took the Chair.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - POLICE FORCES AMALGAMATION BILL, 1924.—THIRD STAGE.
Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) On and from the commencement of this Act the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Gárda Síochána shall be amalgamated and form one force (which force is in this Act referred to as the amalgamated force), and it shall thenceforward be lawful for the Executive Council to train, equip, pay, and maintain such amalgamated force as a police force in Saorstát Eireann.
(2) The amalgamated force shall be called and know as the Gárda Síochána, and shall consist of such officers and men as the Executive Council shall from time to time determine not exceeding the total numbers of officers and men respectively specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.
There is just one point on this section that I would like to ask a question about. Section 5 transfers the whole of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, including the Detective Division. I was not in the Dáil when the Gárda Síochána were set up, and I wish to ask the Minister for Justice is there any statutory provision that prevents the arming of the Gárda, because if so, that would then, under this section, apply to the Detective Force, and that would not be desirable.
No. There is no statutory provision preventing the arming of the Gárda Síochána.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 11.
(1) No officer or other member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Gárda Síocháan shall be capable of holding office or acting in any way as an officer or other member of the amalgamated force after the expiration of one month from the commencement of this Act unless he has before the commencement of this Act taken the oath or made the declaration required by law to be taken or made by officers or other members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Gárda Síochána (as the case may be) or shall before the expiration of the said month make and subscribe before a Peace Commissioner a declaration in the form contained in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
(2) No person appointed after the commencement of this Act to be an officer or other member of the amalgamated force shall be capable of holding the office or acting in any way therein until he shall have made and subscribed before a Peace Commissioner a declaration in the form contained in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
I beg to move as an amendment:—
Before Section 11 to add a new section as follows:—The Commissioner of the amalgamated forces shall appoint a Deputy-Commissioner, or an Assistant Commissioner, who shall be specially charged with the control and supervision of those officers and men of the Gárda Síochána who are serving in the Dublin Metropolitan area, and who shall also be responsible for the public order and security of that area.
I move this amendment with a view to providing more efficient administration and control of the police force of the Metropolitan area than is provided by the Bill. On Second Reading I asked the Minister how Dublin would be controlled in future. He said that the present Commissioner of the D.M.P. who, under the Bill would become Deputy Commissioner of the Gárda, would no doubt exercise a special interest in Dublin, and, in addition, there would be a Chief Superintendent who would be in charge of the Dublin Metropolitan area. With all respect to the Chief Superintendents of the Gárda who are responsible officers of high rank, I venture to think that the Dublin area is too big to be controlled by one Chief Superintendent. We have in the Bill no guarantee that it will have any officer of higher rank interested in it— of course, the Commissioner will be interested, but it will not be his exclusive care. I want to make it his exclusive care. I want to make it the exclusive care and responsiblity of one individual. There are to be altogether 29 Chief Superintendents for the 26 Counties. The Metropolitan area has a population of well over 400,000 people, about one-eighth of the whole of the Saorstát. It contains the High Courts of Justice, the State Legislature, the principal business emporiums, and two of the chief universities. It has very special problems, and problems that should be the definite charge of some officer of high rank—a rank higher than that of Chief Superintendent General Mruphy, having special knowledge and experience of Dublin problems, might probably be giving up the Commissionership and the general supervision and care of that area. General Murphy might suddenly be told to take an interest in affairs in Munster, or he might cease to hold office in Dublin. All men are mortal, and there is no guarantee in the Bill that any important officer would be in charge of Dublin. The problems of Dublin are very great. There are great traffic problems, street trading problems, and a problem that the Ministry has not yet tackled, but will have to tackle in time, namely, the control of public meetings and the extent to which they should be allowed within the immediate radius of this building and the Seanad Chamber. All these are very specialised problems for a special officer, not merely for one of the 29 superintendents who may possibly, though not probably, be a junior officer. He might be a man whose previous experience was gained in Clare or Mayo with very little knowledge of urban problems at all. I agree that while the force is under its present control that is not likely to arise. But I want to create a statutory safeguard so that it shall not arise, and that one of the five chief officers of the force in Dublin should be a man to whom the citizens could look for help and sympathy, and whom they could approach without troubling the Commissioner, but he should be in a position to be made responsible to the public opinion of Dublin so far as it is able to express itself.
I do not propose to accept this amendment. I interpret the amendment as really conflicting with the underlying principle of the entire Bill, and as inconsistent with the whole object the Bill seeks to achieve —the unity of control and responsibility of the police force. Deputy Cooper in explaining and advocating his amendment said that he moved it with a view to providing more efficient administration in the metropolis, and that he was actuated by a desire to make the policing of the metropolis the exclusive responsibility of one individual. I also want to make the policing of the metropolis the responsibility of one individual, but that one individual will be the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána.
I think that the conception of some other individual than the Commissioner of the force with an exclusive responsibility for the policing in Dublin is, in fact, a traversing of the principle of the Bill and of the object at which the Bill aims. I see no stronger case for having statutory responsibility placed on one individual for the policing of Dublin than, say, for the policing of Cork. He will have an adminstrative responsibility, and the sanctions of that responsibility will be the sanctions of discipline. If we agree that it is a proper thing to have a single police force operating throughout the entire area of jurisdiction of the State, then I submit that it is not a proper thing to move on from that conception and have, side by side with it, the conception of some special legal as distinct from administrative or disciplinary responsibility, some special statutory responsibility on an officer of the force, other than the Commissioner of the force. In fact and in practice, a Deputy Commissioner will always have special primary responsibility for the conditions of order in the capital, but his responsibility will be through the Commissioner to the Minister. It will not be a statutory responsibility. I submit that Deputy Cooper's design to make it so, is not well founded and would mean in fact or, at any rate, tend to a return to the conception of two distinct police areas, which is exactly what I am trying to get away from, because I am satisfied it does not make for efficiency in police administration and constitutes a factor in favour of the law breaker. The amendment in its wording speaks of a Deputy, or Assistant, Commissioner who shall be responsible for public order and security in the Dublin Metropolitan area. Responsibility to whom?
I intended him to be responsible to the Commissioner, and should have added those words.
Responsible to the Commissioner. All the officers of the Gárda Síochána are responsible to the Commissioner, and through him to the Minister, and through the Minister to the Dáil and the people, but this amendment under consideration seeks to impose some special or statutory responsibility on one particular officer for the police administration of the Dublin area. I see no necessity for that, and in so far as it tends to break away from the conception of the area of jurisdiction of the State I dissent from it. It is not any question of degree but in essence and in principle, there is no greater case for putting special statutory responsibility on one officer of police for Dublin area than there is for proceeding to do the same for Cork, Waterford, and elsewhere. Therefore, I am not accepting the amendment, and I ask the Dáil to agree with that view.
I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply. I do not think that a word of the amendment undermines the authority of the Commissioner. I would not stand for that in any way. I say that it is ridiculous for a Commissioner for the whole Saorstát to be called on to deal, as some officer will have to deal, with the whole question of Dublin. When dealing with gunmen, say, in Kerry and disturbed conditions in Leitrim, he should not have his attention diverted from that to the question of parking motor cars outside the Chamber of Commerce. City problems are special problems. There is nothing in the amendment about Cork or Waterford, but if I were a Deputy from Cork or Waterford I might put down an amendment to that effect. There is a precedent in the days of the old R.I.C., which was a unified force for the whole island. It was found that it was impossible to administer the City of Belfast under the ordinary R.I.C. system, and they had to establish a City Commissioner and a special force in Belfast to deal with the problems in that area. I am not particular as to the rank of the officer chosen, but I think that the Chief Superintendent, as one of such a comparatively large number, would not carry sufficient authority and weight. The Chief Superintendent, who is charged with administering the whole area from Killiney to Clontarf or Rathmines, will be grossly overworked as compared with any other Chief Superintendent.
Imagine the severity of the task of the Chief Superintendent in Dublin as compared with, say, the Chief Superintendent in Kilkenny or Longford. There is no provision in the Bill to give the Chief Superintendent who is responsible for Dublin any extra pay, although he would have under his command a far larger force of men than probably three other Chief Superintendents. If the Dublin force is to be properly supervised it will not require one but at least three superintendents, judging by the scale on which things are done in the rest of the country. If you have three such officers you must have a senior officer to supervise. The Minister objects to it being made a statutory obligation to do this, but I believe that making it a statutory obligation is the only way by which we shall be assured of getting it done. If the amalgamation is to work—and I agree with it in principle—it will work badly in Dublin unless an amendment such as mine is adopted. If it is rejected now, I believe that sooner or later the Minister will have to come to the Dáil, or else by administrative action, and do what I am asking the Dáil to do now.
I think I explained to the Deputy that in fact and in practice there will be special and primary responsibility on the Deputy Commissioner for good order in Dublin city and county, a division which will be known in future as the metropolitan division of the Gárda Síochána. My objection is to making that a statutory responsibility which would seem to take away from the primary responsibility of the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána for all the area over which the Gárda Síochána operates and over every man who is a member of the force. I do not feel at all that the question of good order or security in Dublin city and county will suffer by a refusal to accept this particular amendment.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
Before Section 11 to add a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister shall establish by order a Consultative Council for giving advice and assistance to the Commissioner of the amalgamated force in connection with any matter in relation to the public order and security of the Dublin Metropolitan area.
(2) The said Consultative Council shall be composed as follows:—
(i) four members to be nominated by the Corporation of the City of Dublin; (ii) two members to be nominated by the Rathmines Urban District Council; (iii) one member to be nominated by each of the Urban Councils of Pembroke, Blackrock, and Dun Laoghaire; (iv) one member to be nominated by the Urban District Councils of Dalkey and Killiney, sitting jointly under arrangements to be made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health; (v) one member to be nominated by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce; (vi) one member to be nominated by the Dublin Workers' Council.
Each member shall retain his membership for three years only, from the date of his nomination, but shall be eligible for renomination.
(3) In the event of any local governing body entitled to nominate members of the Consultative Council being dissolved by order of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, the member, or members, nominated by that body shall continue to serve on the Council until the expiration of their term of membership, but, in the event of any vacancy occurring among them, the nomination to fill the vacancy shall be made by the person, or persons, to whom the duties of the said local governing body have been entrusted by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
(4) The said Consultative Council shall meet whenever summoned by the Commissioner of the amalgamated force, and also on such occasions as the Council may, from time to time, determine.
This amendment intends, in principle, to establish the consultative council named, by which representatives of the ratepayers should assist the Commissioner in the administration of the Dublin metropolitan area. I have given four members to the Corporation of the City of Dublin, two to the Rathmines Urban Council, one each to Pembroke, Blackrock, and Dun Laoghaire Councils, and one to Dalkey and Killiney, jointly. I have also given a certain element of outside representation, one to represent the Chamber of Commerce, and one the Dublin Workers' Council. I have also made provision for the not impossible contingency of any of these local bodies being dissolved by order of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I have provided that existing representatives shall hold office for three years, and if the necessity arises the office is to be held by any Commissioner performing the duties. In drafting this amendment I have followed as nearly as I could the consultative council established by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture in connection with the Livestock Breeding Bill. I think that there should be some element of popular selection and popular control in the administration of the Bill, particularly in view of the fact that in later years very considerable contributions from the rates will be paid for the maintenance of the force.
In most English cities there is, as the Minister knows, what is known as a Watch Committee which has complete supervision of the police force. This is not a Watch Committee. It will not concern itself with the question of promotion or dicipline in any way whatever. It will be merely there to meet and consult with the Commissioner on points that are of very legitimate concern to the citizens, as to the adequacy of protection afforded in certain areas, as to the control of traffic, bye-laws about street trading, and the holding of public meetings in a public thoroughfare. These are points upon which the local authority has a certain right to express opinion, and, by means of this Council, that opinion will be given expression to.
From time to time we see letters in the newspapers complaining of inadequate police control in certain areas, and that hooligans are allowed to make noise late at night—a thing which the Minister for Justice would not approve of—or complaining of the riotous conduct of children. It is a great pity to have these complaints in the papers, and it would be much better if there was a definite channel by which they could be brought to the notice of the Commissioner, or someone in authority. In the event of the council that I suggest being set up it would be possible for anyone with a grievance to write to the local member of the council, who would investigate the matter, and if satisfied that it was a cause of complaint, he would be in a position to bring it before the Commissioner in the same way that Deputies are able to bring grievances before Ministers in the Dáil.
I know that there is a certain dislike in the mind of members of the Government towards doing anything that may detract from responsibility. The Consultative Council does not detract from responsibility. It is a device adopted by Ministers in many cases during the last year, though I admit that Ministers usually maintain the right of nominating their own council. As rates are paid for the police in the Dublin area, and not paid for the police in any other area, I think the case for the existence of a council of this kind is extremely strong, and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
The Deputy does not, apparently, share a superstitious dislike of the number thirteen. He proposes to set up a consultative committee of thirteen persons to advise the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána as to how best to keep order and create conditions of security for life and property in the metropolitan area. He quotes in favour of that course the analogy, or alleged analogy, of another Department which set up consultative committees. He speaks of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, having availed themselves of consultative committees for one purpose or another connected with their Department. I submit there is something of a difference between the question of police work and certain problems that fall for consideration, say, by the Minister for Agriculture. I have not any natural genius for police work, but, certainly, I would not like to be the officer who would be compelled from time to time, in a particular set of conditions, to seek counsel or inspiration from thirteen persons representing different elements and different points of view within the city. I imagine he would come out from such a council meeting somewhat less wise and less inspired than when he went in. I wholly disapprove of the suggestion.
The Deputy says that the local authorities should have the right to express an opinion. That is not a very revolutionary sentiment. It is one with which I am in entire agreement. The right to express an opinion is one thing, but the right to take executive action is another. Police problems, or certain kind of police problems and responsibilities, cannot be shared between the police officer and a body of thirteen laymen—thirteen civilians—elected haphazard by a half-dozen local authorities. The Deputy speaks of letters in the evening papers—probably written in the office of the evening papers— about children kicking football in the streets, and people trying their top notes on the way home late at night, and so on. There is no objection to these letters at all, and I have only this comment to make about them, that it might be a little more practical if, instead of being sent to the papers, they were sent to my Department. It is eminently proper that people who are conscious of a nuisance or abuse in the city should draw attention to it through one or other channel. It is quite another thing to move on, and say that the officer responsible for the police administration in Dublin must take counsel from time to time with a body of thirteen laymen—thirteen civilians— elected by the local authorities.
The said Consultative Council shall meet whenever summoned by the Commissioner of the amalgamated force and also on such occasion as the Council may, from time to time, determine.
It is not entirely optional on the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána to seek advice when he feels in need of it, but it is put, according to the Deputy's amendment, outside that, when it feels called upon to advise the Commissioner. We might as well be practical. Imagine a situation, say, when you have industrial disputes of one kind or another in the city, and the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána is called upon to take counsel with this mixed body of thirteen persons, each with his own point of view, and with his own particular interest, as to the steps which he ought to take for maintaining proper order and security, and possibly the steps he ought not to take. In so far from making for efficient administration it would simply make for friction and chaos. It sounds nice. It is the kind of thing that one can enthuse about, the right of public bodies to express an opinion and so on. But in practice it would be almost incapable of smooth administration. I disapprove of it. I feel that if the Deputy were a Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána he would disapprove of it. I feel that if he were Minister for Justice he would also disapprove of it. He would probably disapprove of it a little more strongly after six or twelve months' experience of it in operation. I am not accepting the amendment.
I can quite understand the Minister's state of mind when he says he is opposing this amendment, and the ideas involved in it. In giving us that information he tells us that, no doubt, if Deputy Cooper were Commissioner of Police, he also would disapprove of the proposal. Of course, every person in such a position is going to disapprove of any suggestion about receiving advice from anybody.
No.
Yes. It is the very essence of the idea of centralised control of any public service. That means centralised control in the hands of one man not subject to criticism. The Minister has imbibed the R.I.C. spirit.
What is that?
Perhaps if the Minister looks up his records in Donegal and Mayo he will see what it is. The Minister has taken upon himself the ideas that used to prevail about the necessity of having a militarised police force in Ireland, and centralised control, not having any intervention or interference from any public authority of any kind, responsible to the Chief Secretary, who was responsible to the Ministry in London—centralised control of militarised forces. Now one asks oneself what is the conception of future development in the mind of the Minister? Does he imagine that they are always going to be ruled and governed in all parts of the country, from, shall I say, Merrion Street, in matters of local administration? We have apparent in the Bill of the Minister for Local Government a tendency towards bureaucracy. We have now in this Bill, and, particularly, in the statement of the Minister, refuting Deputy Cooper's arguments, his adhesion to the idea of a centralised force responsible only to the Minister, who in turn is responsible to a body—the Dáil—representing the whole country, and collectively a body without any definite local responsibility.
