Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Agreed.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "it appears to the Minister that".
Section 4 deals with the question of the association not conforming to certain requirements of the Garda Síochána Acts 1923 to 1996. Whether an association conforms to those Acts is a matter which should not be left to the Minister to decide.
I accept that the Minster for Justice can retain the powers to issue an order if that is what she wishes but to suggest that she should also write the rules for the association is a different matter. Both the GRA and the Garda Federation are of the view that the Minister should not reserve the power to decide whether the association conforms to the requirements of the Garda Síochána Acts. By so doing, the Minister for Justice would be interfering in the internal affairs of a representative body yet she has retained the power to stand down the organisation if she is of the opinion that it does not conform to the requirements of the Acts.
I accept that this is an unusual situation and subscribe to the view that it is not easy to find a solution. However, it must be a matter of interpretation as to whether an association conforms to the legislation. This may be seen by all sides as an unwarranted interference by the Department of Justice and the Minister in the internal affairs of the association.
I support this amendment. Under section 4 (2) if the Minister forms the view that the association does not conform to a requirement of the Garda Síochána Acts 1923 to 1996 she has discretion to stand down the association. If the association is of the view that it is not in breach of the legislation and the Minister takes a different view, surely it should be for others to decide who is right. The Minister is setting herself up as judge and jury. If there is a difference of opinion the onus will be on the association to challenge the Minister in the courts but it should be the other way round. The Minister has the right to decide whether a requirement is being complied with and if she believes this is not happening then she has certain options but she should not have the power to decide the matter exclusively.
We could spend a great deal of time outlining the difficulties and the reason the legislation is before us instead of legislation which would deal with criminals. We can talk forever about how difficult it is for the Minister to get the two sides to agree but if we keep saying that, yet also accuse the Minister of interfering, then we are contradicting ourselves. I am sure the Minister would prefer to be dealing with other legislation.
Like Deputy Kemmy, I was chairman of my branch of the trade union and I have the height of respect for unions. We cannot continue saying that there is no good will and at the same time accuse the Minister of making a judgment. If the Minister does not make that judgment who will? This row is unacceptable. If common sense does not prevail then the Minister must act and there is no point in blaming her at that stage.
No Minister would want to interfere with any trade union or body except as a last resort. The gardaí have a role to play in our society and let us bring an end to this bickering. Everyone, including the gardaí, is sick and tired if it. We expect leadership from those at the top instead of this petty internecine squabbling. This legislation is the lesser of two evils. If the gardaí cannot do the job themselves then we must do it for them. One cannot legislate for morality no more than one can legislate for unity among the gardaí. This legislation attempts to bring common sense to bear on a matter which should have been sorted out long ago by the gardaí.
The Minister is not going to interfere in the normal running of the force. It is a scandal that we are dealing with this matter at a time of unprecedented crime levels. We should be talking about that rather than the internal affairs of the gardaí. It is incorrect to suggest that the Minister will interfere in the running of the gardaí. It is only if an undemocratic practice is brought to her attention that she has a duty to act.
I thank Members for their comments. I assure them that the last thing I want to do is to intervene in the workings of trade unions. I have worked in developing countries where workers' rights were suppressed on the issue of the development of trade unions and I do not want to give to myself, or any other Minister, excessive powers to intervene in the affairs of associations dealing with staff matters.
Deputy O'Dea made a sweeping statement to the effect that I could decide matters exclusively. I remind Deputies that section 8 requires that an order made by the Minister under this Act, including an order under this section, must be approved by resolutions of both Houses of the Oireachtas before it can take effect. An order disestablishing an association as provided for in section 4 would be a very serious matter and one which it is appropriate for both Houses to affirm. It is important that an association which is being disestablished is in no doubt that the decision is supported by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I understand the concerns which have been expressed but this provision is not giving the Minister the right to disestablish an association. The Minister must put resolutions before both Houses and if they decide not to pass them they will not stand. We have built in the necessary safeguards.
There was an inconsistency in the Bill in that it did not cover orders under subsection 4(3) and amendment No. 9 will ensure that an order under that section will also have to be passed by both Houses.
I fully appreciate the difficulties the Minister faces but I am doubtful as to whether one can solve trade union disputes by legislation. I also have grave reservations as to whether agreement can be imposed on any group. Deputy Browne said he was sick and tired of listening to the difficulties being outlined but I was elected to do so. This is not an academic exercise, and I am concerned that the Minister might get the process wrong. Representations made to me by gardaí indicate that substantial parts of sections of this Bill are not acceptable to them and this is a recipe for continuing difficulty. Will that affect the morale of the gardaí?
The Minister correctly said that the dispute has had a devastating effect on morale. However, what will be the effect of a failed attempt to resolve the dispute through legislation? Let no one be under any doubt that the adverse effects on the morale of the gardaí has damaged the fight against crime here.
Deputy Kemmy said we cannot legislate for unity in the gardaí but if we cannot do that then what are we doing sitting here? I accept that the Minister's amendment will require any disestablishment order to be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. However, the Minister must be able to command the support of both Houses otherwise she would not be Minister. The matter will be debated but once the Minister makes up her mind she will be able to carry the support of both Houses. I have not changed my view that the Minister is setting herself up as judge, jury and, perhaps, executioner. This is an unwarranted interference by the Minister and a recipe for a continuing dispute.
Perhaps I should be flattered by Deputy O'Dea's assertion that I and I alone can make the decisions for the majority of Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas. A Minister brings proposals to Cabinet and when approved presents them to the Oireachtas. I have a difficulty with Deputy O'Dea's assertion that every decision of the Oireachtas up to now is different to this one. Before this he never questioned the right of the Oireachtas to pass legislation. Why is that? I was happy to support Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill which was passed. Is Deputy O'Dea saying that, because I agreed with it, it is not good law?
We should stop hedging around this. This section provides for the continuing representation of the gardaí. We have learnt that there needs to be a section to safeguard members so that if an association ceases to conform to requirements then the only proper action to be taken to prepare for a fresh start. We are talking about a fail-safe mechanism to protect members.
It is not for the want of trying that we have found no other mechanism other than this legislation. It will require the support of people. The legislation will facilitate the establishment of an association which, I hope, will command the respect of the bulk of gardaí as opposed to the federation, the group of four, the group of six or seven that voted for no confidence motions. I do not want a situation where there may be five or six representative groups. We have to break this egg and start making the omelette.
My difficulty with this section is that the Minister decides whether or not there has been non-conformation with the Garda Síochána Acts 1923 to 1996. I cannot see why the Minister insists on retaining the decisions when it must be clear to everybody that there is or is not a breach.
In fairness to the Minister, that is what she has been dealing with for the past 30 minutes.
The Minister has not been dealing with this for the past 30 minutes. Why is she insisting on retaining this power?
It will be up to the Minister of the day to make the order and then to bring that order before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Somebody must decide at a certain point if the Acts have been complied with. I do not know whether Deputy O'Donoghue wants to see this section or just the reference to the Minister removed. Where would the adjudication take place if the Acts were not complied with? The Minister will have the power to make the order and bring it through all the normal scrutiny of the Attorney General's Office, the Cabinet and the Oireachtas. I do not know if Deputy O'Donoghue is suggesting that somebody else, such as the Ombudsman, should make that decision. I am at a loss to know why this provision is so unusual.
It is not unusual to give legislative powers and rights to a Minister who is dealing with a group of people under the Health Acts, etc. One will find legislation littered with references, such as "the Minister may, by order, . . ." bring in such and such a provision. If one removes the Minister — and let us not personalise it per se— from this decision, who will do it? Will it be some as yet unidentified person? What will happen? How will somebody decide the Acts have not been complied with? The Minister must have this power because the Minister will be making the order.
The reason the amendments were tabled in the first instance was to discuss this clearly; they would not have been tabled otherwise. What is unusual about this is that the Minister for Justice with whom the association would be negotiating is, in effect, making what I can only describe as a judgment on the fitness or otherwise of the association. That is extremely unusual.
It would be a different matter if the Minister was introducing legislation between two separate and distinct organisations where she or her successors would have no input whatever in subsequent negotiations for which the association exists. The facts are that the Minister who actually enters into the negotiations is retaining to herself and her successors — I am not personalising it in any way — the power to decide whether the association is conforming to rules and regulations. It appears to me that, because the Minister for Justice is a negotiating party with that association, this alone should indicate that it is not desirable that the Minister for Justice should be the person who adjudicates upon this extremely important matter.
