Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Apr 2012

Vol. 214 No. 12

Adjournment Matters

Human Rights Issues

Go raibh maith agat agus cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. This day last week the Secretary General of the UN, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, honoured the victims of the Rwandan genocide and stressed that the only way to prevent such atrocities in the future was to learn from history. He went on to say that the International Criminal Court had become an effective deterrent for would be perpetrators of grave crimes. What we are talking about is genocide on a scale of barbarity that we do not often see in this world. I visited Rwanda a couple of years ago and saw at first hand the effects of the genocide. I met people whose families had been murdered and many young people who were orphaned as a consequence of the genocide, one of whom, Immaculée Ilibagiza, was in the House and spoke to a group in the audiovisual room a year ago. She is the author of a number of books. I was in her home village when she embraced a man who had killed a number of her cousins. There is a great sense of forgiveness. Those who are familiar with her book, Left to Tell, will be aware she hid in the pastures for 90 days with six other females. When she left late one night to try to find her way to the French forces for protection, she met a friend at the encampment who told her that her mother, father and her two brothers had been killed during the period in which she was locked away. With American Senators I recall meeting a number of the victims, all of whom pleaded with us to ensure that those responsible be brought to justice and that western countries protecting and hiding these people be encouraged to do so. I tabled a motion in the House on the issue.

It is interesting to note that the President of Rwanda, Mr. Paul Kagame, has accused western countries of failing to stop genocide suspects in their territory and to bring them to account. He said:

As we remember those we lost, some of those who killed them are still moving freely in some capitals of the so-called free world. There is little effort to apprehend them and when this happens it is a token meant to blind us and give us the impression that they are doing justice. They are released shortly afterwards, yet when acts of terrorism are committed against their people the whole world is mobilised, in fact, sometimes forced to join in the search for those criminals so that they can be brought to justice.

The specific case I am putting to the Minister deals with a French-Rwandan man, Mr. Claude Muhayimana, who is 51 years of age. For the first time ever, a French court has ruled on an international arrest warrant to have him extradited to Rwanda in order that the accused can face the charges of taking part in genocide and crimes against humanity. The extradition can only go ahead if the French Government is in accord with that. In the past the French Government has never extradited its citizens to Rwanda even though it had involvement there and, some would say, was a contributory party to what subsequently emerged in Rwanda. I ask that Ireland, as a concerned country and particularly as one who is seeking to join the UN Council of Human Rights, support the call and encourage the French Government to allow this man face justice in Rwanda rather than sidestepping Rwandan justice and taking him elsewhere.

Some 800,000 people were killed between April and July 1994. The President, Mr. Paul Kagame, said it appeared Rwandan lives, and similarly Africans lives, were less valued than the lives of citizens of western countries. We cannot have one law for the developed western world and a different law for African countries. There is no hierarchy of life and I urge the Minister to encourage the French Government to move in that direction.

I apologise for the absence of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, who has asked me to take the matter on his behalf.

In recent weeks, Rwanda commemorated the lives lost in the genocide 18 years ago. International partners, including Ireland, emphasised our admiration for the resilience displayed by the Rwandan people in the past two decades and the enormous strides they have made in recovering from the disastrous after-effects of the genocide.

The horrific events of 1994 represent one of the darkest episodes in human history. The genocide of the Tutsi and moderate Hutu and associated crimes against humanity resulted in the death of up to one million people and brought unimaginable suffering and trauma to millions more. We should never forget these events. We should learn from the lessons that they provide for us, and we should continue to be prepared to play our part in addressing the ongoing consequences of the genocide and to make sure that it never happens again.

Rwanda has made important progress in ensuring that the country and its people can recover sustainability, by putting in place mechanisms to improve peace and security, achieve national reconciliation and to reform the democratic and political institutions of the state. Rwanda is now one of the most stable countries in the African Great Lakes region. Its stability is underpinned by strong levels of economic growth and good economic governance, and Rwanda has won praise from international donors for its innovative approach to development.

The Government is very clear in its position that those responsible for the genocide and associated crimes against humanity in Rwanda should be held accountable for their actions. More generally, we are convinced of the clear obligation on all states to investigate, prosecute and punish genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes falling within their jurisdiction. We are also clear that the criminal justice system must at all stages — investigation, trial and punishment — respect the fundamental rights of all persons involved, including those suspected, accused and convicted of such crimes.

The Senator has raised the specific case of an individual who is the subject of court proceedings in France on foot of an international arrest warrant issued in December 2011 relating to a request for his extradition to Rwanda to face charges for taking part in genocide, and crimes against humanity. I understand from the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade that this matter is currently the subject of court proceedings in France and in the circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on the case.

