Middle rank gardaí are not resistant to change but they will oppose aspects of both the recent Hayes and O'Toole reports, writes Joe Dirwan
The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI) will oppose any attempt to introduce "accelerated" promotions as proposed in the recent reports of the Garda Inspectorate (The O'Toole Report) and the Advisory Group on Garda Management and Leadership Development (The Hayes Report).
We will oppose it, not because we do not want the brightest and the best to be promoted, but because we are in no way convinced that such fast-track promotions will, in the end, produce a better Garda organisation or one that is better led, managed and motivated.
In fact we see the system as one which would encourage nepotism and the selection of perceived "favourites" which in turn would demotivate all other members who had not been so selected and destroy the morale of the vast majority of hard-working and committed members. It must be remembered that the number of promotion places is severely limited in any case and over 80 per cent of the force never move beyond the rank of garda.
After years of campaigning by AGSI for a fair, transparent and objective promotion system we are now only into the first full year of a new agreed system which sees members promoted after passing the relevant exam and undergoing an interview based on a number of competencies. Interview boards have been restructured under this agreement which is subject to ongoing reviews involving management and staff representatives.
The process is overlooked by the Code of Practice for External and Internal Recruitment for Appointment to Positions in the Public Service. We feel that the current system should be given a chance to prove its worth before being junked for another which we see as fraught with dangers.
Both reports refer to current promotions being based mainly on seniority and "cohorts" moving forward at the same time. This is incorrect and the current promotion system, if operated correctly, is designed to produce candidates who are qualified under a range of competencies. Let those who are most competent be promoted.
We also see problems ahead with the proposal by both reports to give greater autonomy to the six Garda regions, each headed up by an assistant commissioner. At a time when Britain is gradually moving away from that nation's traditional model of local and regional police forces towards a more centralised system, we feel it would be a mistake to introduce a system which could lead to differing policing practices in the different regions.
We are also not in favour of six bureaucracies, or six mini-police forces replacing one, and we point to the regionalisation of the health boards as not a very happy experience. The O'Toole Report, however, contains many good points and we look forward to discussing both our criticisms and our praise with the Garda Inspectorate soon.
One of the major flaws in the Hayes Report is the assumption that civilians who have a private and commercial management expertise can be transplanted into a police management role. The report produces no evidence that this structure is a successful model anywhere. A classic example in the report is the proposal to appoint a civilian head of human resources management where the civilian would be in overall charge of Garda training - an expertise which is not readily found in the private sector. Could one, for example, see a similar proposal in relation to the Army?
It's interesting to note that none of the members of the Advisory Group - Maurice Hayes (chairman), Emer Daly, Maurice Keane and Michael Mulreany, all appointed by former minister for justice Michael McDowell - have any operational police experience whatever. In my opinion that's a bit like asking a committee, with no musician member, to plan for the future of an orchestra.
Incidentally Hayes quotes absolutely no research to back up the sweeping generalisations in his report.
This report appears to be confused in relation to civilianisation with references to the 300 recently appointed clerical assistants and, additionally, an internal 2001 agreement to replace gardaí in administrative positions with civilians.
AGSI has frequently pointed out that the need to provide more civilian support for gardaí is urgent, and indeed the report states that "the ratio of gardaí to civilian staff is remarkably low".
The levels of civilian support staff are ridiculous and should at least be quadrupled to meet the levels of other forces.
The 2001 agreement, on the other hand, identified administrative positions in the force which required Garda training and expertise - like the preparation of court files, for instance - and which should continue to be occupied by trained gardaí, some of whom could be recovering from injuries sustained on duty in the service of the State.
This agreement is being progressed and substantial progress has been made - incidentally, the use of the word "risible" by Hayes in relation to this progress took no account of these special circumstances, is unfortunate and pejorative and should not have been used in a report like this.
The Labour Court, in a recent judgment, has accepted that there are some administrative positions which require police expertise and should continue to be filled by gardaí.
The Hayes Report becomes almost intolerably vague when it refers to "proper arrangements are made for training and staff development . . ." What are "proper arrangements"? Surely the report should have spelled this out in greater detail?
Our experience with ongoing training in the Garda organisation, quite apart from the original training in the Garda College, is far from happy and many of our members complain that they are not offered opportunities to participate in what is known as continuous professional development (CPD) in spite of having to cope with a continuous stream of new legislation and regulations and directives from Garda headquarters.
The report, to be effective, should have spelled out the training arrangements to be adopted. O'Toole, on the other hand, has many positive suggestions to make about ongoing training.
Performance measurement is raised in Hayes and currently a working group comprising management and representatives is developing a model for An Garda Síochána. A possibly attractive business practice, its relevance to police work is still unproven - for instance how does one measure crime prevention?
While it exists for British police forces, those forces have far lower detection rates than the Garda. An Garda Síochána still, in spite of all its difficulties, enjoys a majority satisfaction rating in all polls.
We are in agreement with both reports when they call for roles and responsibilities to be spelled out clearly, something we again have been demanding for years. AGSI is not resistant to change, in fact multiple changes have already taken place in the force with our agreement and the agreement of other staff associations.
Finally, the reports have not been discussed with any of the staff associations under the partnership terms of the Towards 2016 pay agreement.
• Joe Dirwan is general secretary of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors