Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The issue I wish to raise concerns the failure of the Government to fill vacancies at the rank of chief superintendent in An Garda Síochána. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, will be aware that on 23 December 2015 a competition was held for appointment to the rank of chief superintendent. An interview board was selected and the competition was conducted in accordance with Civil Service appointments guidelines.

On 25 May 2016, 18 people were notified by letter of their successful selection for appointment to the position of chief superintendent. The list of successful candidates was published in Garda headquarters on 26 May and 6 July last. Shortly afterwards, the Government accepted the legitimacy of that panel of 18. However, it only appointed ten of the successful persons on the panel as chief superintendents. Although the remaining eight were part of the panel established on foot of the competition, none has been appointed to date.

I support the fact that future promotions to the positions of superintendent and chief superintendent in An Garda Síochána will be the responsibility of the Policing Authority. The House provided for this under section 12 of the Policing Authority Act. I have called on the Government to expedite that measure. Nonetheless, that process is not in place at present. This does not mean, however, that the Government can walk away from its responsibility to appoint chief superintendents to vacant positions. There are vacancies for chief superintendent in Cork west, the special detective unit, the roads policy unit, the technical bureau, the crime policing administration unit, the central vetting unit, the operational support unit, the Dublin metropolitan regional office, the Garda Reserve and in internal affairs. All these units need chief superintendents.

Are we now going to have a situation such as that which exists in the Judiciary, whereby the Government is unprepared to fulfil its duty because it is waiting for a new regime to come into place? I understand that the policing authority and the Department have prepared recruitment and promotion guidelines which, we are told, will be introduced before the end of the year. However, it is unfair to the eight individuals who succeeded in the competition if the Government now puts it to them that they will not be promoted.

They went through a competition, they succeeded and a panel of 18 was established on foot of the competition. Each of them signed a declaration that any panel established on foot of the competition would cease on 31 December 2016 or on the commencement of section 12. However, the Government cannot seek now to subdivide the panel. It was a panel of 18 successful competitors. It exists as a panel or it falls as a panel. The eight who have been discarded have a legitimate expectation that they would be appointed. In short, they were part of the panel, and it is unfair on the eight successful candidates for the Government now to offer its apologies and state that it will only accept part of the panel. I am sure the eight individuals will apply again if it is the case that the Policing Authority will be given retrospective responsibility for these appointments. However, if that happens, it will be even more unfair on these eight individuals because unless they are promoted by the Policing Authority, it will be presented as though they were previously appointed but then rejected by the Policing Authority.

There are always issues in respect of transitional changes in statutory regimes. That is what we have here. Everyone welcomes the fact that the Policing Authority will take over responsibility in this regard, but these eight people should be treated fairly. The Government is not treating them fairly. They are entitled to expect that the State will honour the terms of the competition that previously existed and the integrity of the panel that was established last summer. Fairness requires that the eight successful applicants should be appointed. They succeeded under the system under which we all operate at present.

See this speech in context