Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Feb 1925

Vol. 10 No. 1

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - MONEY RESOLUTION—POLICE FORCES AMALGAMATION BILL, 1924.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

I move:—

Go bhfuil sé oiriunach a udaru n-íocfar amach as airgead a sholá thróidh an tOireachtas gach costas agus eileamh fe n-a raghfar margo gheall ar an bhFórsa Cosanta a cuir-far le chéile fé fhorálacha aon Achta a rithfar sa tSiosón so chun Póilíní Chathrach Bhaile Atha Cliath agus an Gárda Síochána do chó-nasca agus chun forálacha do dhéanamh i dtaobh nithe a bhaineas leis an gcó-nasca san no a thiocfas dá bharr.

That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas of all costs, charges and expenses incurred in respect of the Amalgamated Force constituted under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amalgamate the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Gárda Síochána and to provide for divers matters inciden tal to or consequential on such amal gamation.

The necessary Message prescribed by the Constitution has been received from the Governor-General. The Bill with which this motion deals will cause no charge on the Exchequer, except the charge that will result from the gradual disappearance of the police rate. That amounts now to about £52,000 per annum, representing a rate of 8d. in the £, which will be reduced by a penny per annum, and thus disappear in eight years. This rate represents the only local contribution in aid of any police force. It has been felt that on the amalgamation of the D.M.P. and the Gárda Síochána and the disappearance of a separate police force for Dublin, it will not be possible to continue to levy this contribution. Provision is made in the Bill for the gradual extinction of the contribution. That is the only matter in the Bill which will cause any charge which does not now fall upon the Exchequer to do so.

Mr. JOHNSON

Are we to understand that the amendment which is down providing that after eight years there shall be a charge upon the local authorities, has escaped the notice of the Minister?

Mr. BLYTHE

It will not affect the motion which is down.

Mr. GOOD

Before this motion is passed, I would like to know whether the view taken by the Minister in proposing it will limit the authority of the Dáil, should it decide on eliminating those particular clauses. The question of carrying on this liability for a further period of seven or eight years is one that will occupy the attention of the Committee, and I want to be satisfied that the Committee will have a free hand and that they will not be restricted by anything the Minister has said in proposing this motion.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Committee would not be restricted by anything the Minister has said or can say. The Committee will, of course, be bound by the terms of the resolution as they may be interpreted—not necessarily as interpreted by the Minister.

Mr. GOOD

I gather from the terms of the resolution if the Committee, in its wisdom, thought it right to eliminate those clauses dealing with financial questions from the Bill, that the Bill in its amended form would still be within that resolution.

The PRESIDENT

The Deputy can relieve the Exchequer of any amount proposed in the Bill, but he cannot put on the Exchequer an amount not contemplated in the Bill. If the Deputy wants to know whether he can move that that 8d. in the £ rate be continued indefinitely, it is open to him to do that, but if he proposes to move that that rate be reduced to 4d. next year, he has not got that right.

Mr. GOOD

That puts rather a different complexion on this resolution. If we pass this resolution in the form in which it is before us, it will prevent us dealing with those particular clauses.

The PRESIDENT

That is in accordance with the Constitution.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The resolution does not prevent anything. The resolution is very general. The Deputy may be prevented from doing a thing he wants to do, but if he is he will not be prevented by this resolution but by the Standing Order which has been adopted, that no Deputy, except he be a member of the Executive Council, has authority to move to impose a charge upon the Public Funds. By "Public Funds" is understood National Funds, not local funds—the National Exchequer as distinct from a local fund of the Dublin Corporation or any other such body.

Mr. GOOD

Would it not be possible to widen the scope of this resolution so that we might have a free discussion on these financial clauses? It is rather a serious matter that in the Metropolitan area a burden will be continued under this Bill amounting to practically £50,000 per annum. Why the people of the Metropolitan area should pay that sum for a police force, in addition to the ordinary liability assumed by other sections of the community, is a matter that the Government will have to justify. I want the terms of this motion arranged so that we may have a free discussion on this matter which is so important to the ratepayers of the Metropolitan area.

The PRESIDENT

Deputy Good is, apparently, unaware that Deputy Johnson has secured, without canvassing and without asking, a recruit of his own importance. Nobody ever raised a question as regards the Constitution or the terms of the regulations respecting the exclusive right of Ministers to impose financial burdens, except I think Deputy Johnson's party, and even that party did it with very great reluctance on particular occasions——

Mr. JOHNSON

I wish the President would give us some reference.

The PRESIDENT

It was with regard to unemployment or extension or development or something of that kind. This suggestion of Deputy Good is one of the most unorthodox that could be imagined. It offends against every principle that makes for financial stability. Deputy Good, in essence, wants to be in the position of placing a burden upon the Exchequer, but at the same time not to have the responsibility of having that put publicly before the people as his suggestion. The Dublin Corporation have been protesting against this burden for years, but they never got any assistance from Deputy Good or the Chamber of Commerce.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We are not going to discuss the history of the Dublin Corporation and the police rate. It may be an excellent thing to discuss, but we are not going to discuss it now. In essence, what I think Deputy Good wants is that the Minister for Finance should introduce a Money Resolution to make it possible to do something which the Minister for Justice, who is a colleague of the Minister for Finance, and shares with him collective responsibility, does not want put in the Bill. I am afraid that is a difficult conundrum for the two Ministers in their positions.