I emphasise that the Government remains committed to working with the government and people of Rwanda to assist them complete their recovery and move forward towards a future of peace, reconciliation, and social and economic development and better lives for all Rwandans.

I thank the Minister for his response. I am encouraged by much of what he has said. However, I ask him to convey to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade my concern at the comment that a French court is still considering the matter. Two weeks ago the matter was disposed of by a French court which ruled that the extradition was lawful and should proceed. I concede it may be open to appeal; that is a possibility. My information is that it cannot proceed without the French Government giving its accord to the decision of the court; in other words, the court is not the final arbiter. I ask that we encourage the French Government to do this.

While in Rwanda I attended the Gacaca courts. These are community courts which were set up because of the huge number of people involved in the terrible atrocities and the fact that they would never get through the international criminal court in Tanzania. They dealt with people who were involved in the genocide but were not the instigators or leaders. It was a three judge court. I observed some of the cases taking place where I had an interpreter who translated what was being said. Having spoken with community groups, the process was considered to be fair. The thrust of it was to encourage the people to expunge their guilt but also to enable them re-enter society and their local communities. I was impressed by the whole process of reconciliation in Rwanda. I would like to see the Rwandan courts getting to grips with somebody who is accused. I agree with the Minister that the person is only accused at this stage and obviously the courts will have to determine whether he is guilty. Given the nature and magnitude of the atrocities, I would like to see Rwanda get the chance to do that. There would be sufficient international and moral pressure on Rwanda to show the progress it has made in dealing with the case in a fair and judicial way and I would like to see it avail of the opportunity. I am worried if the Tánaiste feels that it is still in the courts and has not been discharged.

I can assure the Senator that I will bring his concerns to the attention of the Tánaiste. It may well be that there are appellate matters to be addressed yet. As I do not personally know whether that is the case, I do not want to, in any way, mislead the House or the Senator. I will convey the very understandable and very strong views expressed by him to the Tánaiste on the issue.

Pension Provisions

I ask the Government to review the Garda superannuation scheme in order to provide justice and fairness for a number of former members, 81 in total, who have been deprived of their preserved retirement benefits due to the fact that they were dismissed or left the service prior to 1 October 1976.

The Garda Síochána superannuation scheme was introduced by way of statutory instrument, S.I. No. 63 of 1925. Section 13 of the Police Forces (Amalgamation) Act 1925 is the primary legislation on which it is based. From 1 October 1976, if a garda with a minimum of five years service after that date but less than 30 years service resigned or was dismissed, the superannuation benefits are preserved to age 60. These arrangements were introduced to the Garda superannuation scheme with effect from 1 October 1976 by way of Agreed Report No. 218 of the Garda Conciliation Council. No provision was made to provide superannuation benefits for those former gardaí who left for any reason before 1 October 1976, except in certain circumstances where they subsequently took up another appointment in the public service. To date these agreed reports have not been incorporated into a statutory instrument and are only being operated on an administrative basis. On the other hand, Civil Service arrangements for preserved benefits, including their cut-off point of 1 June 1973, have been incorporated into legislation by way of S.I. No. 188 of 1980 of the Superannuation Act 1909. The Garda Síochána superannuation preservation of benefits scheme was introduced on 1 October 1976. This scheme required a minimum of five years service for qualification to its benefits. However, the preservation of benefits superannuation scheme for civil servants was introduced with effect from 1 June 1973 — three years and five months ahead of An Garda Síochána.

It was not until the pre-1 October 1976 group of former gardaí, who were then approaching the age of 60, began to make inquiries about their entitlements that they became aware that they were excluded from the superannuation scheme by the arbitrary cut-off date of 1 October 1976. Opinion was then sought from Mr. Gerard Hogan, senior counsel. In his opinion, Mr. Hogan states: "this wrong is now beyond the capacity of the legal system to redress" and goes on to state that members of the Oireachtas "ought, in justice, to rectify this wrong by means of the enactment of legislation to cater for the very discrete category of pre-1976 members of An Garda Síochána". Mr. Hogan further states that "there is also the point that legislation was passed retrospectively to enable former Ministers to apply to preserve their ministerial pension entitlement, even though they had not done so in time in the past". This was referring to a remedy for the former Minister for Education and Science, Mr. Michael Woods, who had inadvertently missed applying for a pension entitlement by a due date under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act.

In light of this, is it now possible for the Minister to initiate a process whereby this relatively small cohort of former gardaí will be able to access a preserved pension? They have right on their side and my opinion is shared by Members of the House on all sides. The cost factor would be very small due to the small number of people and the small number of years of service involved. It would bring closure to a long campaign for justice, spearheaded by Councillor Pat Hynes of Galway County Council and his colleagues. I thank the Minister for his attendance.

