Seanad debates
Wednesday, 9 April 2003
Garda Síochána (Police Co-Operation) Bill 2003: Committee and Remaining Stages.
10:30 am
Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have been ruled out of order. Does Senator Tuffy wish to speak on the section?
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not understand why the amendments have been listed if they are not in order.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I shall speak on the section anyway. I am sorry that amendment No. 1 was not acceptable. The purpose of it was to bring our own policing operation up to the same standard as the Police Service of Northern Ireland. In the Republic of Ireland, we have all been very keen to press home the importance of implementing the Patten recommendations and how significant they are in terms of policing in Northern Ireland, but we have not taken on board the fact that, as a result, the police service in Northern Ireland is a lot more modern than our own.
I know there are proposals for a police inspectorate a couple of years down the line. However, a number of NGOs, for example, have indicated that this would be inferior to a proper ombudsman. If we are to have North-South co-operation, it would be a good start to have common standards of control and accountability in relation to our police forces.
I am not really clear as to why amendment No. 1 is not in order. I would have thought it was relevant to the section, and I would appreciate any clarification on this.
Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I approve of section 2 and have no problem with it whatsoever. My query is the same as Senator Tuffy's. My heart is not in amendments Nos. 1 and 2, but I am puzzled as to why they are not in order. It may well be because they are not relevant specifically to section 2. I know that Senator Terry put down amendment No. 2 in the belief that it would strengthen the Bill in meeting its objectives.
Those of us who spoke on Second Stage yesterday are very enthusiastic about this Bill and any effort we make now is designed to improve it. I am sure that Senator Terry and Senator Tuffy, in putting down a similar amendment, both hoped to improve the Bill by making it more realistic and more valuable. I would assume, therefore, that there is an explanation as to why any proposed amendment to the Bill is not acceptable. I imagine it is because the amendments are in the wrong place and might have been quite acceptable had they been included not under section 2 but elsewhere. I would welcome any advice the Chair can give me on this.
Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Two sections form the essence of the Bill. Section 2 relates to lateral mobility and section 3 relates to secondments. As was suggested yesterday, the Minister should ensure that people will avail of the opportunities provided for in section 2 by applying for positions. I wonder whether, at some stage, opportunities for lateral mobility might be created at levels below that of superintendent. Qualification for the scheme is set at a very high level at present, so a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland can apply for a position here, for example, but not below the level of superintendent. The same applies to members of the Gárda Síochana applying for positions in the PSNI.
This measure is very much to be welcomed and I hope that every encouragement will be given in that regard. It will assist and be of benefit to the police forces in both jurisdictions. In taking on board the whole purpose and raison d'être of the Patten report, the measure will obviously also assist in instilling confidence in and support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Senator Tuffy inferred, or even stated, that the Garda Síochána should be brought up to the standards of the PSNI. I believe we can be proud of the service we get from the Garda Síochána, and I certainly would not make any distinction between the two services in that regard. Whether there is an ombudsman or not is not particularly relevant to this section of the Bill. This is about people applying for positions. Whether we have the system in place in this jurisdiction or the ombudsman system that applies in Northern Ireland is germane to the whole import of the Bill but not this particular section.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I would not like what I said to be interpreted in the manner that Senator Walsh has suggested. I absolutely accept that our police service is up to a good standard in terms of the work it does, but we do need to modernise our structures. The types of structures that have been brought into the Police Service of Northern Ireland are something we could model our structures on in terms of the accountability of the police service.
The purpose of the Labour Party amendment was, on the one hand, to render the Garda more directly accountable to the public but also to improve its effectiveness. It was a positive proposal. As I made clear yesterday, I do welcome the section in general and the thrust of the legislation.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry that the Senator's amendment was ruled out of order. It was not my decision but was a ruling by the Clerk. I understand the ruling is based on article 88 of Standing Orders, the relevant part of which states, "No amendment shall be proposed which is in conflict with the principle of the Bill, as read a second time." The view taken, apparently, is that the amendment proposed does not arise under the terms of the Bill, which is especially evident if one reads the Long Title to the Bill:
Bill entitled an Act to make provision, in accordance with the Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on Police Co-operation, done at Belfast on 29 April 2002, in relation to the appointment and secondment of members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to such ranks in the Garda Síochána as may be prescribed, the secondment of members of the Garda Síochána to that Service and other connected matters.