The question of who would make such a value judgment is a matter which can be discussed but I do not regard it as a value judgment. I regard it as a question of fact. Because the Minister would subsequently be a negotiating party and she is retaining the power to herself to make the judgment, she is interfering in an unwarranted way with the independence of the association.
Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy O'Dea are experienced legal men and Members of the Oireachtas and they know better than I that there is no infallible way of making legislation. One does one's best, one gets the best possible advice, one listens to the Opposition, one frames legislation and one hopes it will work in practice but there is no infallible recipe or blueprint to follow. If there were, our lives would be very simple.
In this case, these decisions have been forced on the Minister. I hope that at the end of the day the new structure and its procedures will allow the Garda rank and file to assert their democratic rights and elect a leadership of their choice.
I also hope that the new body will unify in time. It will not happen overnight; unity will only come about through a meeting of minds and hearts and one would hope that would evolve in time.
One would not want to reflect on any member of any trade union. We do not waste our time here discussing the leadership of SIPTU or the ICTU; we have other things to do. I wish I was not involved in this process but something must be done. The situation is crying out for a solution. The Minister is putting forward what she thinks is best and I cannot see an alternative.
We cannot say that this or that will not work. We do not know what will work unless we give it a trial. This legislation has emerged after a good deal of soul searching. Much time has passed in which we all received advice on the matter and the Minister, in her wisdom, is tabling this proposal as the best way forward. We hope it will work but she is not infallible.
This is not an undemocratic attempt to interfere with a trades union. It has been forced on her by circumstances; no more, no less.
I accept and have stated repeatedly here that the Minister for Justice is trying to resolve this problem, not create one. It would be wrong of anybody to say otherwise.
I ask the Minister to short circuit this to see if the matter could be examined again because from documentation available to me it would appear that the Garda Representative Association and the Garda Federation are both agreed on one matter, that is, that the Minister should not have the power which is retained to herself and her successors in section 4 of the Bill.
If an association, irrespective of its make up, is not conforming, who should make a decision? Is it to be left to the courts? This is where I find it difficult to even say I will examine the matter again because I do not understand the problem here if it is for the Oireachtas to make the ultimate decision on any order.
Deputy O'Dea has stated that, even with three parties in Government, it is highly unusual for even one Deputy to break ranks in the event of there being a vote in the House. However, although that is a valid point, I am not going to go down that side road now.
It is a fact that the Minister is reserving to herself the power to make the decision in section 4. The Minister has a fairly large Department and several people there, aside from herself, have very imaginative minds. No doubt somebody will come up with an adequate compromise. The problem is that the Minister is a negotiating party with the association in respect of which she is interfering under section 4 — if she were not, it would be a different matter — and the GRA, the Garda Federation or the new united association must be entitled to come to the table as an equal negotiating partner. That is something they cannot do while the terms of section 4 stand because the Minister holds a big stick over the association and, in effect, could be said to be writing their rules for them. I can understand why they would object to that and they have a right to do so. Any self-respecting union would object to it. That is why I am putting forward my view in these terms.
I am prepared to withdraw the amendments until Report Stage and give the Minister a chance to consider them. I will be reasonable. While Fianna Fáil holds the view that this problem cannot be solved by legislation, we are participating in the Committee Stage debate to assist in whatever way we can. We are not here to obstruct in any way and I hope the Minister accepts that. We are here in an attempt to be helpful but when both wings of the dispute are in agreement that they do not want this provision, surely it cannot help to resolve the dispute. That must be obvious.
Deputy O'Donoghue said the Minister is a negotiator at present but I am not so sure of that. The negotiations seem to have failed miserably and the Minister is trying to bring about some kind of solution.
I am not talking about that but about the new body.
One way or the other, I cannot understand why the Minister for Justice should be henpecked to hand over responsibility to the Ombudsman or whoever Deputy O'Donoghue has in mind. The Minister for Education will deal with problems on education automatically, for instance.
The Minister does not have the power to stand down the ASTI or the INTO.
Deputy O'Donoghue mentioned that and I am glad he reminded me of it.
I had to remind the Deputy of it because it is the truth.
No. Deputy O'Donoghue is talking about a Minister interfering with unions. I would be the first person to lead a protest against that. I am a stanch supporter of trades unions and I was chairman of my union branch. That is a different matter altogether.