I thank the Senator for raising the matter and I am pleased to be able to set out the factual position. It is important to say the terms and conditions of pension schemes have and continue to evolve over the years. New terms and conditions are introduced with effect from a specific date and apply to members of the scheme from that date onwards.

Prior to 1 October 1976, where a member of the Garda Síochána resigned or was dismissed before reaching the age and service at which he could retire on pension, that member forfeited all superannuation benefits under the then Garda Síochána superannuation scheme. This situation was changed following discussions at the Garda Conciliation Council, the industrial relations machinery for members of the Garda Síochána. It was agreed at that time by both sides, the official side and the Garda representative associations and endorsed by the then Minister for Finance, that the new arrangements should apply to members of the force serving on or after 1 October 1976. By extension these new terms did not and cannot apply to members who had left the force prior to that date. These discussions concluded in what are known as agreed reports. Generally speaking, these agreed reports provide that a garda who resigned or was dismissed on or after 1 October 1976 can have superannuation benefits, accrued to the date of resignation or dismissal, preserved until the member reached 60 years of age. As I have said, there was no provision for the preservation of superannuation benefits in the case of members who resigned or who were dismissed prior to 1 October 1976.

The then Department of Finance, and now Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which continues to have overall responsibility for public service pension matters, agreed with the proposals for a cut-off date for eligibility for preserved benefits. This date varies depending on the particular organisation involved and the conclusion of negotiations between management and the relevant staff interests. For example, the cut-off date for civil servants was agreed by all parties to be 1 June 1973. Equally, the cut-off date for members of the Garda Síochána was agreed by all parties to be 1 October 1976. I must stress that this was an agreed date between all of the parties involved in the discussions and was not imposed. It is an inevitable consequence of the introduction of improvements in pension schemes that members of that scheme who had left it prior to the effective date cannot avail of that benefit.

There have been numerous representations made to my Department on this particular matter and we have been in touch with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on the general question. The Department of Finance has stated in the past that it is not possible to resolve a case individually on an administrative basis and it would not, therefore, be possible to provide an individual with preserved benefits without changing the terms of the scheme retrospectively. Such amendment would, in equity, have to cover all public servants who resigned prior to the effective date. The Department of Finance has further stated that changing the various schemes to change the cut-off date is not a practicable proposition and there were no proposals to backdate the existing dates for the introduction of the preservation of superannuation benefits. I am sorry that I do not have better news for the Senator.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. It does not surprise me because I have seen the file of various representations made in this regard. At the heart of the matter lies, for a small group of people, a sense of injustice for which they do not seem to be able to get closure. They are not pursuing it for monetary reasons but as a matter of principle. They may have to revert to other channels to address the matter, legal or otherwise, but that is a matter for them. I thank the Minister for his understanding and response.

Garda Deployment

Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire agus tááthas orm go bhfuil sé liom anseo. Is iontach an rud an tAire sinsearach a fháil le freagra a thabhairt ar cheisteanna. Ceist réasúnta, simplíí seo maidir le cúrsaí póilíneachta agus gardaí sna ceantair Ghaeltachta. Táim ag iarraidh a fháil amach líon na ngardaí atá ag feidhmiú sna stáisiúin na nGardaí atá sna ceantair Ghaeltachta i gcomparáid le cúig bliain agus deich mbliain ó shin. Chomh maith leis sin, céard é líon na ngardaí faoi láthair atáábalta a gcuid oibre a dhéanamh as Gaeilge? Is ceart bunúsach é gur féidir le duine gnó a dhéanamh leis an Garda Síochána as Gaeilge. Tá aithne mhaith agam ar na gardaí i gceantair na Gaillimhe go háirithe agus tá siad iontach maith ó thaobh na seirbhíse a thugann siad trí mheán na Gaeilge. Táim ag iarraidh a dheimhniú go mbeidh sin amhlaidh i gcónaí. Tuigim, i gcomhthéacs na gciorruithe agus an staid eacnamaíochta atá againn i láthair na huaire go bhfuil deacraíochtaí ann ó thaobh tarraingt siar foirne agus mar sin de agus ó thaobh acmhainní atá ar fáil don Aire maidir le gardaí a chur ar an dtalamh. Níor mhaith linn go ligfí i léig an buncheart sin — go mbeadh gardaí atáábalta feidhmiú trí mheán na Gaeilge ar fáil — ar an mbunús go bhfuil sé de cheart againn an tseirbhís sin a bheith againn. Muna bhfuil garda le Gaeilge ar fáil chun déileáil le cás áirithe inár dteanga dúchais, b'fhéidir go mbeadh duine in ann dúshláin cúirte a thógáil in aghaidh na n-imeachtaí coiriúla sa chás sin. Cuirim míle fáilte roimh an Aire. Tá mé thar a bheith buíoch de faoi teacht isteach. Tá mé ag súil go mór leis an bhfreagra a thabharfaidh sé.

