Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

This power will be used sparingly but it is wrong that a senior officer of the Garda Síochána can be removed on grounds of loss of confidence while somebody junior to him or her, and guilty of the same conduct, is excused from a summary dismissal and goes through a lengthy process. There are three limits to this power, namely the individual's conduct triggers it — this is not a matter of public perception or three bad newspaper editorials that shook public confidence; the conduct must be of a kind that undermines public confidence in the force and the dismissal must be necessary to maintain public confidence. These are not trifling conditions.

This power can be exercised only in a constitutional manner. Whatever the Constitution requires must be done. Likewise, it can be exercised only in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. If the convention provides for anything over and above the requirements of the Constitution that too is implicit in this power.

This requires the Government's consent. Senator Jim Walsh asked if the Garda Commissioner went through this process and the Government disagreed, whether that would be a resigning matter for the Commissioner. I hope and assume the Commissioner would not do something lightly but that does not mean the Government would be embarrassed in refusing to give its consent if it doubted the wisdom of the Commissioner's decision. The Government's role is not that of a rubber stamp; it would give this the same kind of consideration it would give to a proposal by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that a particular superintendent be removed.

The Government acts as the final arbiter in the matter by reference to constitutional values and with the Attorney General sitting at the Cabinet table. This is not a case of the secretary to the Government ticking a box and dismissing a person. It is quite the reverse; this would be a serious process requiring a decision of the Cabinet, informed by legal advice, in the presence of the Attorney General.

The courts would ensure that any deviation from what was fair or necessary in the circumstances would be available if there was any such deviation. This is not a gung-ho provision. It merely puts everyone in the Garda Síochána on a level playing field with more senior officers and as such it is a desirable change.

I am not engaging in ageism. There is a package here, part of which is that after 30 years service one walks away with a full pension entitlement. If one joins the Garda Síochána at the age of 21, by the age of 51 one has the right to leave with half of one's salary for life and a large gratuity. That is a generous deal which is not open to secondary school teachers, nurses or many others. The quid pro quo is that the Government by regulation, not statute, provides the retirement age for gardaí.

Several times since becoming Minister I have considered the point Senator White raised. It is a perennial issue. I have discussed it with two commissioners and officials in my Department. If I were to raise the age from 57 to 60——