I realise, as well as anyone, perhaps, that we are not now in a position to devolve upon local authorities power for the maintenance of order locally. I do not think that the time is at hand when the local peace forces can be locally controlled. But I look forward to the time when the police forces of the country will not be centrally controlled, and will be, in fact, controlled locally, with whatever national coordinating authority there may be. The Minister does not seem to imagine that there can be any improvement upon centralised militarised forces to act as peace forces. I support the idea in this amendment, reserving the right to suggest certain alterations. I believe it is desirable to associate locally elected authorities with the administration of peace officers, in the work of keeping order, and advising the police authority what their desires are, and what are the needs of the district. The Minister assumes that the Commissioner of Police will be sufficiently in touch with the needs of the community. It is possible that that may be so. A benevolent autocrat is very often looked upon as the most idealistic method of Government, if you can find a benevolent autocrat, and be sure that you are to get one with sufficient benevolence to govern rightly.
Benevolently.
Yes, benevolently, as Deputy Figgis suggests. But we are not sure of our Commissioners of Police; we are not sure of our Ministers for Justice. When the Minister refers to the idea of a local authority having at least the right of approach to the Commissioner of Police with regard to the keeping of order in the locality which it represents, as though it were something new, has he ever heard of police committees of public bodies, corporations, county councils or the like? It is entirely in keeping with the best and, as I believe, the freest method of administration of police forces that can be found anywhere. If the Minister and the Dáil desire that the system of the R.I.C. shall continue, that is centralised police forces covering the whole country, under the direction of one man, who, in the happy and frequently-expressed phrase of the Minister, may press a button himself and be responsible to the Minister for Justice for the time, and not have any obligation upon him to consult or take into account the authorities responsible for the local administration, then, of course, the Dáil will pass this Bill and reject the amendment.
I suggest that if we look ahead, and if we look for development in the direction of autonomy and local responsibility for purely local affairs, we ought at least to take this step and approve of the appointment of a Committee representative of the existing local authorities, until they change, a Committee that would act as a body whom the Commissioner would be able to approach and consult, and who, in turn, would be able to approach the Commissioner in matters affecting their localities. I disagree with the proposition that the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin, and the Workers' Council of Dublin should appoint any of these persons. I believe that the locally-elected authority is the body which should have the appointment of any such Committee. I, therefore, approve of, and I will support the motion of Deputy Cooper with that reservation.
I remember that, some time ago, the Minister for Justice told us he was bad at arithmetic. I sympathise very much with him, because I, too, am bad at arithmetic. I am, however, capable of simple addition. If the Minister for Justice will take his pad and write down the figures I am about to give him, the result of a small sum in addition might be of interest to him. There are four members nominated by the Corporation of the City of Dublin, two nominated by Rathmines, three by each urban district council, one being from each; one nominated by two urban councils sitting jointly, one representing the Chamber of Commerce, and one the Dublin Workers' Council. If the Minister adds that list up he will find it makes twelve and not thirteen. If the Minister cannot do the adding himself, perhaps the Minister for Finance would help him.
I do not know how the Minister arrived at the figure of thirteen. I think he must have thought that "Dun" was one place and "Laoghaire" another. It reminds me of the foreign journalist who once said that the two most important men in the Government were Kevin and O'Higgins. That is apparently the basis of the Minister's reasoning. His reasoning is as sound in that matter as his arithmetic, if one is to judge by the arguments he has brought to bear on this matter. He speaks of a council of thirteen when I speak of a council of twelve. I am quite willing to make it a council of ten. I do not know if the Chamber of Commerce or the Workers' Council would have any serious objection to a council of ten. The Minister says that if I were Minister or Commissioner of Police I would not have such a council. If I were Minister I would appoint an advisory council in order to be able to share some of the responsibility. I admit I would appoint them myself and not have them appointed by local bodies. But I am not Minister and I am not a bureaucrat. The Minister tells me that to work with a committee of this kind would render administration almost an impossiblity. He suggested that to do so would interfere with the control of affairs. My suggestion is purely with a view to having advice and assistance, and nothing else.
Can you guarantee assistance?
As to assistance, I refer to the assistance of collective wisdom. As to the Minister's point in regard to the Committee, consultative committees under the Minister for Lands and Agriculture are already operating, and I should imagine they could do as much harm to the live-stock trade as the committee I suggest could do to the police force. The Minister contends that such a system would be almost incapable of administration. Let me inform him that that system is being administered in Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool—all places with a large Irish population. It is also, I believe, administered in London. In every one of these cities the chief constable has to work with a committee appointed by the local governing body, and the system works well. Those cities and towns are not worse policed or less orderly, taken as a general rule, than Dublin. What is being done every day across the water is quite impossible here, we are told. You could not administer it here simply because those responsible for administration have not vision enough to see what an improvement it would be.
This amendment raises a rather important matter. The committee Deputy Cooper proposes to set up would, in my judgement, be very ineffective at the present time. It would be ineffective because of the circumstances we are faced with. I think it is right and proper the Dáil should pass this Bill amalgamating the two forces; but I view with very grave apprehension the state of affairs that would exist provided the conditions we are faced with to-day would also continue in operation. The underlying idea of Deputy Cooper is, I think, that the police force, as a whole, as far as Dublin is concerned—and possibly he would extend his argument to other parts of the country—should not be put in the autocratic position of a force being a law unto themselves, or, rather, a law based on the authority of the Minister for Justice. That danger does exist.
The remedy really lies in the development of the local government of the country. Local government to-day is in a position of grave discredit. Surely the Dáil is not looking forward to a continuance of those conditions. Under the new Local Government Bill, county councils are being set up with certain powers. As far as they are concerned, it does seem to me that the Minister is forecasting a curtailment of their operations, which curtailment, when it comes into effect, will be resented by them to a great extent. Take, for example, the position of Dublin. We are without any representative Corporation. Surely we cannot contemplate that state of affairs existing beyond a reasonable time. We have now a Greater Dublin Commission sitting, and possibly changes will take place in connection with the area that will be governed by the Corporation at no very distant date.
Query.
I am only throwing that out as a possibility. At all events, it seems to me that when the new Corporation comes into operation, they will and must have a very considerable say on the question of whether the Dublin area is being properly administered under the provisions of this Bill, or whether they are not entitled to have some say in connection with the administration of the city police force. A nominated miscellaneous committee, without any responsibility, would be a retrogade step. I would accept this Bill for a transition stage, but, beyond the transition stage, I believe that the claim of Dublin citizens through their Corporation, or in other directions, will be insistent that they should have a voice in connection with all matters of city control. I would certainly look with very grave apprehension on a body such as Deputy Cooper proposes to set up, as it would interfere with the discipline of the police force. I think it will be bound to come into conflict with the Commissioner of Police, and I think will be bound to interfere with the due and proper carrying out of the duties that would be entrusted to the Commissioner and which he is responsible for. It is a very different thing from saying that the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána should be entrusted with any such arbitrary powers as are outlined in this Bill without some provision for public opinion having an effect on the force as a whole, and particularly on the force as it will operate in the city.
I was not quite able to follow the whole tendency of Deputy Hewat's argument, because it seems to me that he at first started by urging that the amendment should be defeated, and then urging that the substance of the principle embodied in the amendment—which is that there should be some close connection between the administration of a centralised police force and the areas over which that administration is to be conducted—was a right and proper principle. As I understood him, he justified that apparent contradiction by appealing to that measure as a temporary measure. Well, there is nothing in the measure to indicate that it is temporary and there is a great fear that any Legislature might undertake a measure of this kind, considering it as a temporary measure, and once it finds its way to that resting place known as the Statute Book, it becomes not a temporary measure, but a very permanent measure, difficult to dislodge or amend.
The Minister for Justice will remember that when the Gárda Síochána Act was before the Dáil, in the first Dáil of the Free State, a good deal of argument was brought before him that steps should be taken by him to bring that force into some contact with local areas and local bodies, especially urban and corporate bodies. I think I am correct in saying—if I am wrong the Minister will correct me—that the Minister did at that time say that he felt a certain degree of sympathy with that point of view, that he did feel that there ought to be some close contact between bodies locally elected and locally responsible and a force of this kind, administered as it would otherwise tend to be administered, as a bureaucratic and centralised police force.
I would like the Deputy to quote what I said.