There is an ongoing dispute and we cannot have it both ways in regard to it. We are trying to resolve a dispute in a union. The Minister for Education could certainly not interfere in the INTO, ASTI or TUI and say "you will do this or I will fire you". An effort is being made to solve a most difficult problem and it is wrong to compare it to any other. I do not understand why it is held that the Minister for Justice is not the person who must deal with this. If one says it should be the Ombudsman, that should hold for all cases.
As Deputy O'Donoghue rightly said, the difficulty is that we are legislating for an association which in future disputes will be involved in negotiations with the Minister. Both branches of what we hope will ultimately be the association have expressed fears that this section gives the Minister the right during negotiations to subjectively stand down the association. One can read the provision in that way.
If somebody else is needed to make the decision, that is fine and I hope the Minister will consider that. However, as Deputy O'Donoghue said, whether or not every aspect of the requirements of the Acts of 1923 to 1996, and their regulations are being complied with is almost invariably a matter of objective fact but my interpretation of the section is that the Minister can decide subjectively that they are not being complied with and unilaterally stand down the association during negotiations. Fears have been expressed and the reality is that the legislation can be read in that way.
That is not the case. It is nonsensical to make it. Are Members suggesting that if I, as Minister, during negotiations under conciliation and arbitration do not like what is being said across the table I can call in an official and say that I will stand down the association on the basis that I do not think it conforms to regulations? That is nonsense. If that is Deputy O'Dea's interpretation of what the two associations have claimed, it does not make any sense.
The legislation is clear. If in 1977 the legislators had had the wisdom to include a similar section there would not be a dispute. That would have allowed a body, such as the Garda Federation which has broken away from the association on the basis that it felt the association was not fulfilling its members' needs, to inform the Minister of the day that it was unhappy with the association and, did not conform with the requirements of the regulations. The Minister would have to be satisfied with the complaint before going to the Attorney General to have an order prepared. The Minister would then have to seek Cabinet and Oireachtas approval. It is wrong to paint a picture of me in the heat of negotiations on pensions or salaries saying, because I do not like the views of the representatives, I am judge and jury and the negotiating body does not conform with the regulations. We are referring to written regulations, such as those referred to, which state there must be elections at certain times and they must conform with various sections of this legislation. It is correct to say that the Minister of the day must base his or her decision on nonconformity with sections of this Bill and previous Acts. Of course, if the Garda association, or any other association, does not like what is happening, it is always open to them to appeal to the courts. There is no better group than the GRA to take action in the court. It has me before the courts at present in regard to the regulations.
We are not depriving people of their democratic rights. This legislation seeks to bring into being an association which will command the respect of all gardaí. In order to conform with this legislation, the GRA must do certain things over the next few months after this Bill is passed. If, at the end of that process, I, as Minister or whoever is Minister decides that it does not conform with the provisions of the Bill, I can consider making an order.
I can only assume that the two associations, the GRA and the Garda Federation, do not like this provision because they think at some time in the future a Minister may abuse it. However, this is a safeguard for those members of the Garda Síochána who may decide at some stage that their association is not conforming with the regulations or the legislation. This is not a secret measure to give me power to control this association.
As far as I know, the INTO and the ASTI were not established under legislation because they have the right to strike etc. The Garda Síochána is a different body. Deputies are aware that similar restrictions exist in regard to PDFORRA and the Army.
I am introducing a provision which is for the Minister's benefit. I want to ensure that this association, when it has made the necessary changes will command the respect of the gardaí.
The fact that the new Garda association, no more than its predecessor, can not and will not affiliate with the ICTU means that maximum care must be taken to ensure it has as much independence as the Legislature can possibly confer. Therefore, it is not fair or equitable to the association that the Minister for Justice, with whom it must negotiate on conditions, pensions, etc., should be a judge in sua causa. It is not desirable that the Minister for Justice should retain the power to be a judge in her own cause because, the way the associations look at this in so far as I can see, like it or not the Minister is retaining a power which interferes with their independence. For as long as both sides to the dispute believe that the provision put forward by the Minister could not possibly help to heal divisions. Both sides to the argument are of the opinion that the interference by the Minister on a question of fact is unwarranted.