There is nothing there about an ombudsman. The issue does arise in relation to disciplinary measures that would have to be taken in the case of certain conduct when people are serving in one police force or the other.
Senator Jim Walsh's point that superintendent is the lowest rank at which people can apply for transfers relates, of course, to the lateral transfer provisions of the legislation. My understanding is that the agreement on which the legislation is based provided for that. That was the rank agreed. It is always up to the Governments on both sides of the Border to change this in the future if there is a new agreement.
I made the point yesterday on Second Stage that the Government was going ahead with legislation to introduce a Garda inspectorate which would be something equivalent to the ombudsman in Northern Ireland, although not exactly the same. I do not think the people appointed to deal with discipline in a police force are exactly the same in any two jurisdictions. We are calling it an inspectorate because the Minister is attracted by the idea of having three members. Usually, when only one person is in charge, it is called an ombudsman. We are not hung up too much on the name but it is more appropriate to call it an inspectorate. It will have fairly wide powers of investigation and replace the Garda Síochána Complaints Board. It will also have a more general focus.
I do not agree with Senator Tuffy that its establishment is several years down the road. If that was the case, there would be an unanswerable argument to reject the amendment which, unfortunately, she was not able to propose because it would mean that this legislation, which is urgent, would be delayed for several years. It is the Government's intention to proceed as quickly as possible. It is my intention and that of the Minister to have the legislation for a Garda inspectorate in place before the end of this year.
My inclination is to agree with Senator Maurice Hayes that this legislation has already been delayed for too long. I think he made this point yesterday on Second Stage. In the light of what is happening at in the North, there would need to be a strong and compelling case to justify further delay. The fact something is coming but not yet in place is not a sufficiently strong reason to justify the further delay of something which, by common consensus, has already been delayed for too long.
It is our intention to proceed with this legislation and put the new Garda inspectorate in place at the earliest possible opportunity. No doubt we will debate that Bill in this and the other House. I will welcome Members' comments on it. Our focus for the moment is to put this legislation on the Statute Book at the earliest possible opportunity.
Ms Terry: I apologise for being late. I believe two of my amendments have been ruled out of order. I would, therefore, like to speak to the section. I welcome the provision whereby permanent members may be seconded to the two police forces. I do not wish to delay the Bill which is necessary. Any proposals we bring forward are to improve the Bill rather than delay it.
Dr. M. Hayes: Two things are required to move policing on in the North and they are interlinked. One is the ability to transfer and the other the participation of Sinn Féin in policing arrangements. Since it is looking for this, it seems rather ironic that it does not move. I hope it moves quickly on the other issues because it would make it much more attractive and much easier to get members of the Garda Síochána to go North. It is also difficult to say people are respected when they are on this side of the Border and that somehow they lose respect when they are on the other side.
I ask the Senator to consider that the greater public purpose is served, at least in the short term, by the passing of this Bill. I, too, subscribe totally to the idea of a police ombudsman, inspectorate or whatever one wants to call them. It is totally illogical and unbalanced unless roughly the same arrangements apply on both sides of the Border. It might help if instead of saying the Government intends to introduce the inspectorate soon, there could be a narrowing of the window; for instance, that the Bill could be brought forward before the summer. That would be helpful to those concerned about it.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is nothing wrong with the amendment but the reason I will not insert it in the Bill is that, strictly speaking, it is not necessary. It is clear from the provisions of section 3(1) that a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland seconded to the Garda Síochána and appointed in accordance with this section is appointed to a rank in the Garda Síochána. I will read the full text of section 3(1) to make it clearer: ". . . the Commissioner may, at the request of the Chief Constable [this refers to somebody from the PSNI appointed to the Garda Síochána] (a) appoint a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to a rank in the Garda Síochána. . . ". It is stated in paragraph (b) that the Commissioner may, at the request of the Chief Constable "request the Government to appoint such a member to a rank in the Garda Síochána not below that of superintendent. . . ". The Government must appoint superintendents but they are appointed to a rank in the Garda Síochána. Subsection (2) states, "The ranks in the Garda Síochána to which such members may be appointed. . . ". It is clear that somebody so appointed for the period of the secondment is, effectively, a member of the Garda Síochána. As that is clear in the text, I do not see any need for the amendment.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It might seem clear but if it is, why is it is necessary to state the person will be under the direction and control of the Commissioner and have the powers, duties, rights and obligations of a member of the Garda Síochána? That would seem obvious also but it has had to be spelled out in the legislation. Not inserting the amendment is an omission.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Perhaps the Senator has a point but, strictly speaking, it may not be necessary to make it clearer as we are making it clear that the person appointed shall be under the full direction and control of the Commissioner because up to the point of secondment, they will have been under the control and direction of the Chief Constable. It was considered necessary by the parliamentary counsel to clarify the matter but I do not think it is necessary to insert another paragraph to state that the person so seconded is a member of the Garda Síochána because that is absolutely clear.