Whether he expressed that sympathy or not—I have not the Minutes before me—I do not know, but I do know that point of view was strongly urged upon him. Another point of view was urged upon him at the same time, but this other matter was experimental. It was that the Gárda Síochána should be sent out at a time of civil war and that it should be unarmed and thrown upon the people and their confidence and support. I am glad to say that the Minister accepted and urged that point of view himself very forcibly. It looked to be, and many people did at the time profess it to be, unduly optimistic with regard to the people's support of a force of this kind. I think the Minister would be the first to admit now that that was a right action to have taken, and that nothing did actually create a stronger feeling of responsibility for public order than the presence amongst the people of an unarmed police force. Now, the two things are not very dissimiliar. We do want to create in Ireland a sense amongst the people that the police force is their force. Unless that feeling can be created there will be no identity in the public mind with the enforcement of law, and the Minister must be aware that there is at the present moment a very deep-seated suspicion, not altogether without cause, that there is a tendency towards centralised bureaucratic control and that this Bill is one of these tendencies.
I am not altogether in agreement with the details of Deputy Bryan Cooper's amendment. Rather than to see a general consultative council of this kind acting for all Ireland, I would much prefer to see some council representing Dublin, some council representing Cork, and that the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána should find himself in and under law be compelled to enter into consultation with these consultative councils before he took any action in the areas from which they were nominated.
I would have preferred that form, and I am now speaking generally in the advocacy of the principle of this amendment, the principle, as I understand it, being that the administration of a centralised force of this kind, existing throughout the entire territory of the Free State, gathered entirely into the hands of one man, is a dangerous principle unless that administration is brought into contact with local bodies, and local bodies nominating consultative councils of some sort so that there might be contact between the administration of a force of this kind and the popular will. The Minister may say that he would doubt the wisdom of the advice given by these bodies. He has suggested that doubt. He has also suggested a doubt as to whether there will be any real co-operation given. That doubt was also expressed in the summer of 1923 as to whether people would cooperate with the unarmed Gárda Síochána, and the people have co-operated and are, in the main, co-operating. It is a well-known principle that the Minister should be very familiar with, that it is only by exercising a faculty that that faculty can be preserved and continued. If the people's sense of responsibility is going to be divorced from the maintenance of law and order, by the existence of a bureaucratic police force, then that faculty will fall into desuetude, and this Bill will do harm. Therefore, I urge upon him, without advocating all the details of the amendment, the general priciple of the amendment, which I take to be that a centralised police force in which all power is gathered into the hands of one man, whose acts cannot in all detail be brought into review in this House, because the knowledge will not be within the possibility of ascertainment by this House, should be brought into contact in general administration with bodies that are representative of the public will over the territory where that administration is conducted.
I am somewhat surprised to hear at this stage what we did not hear on the Second Reading, that the tendency of this Bill is bureaucratic, and I am rather surprised to hear that word at all in connection with administration in a country where adult suffrage, proportional representation and other systems of that kind prevail. You do get down in the end to the question of where you want responsibility to lie in connection with your police force, whether you want it to lie here to the Dáil, through a Minister, or to dissipate it over the country to this local authority and that local authority. There are two conceptions: there is the conception of the local force, subsidised, possibly, to a proportion by the State, and there is the other conception which, in our wisdom, or unwisdom, we have opted for here, the conception of a centralised State police force, maintained out of money provided by the Parliament and regarding which there is the responsibility of a Minister to the Parliament. Deputy Cooper talks of Liverpool, Leeds, and other cities, with their Watch Committees, as I think they are called, which supervise the work of the local force. That is one conception, and if it were considered that that is the wisest thing for this country, and that we would get the best results in that way, we really ought to repeal the Gárda Síochána Act, divest ourselves of the responsibility for the policing of the country and place it in Watch Committees set up here and there, in Ennis, Tralee, Galway and other towns. I am far from thinking that that is the wisest conception, that it is in the interests of the country, or in the best interests of efficient police administration. There is one or the other conception, and there is this hybrid thing between the two which Deputy Cooper embodies in this amendment. You are to have a State force: that is all right. He does not dissent from the principle of the Bill. He did not dissent on Second Reading: he does not dissent now. You are to have a State force maintained out of moneys voted by the Oireachtas.
The responsibility is to lie in the Dáil through a Minister, but at the same time you are to have twelve or thirteen persons who will advise and assist your police officers. I have no doubt that they will advise; whether they will all advise the same thing is another question, and whether they will assist, collectively or individually, is another. This Committee would have no responsibility to the Dáil or through the Dáil to the people for what it would advise, and is the police officer's responsibility to his Commissioner, or through him to the Minister and the Dáil, to be diminished in any way in regard to a particular matter, through the fact that he has this morning attended a meeting of these twelve gentlemen; and that they had advised him to do a particular thing? In other words, taking the actual concrete facts of the case, is an indiscretion on the part of a police officer to be diminished in any way by reason of the fact that he acted in accordance with advice given by this body, born of Deputy Cooper's brain? Or let us assume that there was not a full attendance, and that he took the advice of a particular two or three. Is his responsibility to his Commissioner less because he took the advice of two or three members of this body?
It is the Commissioner it advises. The Minister has not read the amendment.
I have read the amendment. Is the Commissioner's responsibility for his acts to be diminished in any way by reason of his acting on the advice of a particular two or three of these gentlemen?
He is obviously the final authority to decide whether he may take it or not.
The Commissioner may be summoned before this body, and may be harangued by them along a particular line.
Invited to meet them.
As I say, take a local authority which is maintaining the police in its area, or, to a large extent, bearing that expense. That is one conception. It would then be simply a State subsidy, and the real authority and the real responsibility would lie on a particular body. We have decided that the line of responsibility shall be through the Dáil, and I have the feeling that it would be unwise to take a step that would tend in any way to weaken or obliterate that line. We are told that local authorities should have a voice and a say in the matter. These are vague expressions. Who denies them a voice or a say? Surely our whole idea of government is that particular individuals for the time being have responsibility to the Dáil for certain spheres of administration. Is it not open to any person or to any body of persons to make whatever representations they may wish to the Ministers who are, for the time being, the political heads of Departments? Is there anything to prevent a Dublin Corporation of the future, or a Blackrock, Rathmines or Dun Laoghaire Urban Council, or any of the bodies mentioned in the amendment, form making any representations they wish to make, from presenting any memoranda that they wish to present, on the question of police work, either in the metropolitan area or in their own particular districts?
Is there any machinery by which such memoranda will be dealt with by a clerk and never brought to the notice of the Commissioner at all?
There is machinery by which Deputy Cooper can ask questions about it——
When the Dáil has adjourned?
——and he must get answers. And when memoranda on important matters are submitted, they get all the attention in the Departments which they deserve, and the responsibility of the Minister remains. The Deputy can take it as a very sure thing that memoranda submitted on police matters will in turn be submitted for their observations to the police authorities. But this body of twelve is another matter. I bow to the Deputy's superior mathematical knowledge. I had not noticed that Dalkey and Killiney Councils were to sit jointly and select one of these twelve rulers of the metropolis. We heard, some time ago, about twenty-five men who had been nominated to govern the world. The Deputy would have twelve to govern Dublin city and county. I think such a body would give many counsels to a Commissioner. The net result of his occasional consultations with this body would be simply to impress him more and more with the inutility, so to speak, of such consultations, and I imagine that very few sittings of that body would take place on his initiative, and that after a while very few would take place on anyone's initiative. If the line of responsibility for the police work of the country is not clear enough in a Dáil elected on an adult franchise basis we should reexamine the Gárda Síochána Act, but we ought not in this way, simply by trimmings to a Bill of this kind, set up fantastic councils whose powers or functions we ourselves scarcely know. They certainly are not defined in the amendment. We are told generally that they are to assist and advise, and, as I say, I doubt the net value of the advice, and I doubt if the Deputy can guarantee assistance.
The powers and functions referred to by the Minister are defined in exactly the same words as the Minister for Lands and Agriculture has defined the powers and functions of his advisory council. If my advisory council is open to criticism so is his, and I did not hear the Minister, or any Deputy, criticising his verbiage.
If the Deputy cannot recognise that there is a difference between police work and cattle breeding, then I despair.
I admit that there is a difference, but it is not customary to use very different phraseology in statutes dealing with these matters. Deputy Hewat, as far as I understood him, approved of the principle of my amendment but disliked its wording. I find myself in the position of the gentleman in Dickens who wanted to see Mrs. Todgers' idea of a wooden leg. I want to see Deputy Hewat's idea of an amendment. If he does not like my amendment but likes the principle of it, why does he not put down an amendment of his own? If it covered the same ground I would be delighted to support him.