Is the Deputy aware, for example, that the taxpayer, through the Department of Justice, gives the Garda association approximately £110,000 per annum to run its affairs and that it gets subscriptions from its members? Is the Deputy saying that, because the Minister under the Vote for the Department of Justice is giving that money to the association, somehow or other that is also interfering? Will the GRA return that money to me on the basis that it feels it will go against them? Under the conciliation and arbitration scheme there are structures for negotiations on pay, pensions and so on.
I have no difficulty in examining this matter again, but is the Deputy asking me to do so with a view to deleting the section and leaving it to some person to make a judgment as to whether the association is conforming with the legislation? I am at a loss to know what will happen in the future if members of an association disagrees and breaks up. Who will make the decision that they can be disestablished if there is no mechanism built into the law? We will be doing a disservice to the members if we do not include such a provision which is based on experience? Members should think about that between now and Report Stage. I will think about it too, without prejudice.
The Minister seems to be taking all this personally. I emphasise that we are not personalising this. I have no reason to doubt the Minister's bona fides and the sincerity of her protest but she must bear in mind that all she says here will have no effect whatever when the courts come to interpret this legislation. As the Bill is drafted, I am happy that the interpretation about which fears have been expressed could be taken.
As Deputy O'Donoghue said, we are trying to bring on board all sides to this dispute. In that context, it is important that the Minister examine the legislation between now and Report Stage, discuss the issue with her officials who are skilled in these matters and who understand our point of view and remove any fears by reasonable amendment to the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, subsection (3), line 19, to delete "On the making of an order under this section" and substitute "On the passing of a resolution in accordance with section 8 of this Act approving an order made under this section,".
As I explained, there was an inconsistency in the Bill. As it stands, there is a conflict between section 4(3), which provides that an order under section 4 shall become effective as soon as it is made, and section 8, which provides that such an order shall not have effect until it has been approved by a resolution of each House. The amendment sets the matter right. It should have formed part of the Bill. It was omitted through an oversight.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 5, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
7.—(1) The Minister may arrange that the first elections for district committees and divisional committees held after the passing of the Act (in this section referred to as 'the first elections') shall be supervised and monitored by such persons as the Minister may designate, being persons who are not members of the Garda Síochána.
(2) In carrying out their functions persons so designated shall act in accordance with such terms of reference as may be given to them by the Minister.
(3) Persons so designated shall be entitled to see and inspect any document or record produced or maintained in connection with the first elections and shall be entitled to enter, and attend as observers at, any place or meeting, where they consider such attendance necessary to enable them to supervise and monitor the conduct of the first elections.
(4) When the first elections have been completed persons so designated shall report to the Minister on whether the elections were, in their opinion, conducted in a fair and proper manner.".
This amendment, which is self-explanatory, is designed to ensure that the first elections of the association held on the passing of this Act are conducted in a manner which will obviate any suspicion or distrust which may exist on the part of members who have joined or rejoined the reformed association.
The new section proposed will enable the Minister if she so considers it necessary to arrange to have the conduct of the elections supervised by independent persons who, when the election process is complete, will make a report to the Minister on their findings.
It is an enabling provision only to be used if necessary having regard to the circumstances existing at the appropriate time. Members will understand why I feel it necessary to include this provision. It may or may not be necessary. Obviously, the thrust of this legislation is to ensure we have an association which commands the respect and support of as many of its members of garda rank, as possible. For that reason, allowing myself the option of having a supervisor to the elections is one with which Members should agree.
I am sure the elections will be conducted in a democratic fashion. No democrat would disagree with the Minister's proposal and I have no difficulty with it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 5, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
"7.—The Minister for Justice shall meet with the Association established pursuant to subsection (1) of section 13 of the Garda Síochána Act, 1924, as amended, from time to time and in any event, where practicable on at least two occasions in each full calendar year to discuss and negotiate where necessary the pay, pensions and conditions of service of the Garda Síochána and any other matters which are mutually deemed to be appropriate.".
The reason I tabled this amendment is that considerable dissatisfaction has been expressed to me regarding the paucity of meetings, if any, held by the Minister with the Garda Representative Association since this dispute started. In that respect, it is of considerable importance that a Minister would in the future fulfil his or her statutory duty and meet with the association, which is, after all, charged with a statutory function in relation to the representation of its membership. This amendment would be welcomed by a new and unified association.
Is Deputy O'Donoghue opposing section 7?
Amendment No. 11 involves the insertion of a new section. Section 7 will be addressed later.
