two sides must understand that they have a duty to the State to do their work to the best of their ability. They must respect the Government and the people who are paying their wages or there is no future for either group.
I am glad Deputy O'Donoghue has withdrawn his amendment. I understand the point he made about the wording, that the Minister has to be satisfied. This is an awkward phrase and I also accept the point that if there is a clear cut majority in favour of any issue it should be good enough. The Minister should look at this again and, perhaps, a different phrase can be found which would not show the Minister as being some kind of dictator.
The Minister said that the Garda Commissioner had given an assurance that this dispute does not affect the efficacy of the force. However, rank and file gardaí are very concerned about what is happening. The unedifying spectacle in Galway a couple of years ago is stamped on the minds of thousands of citizens. It is terrible that matters have deteriorated. This underlines the difficulty the Minister faces. There was no option but to bring forward legislation and I am glad this has been acknowledged by all parties and the spirit of that acknowledgement is shown by the way Deputy O'Donoghue has treated these amendments.
Are Members loosing sight of the concerns of the rank and file members of the Garda Síochána who have withheld public comment but have made their concerns known to many Members and this committee. Perhaps the Minister will consider the issue between now and Report Stage.
The Commissioner has assured me of the effectiveness of the delivery of the service. We did not talk about the effect of this dispute on morale. It has had an effect on individual gardaí who want to get on with their job but are dragged unwittingly into this dispute, whether it be at a social gathering or among family and friends. The Commissioner has assured me that where a group of officers are on an operation the dispute does not affect the way they carry out their duties. It would be a terrible state of affairs if that were the case. I agree that this situation cannot be allowed to continue.
I thank Deputy O'Donoghue for withdrawing his amendment. Although this is an unusual way of including an issue in legislation, we are dealing with an unusual issue. Section 4 qualifies the manner in which the Minister exercises the decision about whether such a majority exists because it outlines how the Minister requires an association to conform to this legislation or the 1923 to 1996 Garda Síochána Acts. Within 30 days an association must show whether it represents enough members. It is not a case of the Minister waking up one day and saying that he or she does not like the majority wish. The Minister must make an order and allow 30 days. It is not as open ended as Deputy O'Dea implied. The Minister is bound by the other sections which require him or her to give notice in writing informing the association that it has 30 days to show that it conforms to such a requirement. If there is an argument about it I assume the Minister will meet the association to discuss the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.