I do not think that I expressed approval of Deputy Cooper's amendment at all.
I approve of certain basic principles underlying the latter part of Deputy Hewat's speech which I would like to see embodied in the amendment. Deputy Figgis was rather short-sighted in one respect in his criticism. He suggested that I was setting up this council for the whole country. That is not the case; it was in specific reference to the Dublin Metropolitan area. It would be open to Deputy Beamish or to any Cork Deputy to put in a similar amendment with regard to Cork, and a Deputy from Waterford or Limerick might do the same thing with regard to their respective constituencies. I was not merely legislating for the area which I happen to represent. The Minister invited me to put down amendments decentralising the police force. He has given me a great deal of instruction and I am grateful for it. I would be more grateful if he told me how to set down amendments which would be uniform in the Police Forces Amalgamation Bill.
I said if the Deputy approved of the idea of a decentralised police force then we could only meet him by a reorganisation of the Gárda Síochána Act, but I do not think it can be done by putting in trimmings like those.
If I bring in amendments will the Minister sit for the rest of the week and consider them?
I will if the other Deputies agree.
Am I to take that as a fair offer—that the Government will find time for such a Bill if I bring it in? It is rather unfair for Ministers who have at their disposal very much more material than private Deputies to taunt them with bringing in amendments.
Surely it is open to the Deputy to move here that the Dáil, after experience and observation of its defect, disagrees with the principle of a centralised police force as in the Gárda Síochána Act and to ask the Government to introduce a new Bill?
What would the effect be of a resolution of that kind on the discipline of the police force?
There would be an interesting debate.
It might be interesting or uninteresting. The Minister and I are concerned for the discipline of the police force, and any debate that would make them feel that their positions are not secure would be a disaster to the State. I hope I have too much sense of responsibility to put down a motion of that kind. I hope also that the final word is not a centralised police force. It is impossible for a private Deputy to introduce a measure of the kind the Minister suggests. It must be done by a Minister. If the Minister objects to the term "bureaucracy," then I will not use it. I say that the tendency is to have a centralised, as against a decentralised authority. That was the tendency of the Government in this and other matters. I am disposed to quarrel with that, because it is throwing on the Dáil more duties than the Dáil can perform, particularly when it adjourns now and then for a week at a time. It is all very well for Ministers to go down the country and talk about the responsibility of the Dáil. Responsibility can be made too much. It is like the quotation from Shakespeare's play, Henry V.: "Upon the Dáil" our lives, our souls and all our deaths." I am inserting the word "Dáil" instead of "King." The function of the Dáil is to criticise and control. How do we exercise the function of criticism and control in the case of the police forces?
The Estimates come up in June or July on an evening when we are sitting until 10.30 in a half-sleepy, half-empty house. The Ministers are tired, Deputies are tired, everyone is tired, and in three hours the Estimates are hurried through. One or two people with local grievances make their points. Every Deputy here remembers how we dealt with the Estimates last year. They were not closured. They were given full discussion by the Government, but they were closured by exhaustion, each and every one of them, and the immediate consequence of taking the Estimates in that manner was the breakdown of the Minister for Finance. I do not want that to happen again. That is the manner in which the Dáil exercises the function of control. I should like to see throughout the country decentralised bodies closely in touch with local needs dealing with those matters instead of Deputies sitting here listening to grievances, one, say, from Kerry, and one, say, from Tirconaill. There I join issue with the Minister, and I shall try to secure such decentralisation as I can obtain. I ask leave of the Dáil to amend my amendment in two particulars: (1) to insert in the first line of sub-section (1) "on a date not later than the 1st January, 1927." At present this amendment is open to the criticism that it is too vague. I want to make it concrete and want to give a fixed time in which this Council should be set up. Secondly, in deference to the criticism of Deputy Johnson, I wish to remove the last two categories in sub-section (2), namely: (v) one member to be nominated by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce; (vi) one member to be nominated by the Dublin Workers' Council.
Might I direct Deputy Cooper as to the functions of the Chamber of Commerce. Its functions are not as suggested in the amendment. They are not of the nature he suggests.
That is so. It should have been the Employers' Federation. Deputy Johnson objects to giving non-representative persons this position. I gathered form Deputy Hewat that he is anxious that the Chamber of Commerce should be represented, and I ask leave to withdraw those two categories.
If leave be given, the first sub-section of the proposed new section will read as follows:—
The Minister shall, on a date not later than January 1, 1927, establish by order a consultative council for giving advice and assistance to the Commissioner of the Amalgamated Force in connection with any matter in relation to the public order and security of the Dublin Metropolitan area.
In sub-section (2), categories 5 and 6 are to be omitted and the sub-section will end at the words "public health."
That is correct.
Does the Dáil give leave to alter the amendment?
Leave given.
There were a couple of phrases used by the Minister which suggest that we should take note of what is working in his mind. They were not, I think, very deliberate, but they were very illuminating. We have been waiting with interest during the past two or three years to discover what were the likely lines of demarcation as to the outlook upon public affairs of the different sections in the Government Party. We are beginning, I think, to get some light. We have had the Minister for Local Government telling us, inferentially, what his views are regarding the future course of legislation and administration in this country, and the responsibility or relationship between the Dáil and the Ministry and the country as a whole. We have had light this afternoon from the Minister for Justice as to what his conception is of the relations between the Ministry and the Dáil and the attitude of the Ministry towards the country and towards administration generally. Two or three sentences that have fallen from Ministers latterly show us, I think, that they conceive of the Dáil as a body responsible for administration, that the Ministers who have responsibility direct from their Departments are to be subject to the criticism of the Dáil, but that the Dáil is responsible for the administration of particular services. The Minister refutes the suggestion that the word "bureaucracy" can be applied in any way when a system of proportional representation and adult suffrage is in vogue. He says the idea is quite foreign to such a system, because the Ministry is responsible to the Dáil. I suggest to the Minister that, when Departments deprive local authorities of power in administration of their local affairs, take to themselves such power and administer local affairs from the office of the Minister, the idea of bureaucracy is not at all foreign to the method of government. The Dáil is in session for perhaps four, five or six months in the year, and opportunities for detailed criticism of departmental work is only afforded on Estimates, unless Ministers wish to provide time otherwise. Unless Ministers depart from their present course, we shall undoubtedly see established what has come to be known as bureaucracy in matters of administration.
I disagree entirely with the view that our Constitution makes the Dáil responsible for the administration of local services. Otherwise, we shall have to being re-enacting certain constitutional provisions, or enacting certain new constitutional provisions. That is well worthy of consideration, but it is not yet within the scheme of things. It is well worth considering whether there should not be attached to each Minister a Committee of the House, to whom the Minister will be responsible directly, and with whom he will consult. Then you may say that the Dáil is responsible for administration. Certainly, that is not the fact at present, and it is not within the conception of the Constitution, so that Ministers seem too frequently to suggest to the Dáil and to the public that it is we who are responsible for the administration of any particular Ministry.
That colours the Minister's view of this amendment. He will not even consider for a moment the idea that that shall be the direction of thought in respect to the administration of the police; he will not even consider that the Corporation of the capital city can have any right or authority even to advise the police officer responsible for the maintenance of order in the capital. The Minister would like to put us into a dilemma, and he says: "You must have one thing absolutely, or you must have the other thing absolutely." I want to know whether it is the Minister's view that this method of centralised police administration is the perfect method, and should be maintained for all time. If that is his position, then we can understand his opposition to the amendment. If, on the other hand, he thinks that it is a relic of the past system of government; that it must be borne with for a time, but that, ultimately, it would be desirable to devolve upon local authorities responsibility for maintenance of order within their locality, then I think we should move tentatively, as this amendment proposes, in respect of the metropolitan area towards some kind of minor responsibility, responsibility for advice——
Responsibility to whom?
Responsibility for advice to the Corporation, in the first instance. The Corporation is the body I would like to see responsible for maintenance of order in the city, and I would like to see the local authority in every county responsible for the maintenance of order within its area. I realise that such a state of things is not possible or practicable in the near future, but I want to see our thoughts and ideas developing in that direction. This method of the consultative council for the capital city would, at least, indicate which way our ideas are tending.
I have been slow to intervene in this debate, but judging from the way in which the debate has gone I think it is necessary to indicate our view-point. I think this amendment is one of the most ill-conceived amendments I heard of for a long time. It proposes to hand over to the local authorities who were elected for the specific purposes of local administration, including upkeep of roads, etc., duties they were never elected to perform. The proposal is to hand over to them one of the arms of Government. I think Deputy Cooper will admit that the police force of a country is one of the most important arms of Government. If there is any responsibility in this matter at all, it should be the responsibility of the members of the Dáil, and there ought to be no shirking of that responsibility. There ought to be no dereliction of duty. There ought to be no handing over to county councils and other bodies work which we were elected to do.