If I thought there was a difficulty about an association meeting a Minister to deal with its problems, I would certainly support this amendment but it would interfere with the working of a trades union to state that it must meet the Minister twice a year. It should not be necessary to legislate for this. Most trades unions are well able to look after themselves.
I compliment Deputy O'Donoghue on all his amendments and his logic in backing up his case. However, in this case, he has his tongue stitched into his cheek. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, could not get involved in negotiating with all of his Department. If he did, he would spend all his time in negotiations. Similarly, the Minister for Justice could not get involved in negotiating deals but could give an overview and take a keen interest in what is going on. It is not practical to expect her to be involved in the nitty-gritty of negotiations at all stages. Deputy O'Donoghue's objective is very laudable but to have the Minister involved in pay negotiations with bodies at different levels would be wrong. If this amendment is changed slightly we will support the Deputy.
Again, I have an idea where this amendment might be coming from. I met the GRA four times on the dispute and once more recently to deal with issues that arose out of the tragic killing of Garda Gerry McCabe. My officials, who usually deal with the C and A issues, met representatives four times in the past 12 months and once more recently. This amendment conflicts with the Garda conciliation and arbitration scheme, which provides that the determination of claims and proposals relating to the conditions of service are "matters within the scope of the scheme and are dealt with exclusively under the machinery of the scheme". That scheme, a copy of which is in the Library, sets out in detail the negotiating machinery in relation to pay, pensions and conditions. Similar C and A schemes exist throughout the public sector and have long been accepted as the best format for the resolution of claims.
In the case of the Garda C and A scheme, there are two sides to the negotiations. On one side is the association and on the other is the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Finance and the Commissioner. The negotiations are carried out as provided for under the scheme by civil servants and members of the force representing the two Ministers and the Commissioner respectively. Quite apart from the impracticality of the Minister of Justice negotiating the details of pay, pensions and conditions of service with the association concerned, under the scheme the official side is composed of more than the Minister for Justice. It includes the Minister for Finance and the Commissioner. The scheme provides that the meetings under the scheme shall be held every two months except by agreement.
There have been gaps between the meetings but they are not necessarily all because the official side will not meet representatives of the association. Also, during my two years as Minister I read comments in the newspapers and the Garda magazine that I refused to meet the association on various issues. I met representatives four times to deal with the dispute. At these meetings wider discussions took place. It is fair to say that requests have come to me to meet the association on issues such as bail, prisoners and so on issues not covered under the C and A scheme.
The association was set up to deal with members' pensions, pay awards and conditions of service, etc., and I will meet any association under the Department of Justice, be they those representing coroners or court clerks, in the normal way. I did so with the GRA after Detective Gerry McCabe was killed. On that occasion the association sought a meeting to discuss the protection of money being moved around the country. I had a very detailed meeting with representatives.
I do not believe this an appropriate amendment to play around with the conciliation and arbitration scheme. If it is passed will I have to ask the Minister for Finance and the Commissioner to come with me twice a year to meet the Association? They are part of the scheme. If there is a problem with the C and A, scheme it should be dealt with under the negotiating procedures under that scheme and not by way of legislation.
It has been pointed out to me that the Minister only met the GRA once since the brutal killing of Detective Gerry McCabe. It is desirable that in the context of a united association, the Minister for Justice of the day would meet that association as often as is practicable to discuss any difficulties. That would be very worthwhile for the Minister and the association and merely illustrates democracy in action at its optimum. I will withdraw my amendment having made that observation.
I understand what the Minister said about the conciliation and arbitration scheme but all this amendment was asking was that the Minister commit herself to two meetings per year with the new association. I accept the Minister has met them more frequently but we are trying to commit future Ministers to at least two meetings a year with the new association. That is not unreasonable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SCHEDULE
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, paragraph 2(1), line 16, to delete "by such name" and substitute "as the Garda Representative Association or by such other name".
This amendment is necessary because the wording of the Bill in paragraph 2(1) of the Schedule, which does not specify the title of the association, is inconsistent with the retained section 4, subsection 1 of the 1978 regulations which state that the association is to be known as the Garda Representative Association. The additional phrase, " or by such name as the Minister approves", included in this Bill allows an established association to be known by another name if the association so desires and the Minister approves. If the approval of the Minister is sought for another name it is to be expected that the giving of approval would be largely automatic since it could only be in very rare circumstances that the Minister would have cause for concern over the name chosen. It is self-explanatory, having retained a section of the 1978 regulations, that it is necessary to table this amendment.
As Shakespeare said "A rose by any name would smell as sweet". Who am I to argue?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 6, paragraph 4(1)(b), lines 29 and 30, to delete "in the Tipperary division".
This amendment has been incorrectly phrased and I will correct that on Report Stage. The objective of this amendment is to ensure that the Garda Training College at Templemore would retain its status as a division. The reason is to take account of the importance of the college in the life of the Garda Síochána. There are at least 200 people in training or on courses there at any given time and they are as entitled to representation as any of their colleagues. Most representative problems are dealt with at local level, as envisaged by the memorandum of understanding. Student gardaí on phase three do not have the right to be a member of the association but the association takes a liberal interpretation of the provision and seeks to give students as much assistance as possible by providing free insurance cover and advising them on many issues of concern to them. It also provides library facilities and a student officer. There are 108 probationers at the college on phase five who are all members of the association and who require representation. The representative from this division refers as many, if not more, members to the secretariat than any other representative. The training college is unique in that it sets the standards for all entrants to the force.
This legislation should recognise the importance of Templemore as one of the main engines of the Garda Síochána. Since it is the cradle of the force the association would want to be in touch with the most recent requirements of entrants to the force and be in a position to influence any changes which it feels necessary. Gardaí are anxious that Templemore's position would be recognised in this manner. There can be no objection to this. In the Schedule the Minister for Justice appears to be making Templemore a part of the Tipperary division and this would mean it would lose its representative. I urge the Minister to reconsider this before Report Stage.
The manner in which the Deputy's amendment arrived meant that he was agreeing with the way it was included in the legislation.
That was a mistake.
I realise that. I had a feeling for what the Deputy was trying to achieve but it was not clear in the amendment. I now accept that there was a mistake.
The Deputy is seeking to have the college deemed as both a district and a division with the accompanying right to elect a member to the central executive committee of the association. This section has come about because one of the major complaints made by those groups in contention with the GRA is that the DMA is under-represented on the CEC and that the college in Templemore, with only 60 gardaí, is over-represented. In almost all the paperwork I received from the federation and the other groups this comparison was made. If this requires a solution then one of the ways of doing so is to remove the over-representation of a small number of gardaí in one area who were given the powers of a full division. The Bill attempts to equalise representation. Paragraph 6(2) of the Schedule allows the four DMA divisions with the largest number of personnel to nominate two members to the CEC.
Taking into account these measures and the fact that the former Cork East division has been divided into two — Cork City and Cork North — each with their own CEC members, the CEC will increase from 26 to 30 members. Eleven of these will represent the Dublin Metropolitan Area and 19 will represent the rest of the country. I have to be careful that in trying to correct what is perceived as an imbalance that I do not create another imbalance. I have given a commitment to look again at the weighted voting. The Templemore situation would come back into the loop if I am looking at the weighted voting. I changed Templemore's status because it had only 60 gardaí and it seemed wrong that they should have one representative. I have some sympathy with the case being made by Templemore. It is different to any other division and may have a particular point of view to bring to the CEC. Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment is wrongly worded and cannot be accepted today but I will look at this again in the context of examining the weighted voting.
I think all parties should reflect on the matter before Report Stage.
It was not my intention in the amendment to give an advantage to one side over the other. It sought to recognise the unique position of Templemore and I am glad that the Minister is going to look at this again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, paragraph 6(2), line 13, to delete "nominate" and substitute "elect".
This is a drafting amendment to replace the word "nominate" with "elect" for the sake of consistency with the rest of paragraph 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 9, paragraph 9, lines 12 to 14, to delete subparagraph (1) and substitute the following:
"9.—(1) The President and Vice-President of the Association shall be elected by the Annual Conference from among the members of the incoming Central Executive Committee and shall hold office for the term of office of the Central Executive Committee.".
This amendment is necessary because the existing wording does not state what the period of office of the newly elected president and vice-president will be. It is intended that they will serve for the same period as the central executive committee from among whose members they will be selected. To remove any doubt the amendment also makes clear that the new president and vice-president will come from the incoming central executive committee.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 9, paragraph 9, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(3) Any vacancy in the office of President or Vice-President of the Association may be filled by an appointment made by the Central Executive Committee from among its members and the person so appointed shall hold office until the next Annual Conference or Special Conference elects a person to fill the vacancy.".