Major COOPER

Would it not be in order to have this question raised on Section 16 of the Bill?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Certainly, but I do not want to rule upon amendments which I have not seen. Deputy Good, I think, wants to move an amendment of some kind.

Mr. GOOD

My point is this: In the event of certain decisions being come to by the Committee, throwing an additional burden on, shall I say, the Minister for Finance, can that be done in view of the limited nature of the Resolution before us?

Mr. BLYTHE

The Deputy, I think, is under a misapprehension in thinking that the Resolution is of a limited nature. It is, in fact, of the most general nature possible. So far as the Resolution is concerned, it will not prevent him moving anything.

Mr. GOOD

Is it constitutional?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy may be prevented, but not by the Resolution. Sometimes resolutions are very limited. This particular one is very general. There is a general provision by which a Deputy, other than a Member of the Executive Council, cannot move a motion to impose a burden upon the public Exchequer. That is to say, Deputy Good could move to reduce the income tax in the Finance Bill, but, even if he wanted to do so ever so much, he could not move to increase the income tax. That is the exact position.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is a great relief.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

It is a comforting assurance.

General MULCAHY

There is a point that, without going outside the scope of the discussion, I would like to raise now. It, to my mind, affects very deeply the Minister for Finance. Would he assure us that, in the development of the new police force, in the matter of clothing and equipment for them, whether of a utilitarian or dress nature, materials of non-Irish manufacture will not be used? I fear very much that, in the case of the Civic Guard, and of the Army—if it can be mentioned now—points have not been kept in mind recently with regard to Irish manufacture in the matter of dress that, I feel, should have been kept in mind. However necessary it may be in respect to matters that are absolutely utilitarian for these forces to get materials of foreign manufacture in cases where we cannot possibly provide the stuff economically in this country, where it is a matter purely of dress or ornamentation I feel that we should not go outside our own country for any matter of that kind.

The police force and the army, in these matters of dress, occupy, to some extent at any rate, a privileged position or a powerful position, perhaps, in what would be called setting the fashion. Apart altogether from the loss occasioned by sending out of the country money for ornamentations, either in materials or what we call trimmings for the dress of those forces, if we allowed ourselves in a pivotal position like that to tolerate the importation of dress materials for fancy purposes, the reactions on our people generally might be very bad and might create very much more serious financial obligations for the Minister for Finance than the actual and immediate loss to the country in utilising any money directly provided for the police force or the army in such a manner.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am glad that Deputy Mulcahy has raised this question of the dress of officers in the police force. We know that there is, quite commonly, a certain amount of rivalry between public forces of the defence kind, forces whose duty it is to keep order and to prevent trouble. I think it would be a very sad reflection on the policy of the Ministry if it were to encourage in any way, whether by paying out of public funds or throwing a burden upon the officers themselves, a liability for certain fancy dress for appearance on fancy dress occasions. I imagine it would create a very considerable amount of dissatisfaction if there were thrown on the officers of the police forces—the Civic Guard, or the D.M.P.—a responsibility for sums amounting to £20 or £30 for mess dress, for instance. I believe that the officers concerned would not be any more amenable to discipline, and the effect upon the Constables or the Guards would not be beneficial. Certainly the effect upon the public, as regards the reputation that has been gained by the Gárda Síochána and other forces of a similar kind, would not be enhanced or improved if there were a fashion set for, shall I say, the aping of the practices of the old and expiring aristocracy. I hope we will get some reassurance from the Minister for Justice that he, at any rate, will insist that as regards these forces there shall be no such thing as the dressing up of officers of the Gárda Síochána or the D.M.P. for show purposes, or of throwing upon individual officers on the one hand, or the revenue on the other, a charge which neither the one nor the other ought to be asked to bear.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We are not concerned with the expenses that individual officers are asked to bear. It is a question of public funds.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is a matter of discipline. An officer would not be allowed to appear on certain occasions unless in certain dress, so that although it is not directly a matter of public funds, indirectly it might well become a charge upon the public funds if the Dáil were to allow it.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not propose to reply to Deputy Johnson, and I do not know really what instances Deputy General Mulcahy was referring to. It is the policy of the Government to use Irish manufacture and to give a substantial preference to Irish manufacture, and I think this has consistently been done. I should be glad to know of any instance in which it has not been done. It should be obvious on the other hand that we cannot take up a policy of buying Irish manufacture at any cost. There must be a limit, and people who supply Irish manufacture at goods must know they have to compete, even although they may be sheltered in their competition. But they must not have the idea that Irish manufacture will be taken, and that no matter what profit is made on it still the contract would be secure. The policy of giving a substantial preference to Irish manufacture has not been departed from as far as I know. If it has, it has only been by something of an accidental nature.

Resolution agreed to: Ordered to be reported.