Even though we are not members of the party that happens to be the Government at the moment, we have an opportunity here of expressing our views, and we are elected to participate in the government of the country. The county councils and the Corporation are not, and we had better assume our responsibility and carry out our duty instead of handing them over to somebody who is not elected for the purpose. We had better shoulder our responsibility or else, as some people recently did, resign and hand over those responsibilities to somebody else. This amendment has nothing at all to recommend it, especially in the atmosphere in which we are living and have been living recently. I do not think it would serve any healthy or useful purpose. Deputies on these benches will vote against the amendment.
Will Deputy Gorey tell us how the United States can get on so well with local police forces?
Very, probably the local bodies in the United States are elected for that particular thing.
Can we not do the same?
If you were to do so you should have provided it in the Local Government Bill and elect people to do these things under the law.
I wonder— and when I use the word wonder I use it to express surprise—whether members of this Dáil have any idea of the assistance that eighty members of the Corporation gave to the police force for the last forty years. Instead of having six members representing the Corporation on the committee or council suggested by Deputy Cooper I suggest that eighty members of the Corporation assisted the police in the past. I remember when I was elected a member of the Corporation I received six letters on the first morning. One was from a lady in a particular street complaining that children were making a playground of it. Another complained of the lamps being broken. Another complained of children playing on the side-walks and making all sorts of noises and so on. I brought these letters to the Town Clerk, who was a very estimable man, as most Town Clerks are, and I enquired from him how many letters an ordinary member of the Corporation got on these matters, and he said about 250. All these letters are carefully sent to the Town Clerk, and he, with the aid of his assistants, sent them on to the police authorities. There was never a day that there was not a police officer in with the Town Clerk making enquiries as to the accuracy of the statements made in the letters. Occasionally members of the police force came and took advice on these matters. Whenever a complaint was sent to the police from a private citizen they gave it instant attention with the idea of helping themselves and the citizens to maintain law and order. Occasionally there were anonymous letters to the papers, such as the Minister referred to, but for every one complaint of that kind there would be ten complaints received by members of the Corporation and sent on to the police for consideration.
In the past, under the old regime, people would never think of writing to the Chief Secretary, and I do not think that people will bother the Minister for Justice here about the breaking of lamps and children playing on the streets. I hope they will have the good sense to complain to the police. I speak with a recollection of 40 years of the South side of Dublin, which I represent here in this Dáil, and I say what I have said on behalf of the police lest the discussion here might lead people to think that the police were the enemies instead of being the faithful custodians of the rights of the citizens. I know every police station in Dublin, and if I do not know every policeman in Dublin personally it is quite certain they all know me.
You are well known the police.
I agree. Some days ago I saw a policeman in plain clothes in a street in Dublin. I asked him what he was doing there, and he said he was there because of a complaint made by a lady of children kicking football on the street. I cannot believe that the House realises, as far as the city of Dublin is concerned, the attention given by representatives of the people in the past in assisting the police and giving every possible advice. In the Children's Court, in which I had the honour to preside, we had the advice of the Chief Superintendent of the Police. He came to our office and gave advice and took advice and brought suggestions and did everything possible to be of assistance. I cannot see my way to agree that six members of the Corporation would be sufficient. I believe that in due time the Corporation will be given its proper share of responsibility.
I am putting the new section as altered by leave.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Darrell Figgis.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Liam O Daimhín.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
Tellers.—Tá: Major Cooper, Mr. Morrissey. Níl: Mr. Dolan, Mr. Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That Sections 11, 12 and 13 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
(1) 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.
(2) All orders and regulations made under Section 5 of the Dublin Police Act, 1836, or Section 8 of the Dublin Police Act, 1924, and in force at the commencement of this Act may be amended or revoked by regulations made under this section and until so revoked and subject to any such amendment shall (notwithstanding the repeal of those sections) continue in force and shall apply to the members of the amalgamated force stationed in the Dublin Metropolitan Area.
(3) All orders and regulations made under Section 16 of the Gárda Síochána Act, 1924, or made under Section 18 of the Gárda Síochána (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, and continued by Section 21 of the Gárda Síochána Act, 1924, and in force at the commencement of this Act may be amended or revoked by regulations made under this section and until so revoked and subject to any such amendment shall (notwithstanding the repeal of those sections) continue in force and shall apply to members of the amalgamated force stationed outside the Dublin Metropolitan Area.
(4) For the purpose of this section members of the amalgamated force stationed at the Headquarters of the force in Dublin, or at the Depot in Phoenix Park, Dublin, who were members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police immediately before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be stationed within the Dublin Metropolitan Area, and all other members of the amalgamated force stationed at the Headquarters aforesaid or the Depot aforesaid, shall be deemed to be stationed outside the Dublin Metropolitan Area.
I move:—
Before sub-section (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"All regulations made by the Minister under this Act shall, immediately upon the same being made, be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and if either House shall, within twenty-one days of which such House has sat next after after such regulations were laid before it, pass a resolution annulling such regulations, such regulations shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulations."
I am very reluctant to take up the time of the Dáil further. I will not make a speech if the Minister indicates that he can accept this amendment.
I am prepared to accept the substance of the amendment, but verbal changes may be desirable, and I would like to ask the draftsman to look at it. I will, however, give an undertaking to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage which will embody the principle of the Deputy's amendment.
I accept that statement, but I should say, to avoid the Minister getting into hot water, that the amendment is taken literally from another Bill.
I just want to pass it through the draftsman's office.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Sections 14 and 15 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
(1) The rate (in this section called the police rate) heretofore levied in the Dublin Metropolitan Area for the maintenance of a police force in that area shall in the local financial year commencing next after the passing of this Act and in the seven succeeding local financial years be levied at the respective rates hereinafter mentioned and shall at the expiration of the last of those local financial years cease to be levied or raised.
(2) In the local financial year commencing next after the passing of this Act the police rate shall be levied at the rate of eightpence in the pound and in the next succeeding local financial year shall be levied at the rate of sevenpence in the pound and so on, abating by one penny in the pound in each succeeding local financial year.
(3) During the eight local financial years aforesaid the police rate shall be assessed, levied, raised, and paid in the like manner as heretofore, and all enactments relating to the police rate and in force at the commencement of this Act and all orders and regulations made thereunder and for the time being in force shall continue to apply to the police rate subject to such modifications as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may by order make therein for the purpose of giving effect to this section (which modifications the said Minister is hereby authorised to make) and in particular subject to the modifications following, that is to say—
(a) the amount of the rate as fixed by this section shall be substituted for the estimate required by paragraph (2) of Section 66 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, to be made by the Minister for Justice, and
(b) the amount raised, by the police rate in the said eight local financial years shall be applied towards the maintenance of the amalgamated force in like manner as the amount raised by that rate has heretofore been applied towards the maintenance of the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
I beg to move:—
(4) In sub-section (3) (b), page 9, line 23, after the word "years" to insert in brackets the following words: "(less such sums as are chargeable against that amount by virtue of Section 66 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898)."
The sums that are deductible under that Act fall under two headings. First, there is 5 per cent. charged on the cost of collection and office expenses, and secondly, there is a sum in respect of the Collector-General's annuity. The amendment proposes to authorise deduction of this amount. The office of the Collector-General under the Act of 1898 was abolished, and it was necessary to provide funds for officers whose office was abolished.
Was the pension paid by the local authority in the past?
It was paid out of rates generally, but a portion was taken out of the police rate.
Is the appointment made by the local authorities or by the Ministry?
The office ceased to exist on the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898, and the fund provides for the superannuation of officers whose services were dispensed with as a result of the cessation of office.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In page 9, line 27, to add at the end of the section two new sub-sections as follows:—
"(4) After the expiration of the eight local financial years aforesaid the council of the county borough of Dublin and the council of the county of Dublin shall in each half year pay to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in such proportions as that Minister shall certify such sum as the said Minister shall certify to be the amount which but for this section would in that half year be deductible in respect of the Collector-General's annuity from the police rate.
All sums payable in any half year by the respective councils of the county borough of Dublin and the county of Dublin to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health under this section shall be raised by these councils respectively in the like manner in all respects as the police rate would but for this section have been raised by them respectively in that half year.