I hope this was covered in the translation. I think it possibly was. I asked a question on the number of gardaí stationed in Gaeltacht areas at present, five years ago and ten years ago and their capability to deliver a service in Irish.

I thank the Senator for raising the matter. I am afraid I am not as proficient as he is as Gaeilge and hope he will forgive me if I respond in English. The position on the provision of services in Irish by members of the Garda Síochána is an issue of some importance. The House is aware that the allocation of resources is a matter for the Commissioner and his senior management team. He has informed me that the personnel strength in areas referred to by the Senator are as follows: 585 in Galway; 304 in Mayo; 436 in Donegal; 296 in Meath; 307 in Kerry; 290 in Waterford; 678 in Cork city; 303 in north Cork; and 310 in west Cork.

There have been substantial increases in these numbers in the past ten years and I am circulating a table showing the strength at present, five years ago and ten years ago. A substantial number of Garda members serving in the relevant Garda divisions have been and are in receipt of the specific Gaeltacht allowance. The table shows that a substantial number of Garda personnel continue to be paid the allowance to cater for areas where members of the force are required to be proficient in Irish. Details of further Garda members who can also carry out their duties in Irish are not readily available.

The payment of the allowance is determined on the basis of Garda districts. A Garda headquarters circular sets out the conditions for the deployment or payment of the Gaeltacht allowances to Garda personnel serving in the "fíor" and "breac" Gaeltacht areas in the divisions of Galway west, Donegal and Kerry. The Garda authorities advise that the term "fíor" in the concept of Garda usage denotes a Gaeltacht area where Irish is the main vernacular of the local population, whereas the term "breac" signifies a Gaeltacht area where English is, in the main, the more dominant language of the local population. Additionally, I understand from the Garda authorities that the arrangements for the payment of Gaeltacht allowances are being examined by the Garda Commissioner.

Section 33 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 prescribes that the Garda Commissioner shall, in so far as is practicable, ensure that members of the organisation stationed in a district which includes a Gaeltacht area have sufficient Irish competency to perform their duties. Additionally, An Garda Síochána has developed and introduced a scheme under section 11 of the Official Languages Act 2003 to enhance current Irish language services provided by the organisation. As part of that scheme, each divisional officer has nominated an inspector to co-ordinate the divisional arrangements and to monitor achievements against the specific commitments set down in the scheme.

I also emphasise that conducting business through Irish is part of the language curriculum delivered to all Garda trainees in the Garda College. In addition, arrangements have been made to ensure that if a member of the force cannot provide an immediate service through Irish when a member of the public requests it, an Irish-proficient member of An Garda Síochána will be contacted and made available. I assure the Senator that the Government and An Garda Síochána are, and will continue to be, strongly committed to the Irish language.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra ata tugtha aige. Ní cosúil go bhfuil an tábla a luaigh sé leis an bhfreagra. The table mentioned by the Minister is not with the answer but I am sure it can be forwarded in due course. I certainly welcome the Minister's response and commend the Garda Síochána as I know from my dealings with it that it makes a huge effort with regard to dealing with people as Gaeilge. Will the Minister clarify what he said regarding the arrangement for the payment of the Gaeltacht allowances being examined by the Commissioner? What is the background to this? Céard atá i gceist leis sin? Does the Department intend to change these, get rid of them or increase them? Does the Minister have further information he could share with us on it?

I apologise as the additional information that should have been attached to the response has not been provided. I will ensure it is put in the Senator's pigeonhole. I have been informed by the Commissioner that he is examining the matter. I have no particular plans as Minister to create any difficulties in this regard. It may be just a review of how it operates in practice in the context of the numbers availing of it and their proficiency in the language. I am not aware of any major event about to happen in the context of this matter. I was simply informed when we made contact with the Commissioner's office that he is reviewing the manner in which matters are working. I am sure if there are developments in this regard I will be informed and with the greatest of pleasure I will pass on to the Senator any information that arises.

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Aire.

Go raibh maith agat, a Aire. Go raibh maith agat freisin, a Sheanadóir. Molaim thú as ucht an Ghaeilge fhlúirseach atá agat. Baineann túúsáid aisti go minic.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 April 2012.
Barr
Roinn