My inclination is to keep legislation as short as possible. If the meaning is clear in the text, I dislike adding to it. Adding to the text along the lines the Senator suggested would not do any harm to it and would not make any difference one way or the other. Therefore, the case for including it has not been made.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will withdraw it but ask the Minister of State to look at it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, between lines 44 and 45 to insert the following new paragraph:
"(a)a senior Garda shall sit on the interview panel,".
It is not clear what the make-up of the interview panel will be. We should ensure there is a senior member of the Garda Síochana on the interviewing panel. I would like to hear the Minister of State's comments on this.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What the Senator seeks is not unreasonable. However, it is not regarded as a matter for primary legislation, in the context of appointment to a rank in the Garda Síochana under this section, to provide for the composition of the selection board or interview panel. That is a matter which can be provided for, as appropriate, by regulation.
The amendment, as proposed, is to include a new paragraph (a) in subsection (4). That subsection states that the provisions outlined do not apply in relation to a person appointed under the section. Therefore, if the amendment was to be accepted, we would be making a provision to ensure a senior garda would not be able to sit on the panel – the opposite of what the Senator intends.
I realise that this was probably an error and that the intent was to ensure Garda management was involved in the interview or selection process, which is quite reasonable. However, the selection of PSNI officers for secondment will be a matter for the Chief Constable in the first instance. It may transpire that senior Garda management may be involved in that process but this will be a matter for consultation between the Garda Commissioner and the Chief Constable in due course. Matters relating to the appointment of officers under section 3 can be provided for in regulations by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform with the approval of the Government, as provided for in section 7 of the Bill.
While the Garda Commissioner and Chief Constable may decide that a Garda officer will sit on the Northern Ireland selection board, the composition of a selection board in another jurisdiction is not something for which we can legislate. However, if the Commissioner and Chief Constable agree, as may well be the case, that a senior member of the Garda Síochana will sit on a Northern Ireland selection board, I presume that would only be in the light of a reciprocal arrangement whereby we would agree that a senior member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland could sit on our interview boards. It is a matter that can safely be left to regulation following discussion between the Chief Constable and the Commissioner.
Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
While I do not want to prolong this debate or anticipate what might be in a regulation, I agree with the Minister of State. It may have been a misprint but it is difficult to see where the amendment would fit in between lines 44 and 45. Subsection (4) deals with a series of exclusions and to add a proscription would be to mix the sugar with the salt.
These small matters are better dealt with by regulation. I anticipate that the Garda Commissioner and the Chief Constable will have a joint board to deal with such matters, perhaps all at once. I suggest that we accept the Minister of State's view that these matters will be better dealt with when we discuss the regulation.
Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I accept the Minister of State's explanation. Senator Terry's intention may have been correct but it seems much better not to lock this into legislation and leave the Chief Constable and the Garda Commissioner the freedom to decide how best to continue. The Minister of State has explained the matter well and I support his view.
Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I concur with the consensus that has emerged that it is better to deal with this by way of regulation. The Minister of State's explanation is satisfactory. He applied the caveat that it would be for the two police forces to decide whether an arrangement would be made with regard to cross-representation on interview boards, which would be very welcome. It would show excellent co-operation but would also apply safeguards from the point of view of both police forces. Despite Senator Maurice Hayes having a reservation about my reservation of yesterday, this might be a vehicle to deal with it.
Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As the Minister of State is thinking in terms of regulations, it might not be a bad idea to build in a provision for lay representation and to have somebody from both sides outside the process which is often useful on this type of board.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I did not intend to put the amendment between lines 44 and 45. I cannot find where it should have gone but it is certainly in the wrong place. However, it was worthwhile in that it opened up a discussion. I accept the Minister of State's point that regulations can, perhaps, be introduced to provide for the intent of the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It may not be possible for the Minister of State to address my concerns as there may be no specific answers at this stage. However, it would be desirable to have parameters with regard to the take-up of this facility in the Bill. The success of the legislation depends on the extent to which people avail of sections 2 and 3. It might be useful if there were some target areas. It is fine if there are not but this should be considered in order that the success or otherwise of the Bill could be gauged. It could be done on a mutual basis with the PSNI. It could be useful in that, as Senator Maurice Hayes said on Second Stage, this may require some incentives to be built in to encourage people to make applications and avail of it. That may not be necessary but we will not know until the legislation has been in operation for a period. However, in the first instance, there should be some sort of targets at which to aim. Otherwise, the experience of the legislation will become the target for future years. I would like to think that, at the outset, a certain number of placements would be expected in a given year from one side to the other. I do not know what information the Minister of State has on this.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Section 3(2) provides specifically that the ranks in the Garda Síochána to which members coming from the North may be appointed under this section, and the number of such members to be appointed, may be proscribed. In other words, it will be dealt with in regulations which obviously will be drafted in the light of discussion between the police services on both sides of the Border and political contacts between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Administration on the other side.
I understand the Garda Commissioner has something in mind, although the exact number or target has not yet been communicated to me. The Commissioner has something in mind but has yet to find out if that is achievable. We have wide discretion as to how we put this in the regulation. For example, a maximum number could be put in and varied in different ways. The Government is thinking along these lines.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I raised the issue of section 3(4) yesterday but the Minister of State did not refer to it in his reply. Will he clarify the reason those parts of the normal Garda legislation do not apply to a seconded person, a matter which relates to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Section 10 of the 1924 Act states members of the Garda Síochana are not to resign without permission while section 11 deals with the duty of members of the Garda Síochana on resignation or dismissal. Section 14 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act 1925 states:
The Minister may from time to time subject to the approval of the Executive Council, make regulations in relation to all or any of the matters following, that is to say:–
(a)the admission, appointment, and enrolment of members of the amalgamated force;
(b)the promotion, retirement, degradation, dismissal, and punishment of members of the amalgamated force;
(c)the duties of the several ranks of the amalgamated force;
(d)the maintenance, training, discipline, and efficiency of the amalgamated force;
(e)the formation of representative bodies of members of the amalgamated force;
(f)any other matter or thing relating to the internal management of the amalgamated force.
does not apply to a person appointed under section 3 of the Bill. The 1925 Act relates to the Garda Síochána, so it obviously does not apply here. Some of the regulations I have listed will apply because they are relevant. The Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 1941 and the Garda Síochána (Compensation) (Amendment) Act 1945 will obviously not apply.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The questions I raised on Second Stage in relation to this section have been satisfactorily answered by the Minister of State.
Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask the Minister of State to consider some brief questions. After the disciplinary action has been heard in the North and the issue has been dealt with by the Garda Commissioner in this jurisdiction, would the Minister see his way to granting a garda or his/her legal or union representative the right of audience with the commissioner or deputy commissioner? I do not suggest that the case should be re-opened or reheard, but that a synopsis of the case should be put before the Garda Commissioner, or his deputy, bearing in mind that they will not have heard the verbal evidence but will merely have received a transcript. I am aware that when disciplinary actions are dealt with by the bodies on which I sit – the Medical Council and An Bord Altranais – the person who is the subject of the action is always given a final right of audience before the individual who has the final say.
I have read the details of the actions that can follow a disciplinary hearing. The gravest action is dismissal and the next – an alternative to dismissal – is the requirement to retire or resign. The second rank of punishments seems to involve a similar kind of action to dismissal. Would be possible to provide for the suspension of a garda rather than resignation or forced retirement? It is something the Minister of State might consider.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The question of representation will be dealt with in the regulations. The Garda associations are in discussion with the Minister and the regulations will be framed in light of those discussions. What was the Senator's other point?
Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It related to action taken following a disciplinary action. Will it be possible to provide for a suspension rather than a dismissal or a requirement to retire or resign? The latter requirements are the same, in effect, as a dismissal. Could room be made for a suspension, even a suspension with conditions?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Apparently not. This wording comes from the existing Garda disciplinary regulations, which do not provide for a suspension. I have to admit that I am not absolutely clear about the reasons for this. There are no plans to proceed in that direction.
Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
One presumes that both services will send their best and brightest people to the other forces. One hopes, therefore, that cases where disciplinary action is necessary will be few and far between. In such circumstances and in order to encourage people to take up the offer, it is advisable to lean in favour of giving people the safeguards they want. It would not be right if cases were heard in a court elsewhere which might not have the same set of values. The general purpose of the legislation in relation to negotiating such matters would be best met by providing the safeguards that people think they need.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I agree with the Senator, essentially. One will be dealt with where one operates, but the final sanction is a matter for one's Chief Constable or Garda Commissioner. I take the Senator's point and I am sure the regulations will be framed with such thoughts in mind.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 7 between lines 43 and 44 to insert the following new sub-section:
"(3)For the purposes of proceedings against such a person under the Disciplinary Regulations or 1986 Act, those Regulations, that Act and this section shall, notwithstanding that the period of secondment has expired or been terminated and for as long as the person is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, continue to apply in relation to the person as if he or she were a member of the Garda Síochána.".
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I hope that the purpose of this provision is quite simple. If, for whatever reason, the secondment of a PSNI officer to the Garda Síochána either expires or is terminated, this provision allows for the disciplinary regulations and the provisions of the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Act 1986, as described in section 6(2), to continue to apply. This allows for the continuation of a disciplinary process, or a commencement of a disciplinary process, in respect of a member of the PSNI who is on secondment as a result of an alleged breach of discipline while appointed to a rank in the Garda Síochána on secondment.
The amendment proposes that the regulations, the 1986 Act and this section will continue to apply "for as long as the person is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland". The obvious reason for this provision is that if the person concerned is no longer a member of the PSNI, there is little point in pursuing disciplinary proceedings when the worst sanction that could be subsequently imposed is that he or she would be dismissed. This would be a pointless exercise if the person in question had already left the force. If a criminal matter arose relating to an incident which may have occurred during the secondment period, however, the fact that the person concerned may have subsequently left the PSNI would not prevent criminal law from applying in the normal manner. I propose that the amendment be accepted.
Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This has been something of a difficulty in the past, in my experience. People have avoided disciplinary action they were obliged to face by retiring on the grounds of ill health. There was some evidence of a degree of collusion by management in the matters at which I looked in order that a case could be removed from the books or a difficult employee could be removed. Does this amendment cover such matters? Does it mean that a person can escape all disciplinary action by submitting a resignation notice or by leaving on grounds of ill health?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It means that a person can escape in such a manner, as far as I understand it. The worst sanction that can be taken against a person is that they can be dismissed from the force. If they have left the force, not only is the option of dismissal not available, but also other options, such as demotion, cannot be pursued. People who retire, with the collusion of management in many cases as Senator Maurice Hayes has correctly pointed out, are not those who are retiring voluntarily. They are retiring because they have no option – they are being pushed. I suppose that is regarded as sufficient sanction. The Garda can impose disciplinary sanctions on its members, but it cannot do so in relation to those who have left. When people are gone, they are gone.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is no appropriate punishment for somebody who has gone.
Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not want to get into the petty details of these matters, but it should be pointed out that officers leave with certain enhancements, such as added years or a lump sum. They do much better than others. If they are dismissed on disciplinary grounds, they do not receive the benefits I have mentioned. Even though the difficult person may have been removed from the premises, there should be some means of penalising him or her. I am not sure that justice is necessarily done in that way.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My understanding is that the person concerned would not be disciplined by the Garda Síochána in any case. The disciplinary action would be carried out by the PSNI. I question the value of the subsection but at the same time I appreciate what the Minister of State has outlined.
Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is important that this regulation is mirrored in both situations, whether it involves a member of the PSNI or of the Garda Síochána. It is important that any suggestions are implemented by agreement.
There is merit in what Senator Maurice Hayes has said. It is often the case that people leave employment, having been guilty of misconduct, with pension rights and gratuities. It is important that if the offence has the effect of impacting on those benefits while a person is still in service then it should equally have an impact if the person leaves an employment. I am not sure how that can be incorporated. That is the only situation I can envisage where there would be a penalty other than dismissal. It could be examined in the context of the regulations.
Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask the Minister of State to consider, where a garda was under the spotlight and a hearing was pending, that he or she should not be allowed resign until that hearing was heard. That might resolve the problem Senators Hayes and Walsh spoke about. The person would be more or less locked in – if that is not too strong a description – until the disciplinary action was heard. They would not then benefit from a nice financial package.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will bear that proposal in mind.