(5) In this Section the expression "Collector-General's annuity" has the same meaning as in Section 66 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898."
The object of the amendment is to provide for the payment of the Collector-General's annuity after the expiration of a period of eight years when the police rate will no longer be collected.
I may say that the amount involved is very small. In 1924 it was £160 in the City of Dublin and £109 in the county.
It may not be in existence at all at the period?
No.
It is only making provision in case it should be.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Before the section is put I must say that I cannot agree with it, because it proposes to continue what has been a very real grievance on the part of local authorities for a considerable time past. I was, in fact, personally engaged on some deputations on this subject so far back as twenty years ago. This grievance is admitted by all the local authorities within the area. Under the Act as it stands local authorities within the Metropolitan Area have to levy a sum of 8d. in the pound for the purposes of maintaining the police force in those particular areas. Outside the Dublin Metropolitan Area the police forces are maintained out of State funds and the ratepayers in the metropolitan area could never see that they got any advantage whatever for this particular burden against which they have been fighting, to my knowledge, for the last twenty-five years. All the ratepayers, quite irrespective of whether they are farmers or other classes of the community, have had to carry this burden for many years past in the metropolitan area. The reason why I object to the clause is that it continues for a period of eight years that particular grievance. Of course it can be argued that they are reducing the burden year by year. This Bill proposes that for the year of the passing of the Bill the burden shall continue, and that for each subsequent year the burden shall be reduced by one penny in the pound, until at the end of eight years it expires altogether, except that portion that may remain for continuing this pension, of which I have just heard, in connection with the Collector-General's department. That admits to some extent that the principle is wrong. If the principle is wrong why not get rid of it immediately instead of perpetuating what is wrong for a period of eight years?
It may be said that it would not be right to get rid of it immediately. I am not in agreement with that principle. If a thing is wrong, the sooner you get rid of it the better for all parties concerned. If the Minister maintains that that principle is sound, will he tell us what advantage we get for it? In the past we got no advantage, and we argued that Cork, Limerick and Waterford got their policing paid for out of the pockets of the taxpayers, without any burden at all being thrown on the local ratepayers. In Belfast, in pre-Treaty days, a great portion of the burden of policing was borne by the taxpayers of the country. That city was within the Constabulary area, and if they got any additional police above the quota they were entitled to, they paid for them, so much per head, and in that way placed some small burden on the rates.
took the Chair.
The policing of the areas outside the metropolitan area was paid for out of the taxes generally, and only in the metropolitan area by the local ratepayers. This has been a very real grievance on the part of the ratepayers of the metropolitan area for a great many years. I hope those who have been drawing attention to it in the past will now object to its continuance. If the Minister can put forward any reasons why this tax should be continued, and why the burden should be still cast upon the ratepayers, I am prepared to consider them. As the matter stands at present, all the counties in the Saorstát will have their police paid for out of State funds, while ratepayers in the metropolitan area, in addition to having to pay other State charges, will have to bear a burden of £50,000 yearly for police. I say that is a condition of affairs that should not exist. As far as I am concerned, I shall object very strongly to any such imposition being continued to be placed on the ratepayers of the metropolitan area, as a result of the Bill now before the Dáil.
There are some questions on which Deputy Good and I can agree. This is one of them. We have had a division on the question of local responsibility for police services. The Minister took a line in favour of the centralisation of authority. I think the necessary logical co-relative of that is centralisation in regard to payment for such services. To postpone for eight years the relief of local rates cannot be justified on any ground except that the local authorities must be made to go through a certain purgatory. I do not want to intervene between the President and his defence of the Dublin Corporation, and Deputy Good, in his position as representative of one of the urban councils, in regard to the incidence of this rate in the past. In my opinion the case for the immediate relief of the rates of the metropolitan area is conclusively proved.
Surely there cannot be, in the mind of the Minister, any defence for throwing on the rates, even for eight years, in a diminishing amount, a force which he says must be centralised in its authority and government. I think the case made by the Minister for centralisation is equally the case for payment out of the Central Fund, or out of the national revenue. I would approve of this, as in other things, of local responsibility, of even local financial responsibility, when there is local control. When we are denied even the shadow or prospect of future local control I refuse to agree to a proposition which would throw for eight years the police charge upon those by whom it was hitherto borne. I am not sure whether any vote on this amendment would have the effect of relieving the local authorities of that burden. I think that, probably, if we refuse to pass this section, there will be an opportunity of passing another section, which would meet the requirements of the case. In any case I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that he is willing to reconsider his attitude on this matter, continuing a charge against the local rates for a force that he refuses to give any semblance of control over.
I think we should accept Deputy Good's apology for his protest in this matter. He has explained that he has been making it for twenty or twenty-five years, that it has become a habit; and he makes it mechanically this evening. There is somewhat more to be said in favour of the gradual diminution of this rate than either Deputy Good or Deputy Johnson seems to allow. As a matter of fact, when this part of the Bill was under consideration the argument was put up to me—and it is not an entirely unsound argument either—that even with an amalgamated force for the whole country, a certain amount could be said in favour of asking the citizens of the metropolis to contribute towards the cost of that force. The argument was based on the proportion of the police force which has to be allocated to the metropolitan area, in proportion to population, and in proportion to the value of property protected in the area.
The metropolitan area, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has property situated within it the valuation of which is 15 per cent. of the total valuation of the property of the country. With regard to the population, it has 13 per cent. concentrated within that area. On the basis of the present authorised strength the metropolitan area has 18 per cent. of the police of the country, so that 13 per cent of the population, with a valuation of 15 per cent., has 18 per cent. of the police. The argument was that Dublin should pay for that extra proportion of police. Now, we did not call for that particular argument, and it was finally arranged that this rate should diminish at the rate of 1d. a year for an eight year period. Deputy Good asked: "Is it right or is it wrong? If it is wrong let us get away from it." That is very laudable, but there is no commandment which says "Thou shalt not get assistance to the extent of £52,000 a year from the ratepayers of Dublin City for an amalgamated police force." There is no question of principle or moral wrong about it. To throw that £52,000 a year extra on the Exchequer just at present is not a nice matter, having regard to the many burdens on the Exchequer. The citizens of Dublin have borne this rate for many years. Relatively it is much lighter now that it was 20 years ago.
They will get services and protection, I hope, to a higher degree of efficiency, than they got in the past. There is this further point, that in fact you do not get straight away a real fusion, a really amalgamated force. That is something that will only come in time. Security of tenure in the metropolitan area is being given under the Bill to all the men at present serving in the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Therefore you will have in the unified Gárda Síochána this anomaly: you will have a self-contained division, the metropolitan division. The members of it will not be transferable outside the metropolitan area, except with their own wish and their own consent. That, of course, will pass; it will be a disappearing anomaly, because recruiting in the future will be recruiting for a single force, and the recruits can be sent to any point in the area which that force serves.
The existing D.M.P. are given security of tenure in the metropolitan area, which gives you a kind of self-contained division within the Gárda Síochána. This Bill, although it is important and valuable, does not give us immediately that at which we are aiming—an amalgamated force in the fullest sense of the word. It gives us fusion at headquarters, but the Dublin police will remain, with their tenure in the metropolitan area, a self-contained division. The rate will be disappearing over the eight years' period. It will take a good deal more than an eight years' period for the anomaly of that self-contained division in the Gárda Síochána to disappear. I simply put it to the common sense and the sense of fair play of Deputies, that there is no hardship really in asking that the Finance Department should get just a little time to look around before this £52,000 a year burden based on this rate will disappear. It will be reduced by 1d. in the pound per annum, and it will have disappeared in 1933. The service and personnel will be the same as before the Act passes, and it gives a little breathing space to the National Exchequer before the full burden passes over to it.
I can see, of course, that Deputy Good and Deputy Johnson might claim that they have the strict logic in the matter, but this is not a thing you can draw a straight line about, more particularly when this new division in the Gárda Síochána will remain in effect the same body as was serving the citizens up to the present. We are committed to that situation for a considerable period of time. There is that other point, which I mentioned in passing, and which was put up to me when this matter was up for discussion between the two Departments. That point was that it could be argued that Dublin, having such a big percentage of the total police, might be expected to make some contribution, even when you have a single police force serving the entire country; and that an area which gets as big a service as 18 per cent. of the total police of the country, might reasonably make its contribution towards the expenses and towards the National Exchequer. However, the idea of asking that that should be done has been definitely rejected, and a diminution over a period down to a vanishing point is embodied in the Bill. I think that Deputy Good, if not enthusiastic, ought to be at least acquiescent in the proposal.