This amendment is necessary because it is desirable to insert a provision which addresses the situation which would prevail if a vacancy arose in the office of the president of vice-president. Hitherto the central executive committee appointed these officers from among its members without reference to conference. This amendment allows a vacancy to be filled by the central executive committee but the person or persons so appointed must be ratified by the next annual or special conference.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Report of Select Committee.
I propose the following draft report:
"The Select Committee has considered the Bill and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil." Is that agreed?
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
I would like to thank Members for a very useful debate on the issues.
I thank the Minister and her officials.
I thank the Minister and her officials. At the outset of the meeting the Minister said she would introduce the debate on the third report of the Working Group on a Courts Commission. Contained therein are general heads to a Bill.
Working Group on a Courts Commission.
I indicated recently that the heads of the Bill contained in the Working Group on a Courts Commission's third report would come to this committee so that, while my Department was putting drafting language to the heads of this legislation, this committee would also have an input and we might be guided by the committee if it wanted to include changes. The committee received the heads of a Bill previously and that allows for a discussion between this committee and the Department of Justice.
The Working Group on a Courts Commission was established in 1995 to review the operation of the courts and to consider the establishment of a commission on the management of the courts as an independent and permanent body with financial and management autonomy. Its first report was presented in April 1996 and contained as its primary recommendation that there should be established by statute an independent and permanent body to manage a unified courts system to be known as the Courts Service and to be managed by a chief executive. Government approval in principle for this recommendation was given in May 1996 and the working group was asked to submit a further report on how the establishment of a courts service could best be progressed. The group's third report was produced further to this request.
The third report, entitled Towards the Courts Service, was submitted on 18 November and it concentrates specifically on two areas: (a) the legal framework for the proposed courts service and (b) the broad management approaches to the changing structure. On 19 November the Government approved the recommendation of the report that legislation be drawn up as a matter of urgency to legislate for a courts service as advised in the third report. It also authorised the Minister to request the working group to prepare a report on the position of the chief executive of the proposed courts service and to retain the services of a management consultant familiar with its work to assist in the expeditious preparation of this report. The working group is currently engaged in obtaining the services of a management consultant.
The report sets out a broad sketch of the heads of a Bill to establish the courts service which describes the structure of a courts service as advised and which had been agreed in principle in May 1996. The legislation to establish the courts service will take as its starting point the draft heads of a Bill as set out in the third report. The legislation will also contain other necessary provisions to give effect, for example, to the recommendations of the second report regarding the rules-making committee of the courts and the introduction of seven year non-renewable terms for presidents of the benches of the court. Members will know that that is appropriate to this legislation.
The working group is continuing its work for the establishment of the courts service and I await more detail on the chief executive. The group will continue its work on a general review of the operation of the courts. The headings of the Bill include the establishment day, the courts service, the membership of the courts service board, the chief executive, the staff, the financing of the service, and the management, background and empowerment of the courts service.
I hope this committee could go through the heads of this courts service Bill as set out, discuss them and suggest changes, if necessary. I would hope officials of my Department could be present to take note of the ideas of the committee.
This is the most fundamental Bill vis-�-vis the courts since they were founded in the 1920s. It is appropriate that the Oireachtas committee structure should be used to feed into the legislation before it is finalised. I hope the committee will be able to give this matter further consideration in January. We, in the Department of Justice, will be working on it but we will be prepared to include changes.
This is a courts Bill and, where possible and practical, I intend addressing other elements of courts reform which may be needed, such as the seven year fixed term for the presidents of the court which now exist for persons such as the Garda Commissioner and Secretaries of Department, because I found that many of these good ideas flounder because there is no particular vehicle at the time to bring them into law. I would hope the committee would feel free to outline any suggestions they might think are appropriate to a courts service Bill although I cannot guarantee I will accept them all.
I welcome the fact that there will be legislation in this area. I was always of the view that legislation would be required. It is clear that the courts require revamping and the detailed attention of the Department of Justice. Fianna Fáil will support the measures in so far as they are constructive.
I appreciate that the Minister for Justice has formally laid this report before the committee. We intend to examine it in detail in January. I welcome Deputy Shatter, whose input in this matter will be of great benefit to the committee.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.37 p.m.