In relation to the point made by Senator Tuffy, the position is that the Garda Síochána are doing the investigation here and they are the people who ultimately make the finding. The question of the imposition of sanctions is for the Chief Constable to decide. It is important that the Garda is allowed to continue with the investigation up to the point where a finding can be made and recommendations can be given to the Chief Constable. It is ultimately the Chief Constable's responsibility but I imagine a finding against an individual by the Garda Síochána which may recommend dismissal because of their activities while on secondment in this State, would have a powerful effect on the Chief Constable. The chances are that the Chief Constable would have to take some similar disciplinary action. The proposal is to enable the Garda to continue the investigation to the point where a finding can be made even if the person has returned to the North.
Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Since I raised a few hares, I wish to offer the Minister of State an olive branch at this point. I do not think it is worth imperilling this Bill by getting into the wider questions of the negotiation of terms and conditions for gardaí. It strikes me that if one was seen to import some sort of special condition about not allowing people to retire or about the sickness benefits, the representative bodies North and South would take a poor view of it. It is something that the Minister of State might bear in mind when that is being done. It would be unfair to place a garda, who did the State the great benefit of volunteering to transfer, in a worse position in relation to some of these things than a person who did not.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
This amendment relates to personnel exchanges and it was discussed yesterday. Persons working under exchange would not have the powers of duty as described in other sections. The Bill proposes that the period of stay would not exceed one year. My amendment proposes that the period of time should be changed to three years in order to coincide with the other arrangements. One year is a very short time for a person to familiarise themselves with the situation. My amendment would allow a person to stay for more than one year.
Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is the agreement between the Government and the British Government done in Belfast on 29 April 2002. Like Senator Terry I have a similar difficulty in trying to interpret this provision. I notice that under Article 5 a programme shall be introduced to facilitate members to transfer and be placed within the other police force and therefore perhaps policing is not envisaged as part of that. I wonder if there is a general expectation that people who avail of the transfer will automatically serve beyond one year as under section 3. I envisage that people could transfer for periods of six or nine months and I believe they should also be involved in policing duties during that time.
The Minister of State specifically mentioned training exchanges which have already taken place between the Garda Síochána and the PSNI. That is to be welcomed. The development of skills in areas such as detective work would be worthwhile in this context. I have a certain reservation. I appreciate that the intent of this article is very different for those participants as opposed to those on normal secondment. I ask the Minister of State to explain why we would not allow people who transfer to have the powers of policing in the jurisdiction.
Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I too regard this as a bit anomalous and I wonder why it turned out the way it is. The Schedule to the Bill is simply the recital of an agreement between the two Governments and it does not seem to me to be amenable to amendment by a motion in the House. It might be helpful and sensible in any case if the Minister of State, with the corresponding Minister in Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable and the Garda Commissioner, agreed to have in, say, three years' time a review of the working of the scheme and then bring forward amendments to which everyone could agree.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senators Maurice Hayes and Jim Walsh are correct. The agreement is already in place and we do not have the power to amend it. As I understand, there are three situations which are dealt with in the agreement. The first is lateral transfer. Those of superintendent rank can apply for a position in this country and vice versa. Second, people of ranks from inspector downwards can apply for secondment to this country or to Northern Ireland for a period of up to three years. They will, in effect, be a member of the police force in the jurisdiction to which they are seconded. Article 5 provides for people to come down here on a temporary basis or for people to go North on a temporary basis for a maximum of 12 months. What is envisaged is that people with specialist skills in certain areas will be able to share their expertise with people on the other side of the Border and vice versa.The question of people being able to do policing work is dealt with. People can be seconded to do policing work. The parties to the 2002 agreement envisaged that people would come and go for relatively short periods to give the benefit of their expertise to those on the other side. I will bear in mind what has been said. I will bear in mind also Senator Maurice Hayes's point about reviewing the provision in three years' time. The main issue is that the agreement is in place and we do not have the power to change it.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I accept that we cannot make changes today. However, I would like the Minister of State to keep in mind my proposal because retaining the one year clause may exclude someone who has great skill and who would be of great benefit in either jurisdiction. It is for that reason I proposed a three year period or, at least, more than one year.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will suggest to the Minister that the measure should be reviewed after a couple of years.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill".
Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My query relates to Article 1. I am sure there are good reasons why mobility has been decided at superintendent level rather than lower grades. Perhaps it is the toe in the water syndrome whereby one must wait to see how it works out. I would like to think that lower grades would have the opportunity to apply for permanent positions on a cross-Border basis. Perhaps the Minister will consider applying the measure to the rank of sergeant, assuming the system works well. Both police forces could benefit from this exchange.
As I have said during previous debates on crime, etc., in many instances the performance of gardaí in divisions, areas and towns relates directly to the quality of management. Obviously, opening up the system so that people of quality can be appointed to managerial positions within the Garda will be of benefit. The wider the scope the better, and this would be one way of achieving it.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support Senator Jim Walsh's suggestion. I am not sure how many women there are at a rank above inspector in the South.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are very few, if any. We are now eliminating the possibility for women to participate in this scheme. I support Senator Walsh's proposal that the rank should be lowered.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The part of the agreement relating to two police forces is based on Recommendation 128 of the Patten Commission which states:
Lateral entry of experienced officers from other police forces or services, and secondments or recruitments from non-police organisations should be actively encouraged.
It goes on to say:
The Patten report recommended that the community balance at more senior ranks in the Police Service should be redressed by lateral entry from other police services. The two Governments have committed themselves to taking all necessary steps to facilitate lateral entry to both services at ranks above inspector, including the bringing forward of any necessary legislation. Issues relating to equivalence of ranks and qualifications, selection procedures and administrative measures on entry need to be resolved in both jurisdictions.
The Senator is correct. It is the beginning of something new which we will review in light of our experience.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support the general point made by Senators Jim Walsh and Terry. I presume the programmes to which we referred will provide opportunities for women members of the two forces to have experience in the other police force. Perhaps this measure could be built on.
Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I take it that exchanges under Article 5 of the agreement are not rank-related. In other words, women members of the Northern Ireland Police Service, who have very good experience in dealing with family violence and so on, could be drawn in for their expertise, regardless of rank.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is correct.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister of State who has been here for a full debate, other than the beginning when the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, was present. It is fair to say that we have had a good and engaging debate on this short but important Bill. I hope it will be of benefit to both the Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It will increase confidence on both sides of the Border in both police forces, which is important. The police in all jurisdictions work in the interests of the community, often at personal risk to themselves. They provide an invaluable service. While we may from time to time criticise certain failures, we should acknowledge that in general police forces play a fundamental role in society.
We have had an excellent debate for which I thank the Minister of State and compliment those who participated on reaching this agreement.
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister of State for spending so much time debating the Bill and replying to questions. The fact that the Bill has been put through so easily is a sign of the support for co-operation between the police forces, North and South. The benefits that will be gained, including the sharing of information and the joint tackling of crime, will be of enormous benefit to both jurisdictions. It is a new beginning of which I am very proud to have been part. I hope the measure will work well and will be put in place quickly.
Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I joint the other Senators in thanking the Minister of State for remaining here and discussing these important matters. If I could put on the mantle of the Patten Commission for a moment, I am sure we would all be very gratified to see one of the very important recommendations being brought into operation.
I do not want to cause too much distress by talking about things such as computers. It is important that there is an infrastructure behind this Bill's proposals and that the police forces, both North and South, are able to speak to each other and share information. I am sure that the exchanges of experience, skill and knowledge can only be of benefit to both services.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, for coming to the House to debate the Bill. It is an important part of the developing relationship between the UK, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I appreciate the need for the timely passing of the legislation, but I also reiterate the need for reforming legislation concerning the structures of accountability for the Garda Síochána. The Minister of State mentioned the proposed Garda inspectorate legislation. I ask the Government to go further than what is proposed, and examine the need for a Garda ombudsman and an independent Garda authority.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senators who have contributed constructively to this very important legislation. I thank those who put down amendments. I apologise that I could not accept any of them and that two were ruled out of order, but it generated debate, throwing light on various aspects of the Bill. It was a most constructive discussion and I will be bringing away some ideas from it. I appreciate the support we have received for the Bill.
Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I too want to be associated with the sentiments of other Senators. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, and the officials from his Department. Senator Terry said that the Bill went through very speedily and with no real upset. This was down to those efficient, hard-working Department officials who have been in the House for the past two days.
The timing of the Bill is important. It is apt that we are on the fifth anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement and Bills, such as this, a result of the Patten report, are coming through the House. I am glad it had a safe passage through the Seanad.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.55 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.