I am afraid that much as one would like to agree with the Minister, I cannot agree with him in the proposals he makes, for the reason that they are not sound. Now if we in Dublin have a larger number in the force than we are entitled to, let us pay for the extra number over and above what we are entitled to have. That has been the principle that has been adopted in the past with regard to the extra constabulary in Belfast. The City of Belfast was entitled to a certain number. It required more than that number, and consequently they paid so much per head for the additional number. That, I think, is a sound principle, because if extra police are required in a particular area it is only reasonable that that area should be called upon to pay for those extra police. That is sound, but this proposal here is not sound, and because it is not sound in principle is the reason I object to it. It is all very well for the Minister to say that it does not seem morally fair to take the burden of £52,000 off the ratepayers and cast it on to the Exchequer. If it is wrong to put that burden of £52,000 on the ratepayers of the metropolitan area, it is doing no moral wrong to take it off.
It would be doing what is morally right to take it off the ratepayers and put it on to the Exchequer, which should really carry the burden. It is a matter that has been the subject of contention in the city for a great many years past. In fact all the local authorities that have been carrying the burden have been objecting to it, to my personal knowledge, for the last 20 or 25 years. When we ourselves get an opportunity of rectifying the wrongs that existed in the past, and in regard to which we have made certain utterances, we should take advantage of that opportunity. Instead of putting those things right, we here in the Dáil pass an Act bringing into law things we objected to in the past as strongly as we could.
I make you a present of that.
I make you a present of it. It appears to me that now is the opportunity of putting right what we all admit is wrong. There is no difference about it. We should avail of the opportunity that is now given to us to put wrong right instead of continuing what is wrong.
The Minister takes credit for not having listened to, or conceded, the arguments of another Department in regard to the incidence of taxation on this matter. He puts that forward in the Dáil, no doubt in the hope that it will receive consideration. Deputies for the city and county of Dublin have a right to consider the effect of this burden upon the local authorities. The argument of the other Department, which the Minister did not succumb to, was that because there was certain excess expenditure in centralised administration in and around Dublin, therefore the city should be made pay its proportion for that service. For instance, there is probably a larger proportion than 18 per cent. of the Army in Dublin. Is it suggested that because Dublin gets certain benefit of the expenditure in that respect, it should be made pay a larger proportion than is due in the ordinary course of taxation? Then again, take the staffs in Merrion Street and in the Dáil, because of the centralisation of administration in Dublin. Government servants are to a greater degree resident in and about Dublin and are serving Dublin in a way which is very disproportionate compared with other parts of the country. The argument that the Minister puts to us in that case, though he does not really press it, is that Dublin should be made pay a larger proportion because of the fact that the administration is here centralised. I do not think that is a matter of moral right. I think both the Minister and Deputy Good have used that expression.
No.
Surely it is both politically and economically sound and just that the Dublin metropolitan area should not any longer have to bear an additional charge for police services over and above its ordinary payment for that service to the Revenue. I say it is politically wise and economically sound that that burden should no longer be thrown on the local authority. I hope Deputies representing Dublin city and county, with the exception perhaps of the Minister himself, will all support the deletion of Section 16. I am sure the ratepayers, whose interests even the Minister occasionally speaks of when addressing public meetings, will thank him for his support of the proposition that no longer shall the rate be levied upon Dublin when it is not levied upon Cork, Limerick, Galway, or any of the county areas.
Question put—"That Section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick Mulvany.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O h Aodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán O Suilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Seán Priomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl
- John Good.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Tellers—Tá: Mr. Dolan and Mr. Sears; Níl: Mr. T.O'Connell and Mr. Davin.
Motion declared carried. Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, First Schedule, Second Schedule, and Third Schedule put and agreed to.
FOURTH SCHEDULE.
FORM OF DECLARATION.
"I....................do solemnly and sincerely before God declare and affirm and my word and honour pledge that I will be faithful to the utmost of my ability in my employment by the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann in the office of ...................in the Gárda Síochána and that I will render good and true service and obedience to Saorstát Eireann and its Constitution and Government as by law established, without favour or affection, fear, malice, or ill-will, and that I will see and cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and that I will prevent to the best of my power all offences against the same, and that while I shall continue to hold the said office, I will to the best of my knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law, and that I do not belong and that I will not while I hold the said office, join, belong, or subscribe to any political society whatsoever, or to any secret society whatsoever."
I want to restate my objections to the last few lines in this Schedule. The matter arose on previous Bills and I objected to making policemen and soliders liable to subscribe to the condition regarding political and secret societies which was not made applicable to other civil servants. I want to repeat that protest. I think it is not right to select policemen or soldiers and to say that they and that they alone, being civil servants, must not be members of any secret society whatsoever, while we leave outside the embargo other civil servants, magistrates, judges and others. I would say that if there is to be a prohibition of that kind it should be made applicable to every civil servant, to every person who is serving the State whether in high or low degree. We have refrained for reasons of which, perhaps, the Minister himself will be the best judge, from imposing such a declaration in respect of Peace Commissioners, Judges, or civil servants of any kind. I submit it is not right that we should select particularly police—it is police we are dealing with in this case—and leave out other persons who are concerned in the administration of the law or who are engaged in the Government service. I suggest if it is considered desirable that any public servant must be asked to make such a declaration—"That I will not while I hold the said office, jom, belong, or subscribe to any political society whatsoever, or any secret society whatsoever"—and if such a declaration is required from the police, or lower civil servants, then a similar declaration should be required from every other civil servant. I make that protest now as I have done on other occasions. I submit there is no answer to the proposition that if you are going to call for such a declaration you must make it general and include every person serving the State in any capacity whatsoever.
This is a Police Bill, and I am not going to attempt to answer Deputy Johnson's arguments in full. I confine myself simply to the question of whether or not it is a proper thing to demand of the members of your police force that they will take this declaration which prohibits them from participation in politics and which prohibits them from membership of any secret society whatsoever. In my view it is an eminently proper thing. Deputy Johnson ranges over wider ground, and says that we should demand a similar declaration from other persons in the Government service. He probably would have a better right of pressing that view had he not omitted to avail himself of whatever opportunity presented itself in the past. I do not know whether on the District Justices Act, for instance, or in the course of the Courts of Justice Act, Deputy Johnson urged that such declaration should be demanded from Judges and District Justices, and I do not know whether he took any opportunity of insisting that such a declaration should be demanded from civil servants.
No. I think it would have been useless in any case.
But here I am simply dealing with the question of the declaration, if any, which it is proper to ask members of your police force to take. There is embodied in this Fourth Schedule my view, and the view of the Executive Council, as to the kind of declaration which is right and proper, and I ask the Dáil to endorse that view by passing the Schedule.
The Minister has, by implication, criticised me for not having brought forward a proposal to insert a similar declaration regarding secret societies in the Courts of Justice Act or other Acts. I certainly did not bring forward any such proposition. I do not believe that such a proposition, in any case, is of any value, especially in relation to secret societies, but if it is the intention of the Ministry and the Oireachtas that any person shall be made to subscribe to such a declaration, a policeman particularly in this case, surely it is equally requisite that the judge on the bench who tries the prisoner whom the policeman brings before him should also be subject to a similar embargo. I think that by obliging this particular class of civil servant to take such a declaration, leaving all other civil servants free to join any secret society, social or political, we are practically telling them that we look upon them as less desirable citizens, more likely to be subjected to the influences which secret societies may bring to bear. My objection is that you are selecting a particular type of civil servant to make a declaration which other civil servants are not required to make.
I think the Minister is not quite right in stating that this question has not been raised before. It was raised previously, and it was indicated, I think, quite clearly from these benches that if an obligation of this kind was to be imposed upon what appeared to be unskilled workers in the service of the State the same obligation should be imposed on the people who administered the law. I think the question of membership of secret organisations has been a bone of contention, for some time past, in the party with which the Minister has been associated. My idea is that if a servant of the State is a member of a secret organisation that membership does not allow him to be a free agent in the administration of the law, and that if this declaration is to be imposed upon a policeman, who is in reality only an unskilled worker in the service of the State, the higher people, District Justices and Judges, should have the same obligation imposed upon them. I do not see why that should not be and why it has not been done under a previous Act.
I am sorry that the Deputy considers General O'Duffy and the Chief of Staff unskilled workers.
Are you confining this obligation to them?
They are members of the two forces concerned.
took the Chair.
Question—"That the Fourth and Fifth Schedules and the Title stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.