Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 May 1929

Vol. 30 No. 1

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 32—Gárda Síochána.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,001,308 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí an Ghárda Síochána (Uimh. 7 de 1925).

That a sum not exceeding £1,001,308 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Gárda Síochána (No. 7 of 1925).

Not very much difference has taken place in the ordinary arrangements and details of the working of the Gárda Síochána since the Estimate was before the Dáil not so very long ago. The main difference which Deputies will notice on looking through the Estimates is that a reduction in the Guards' allowances is estimated for. That reduction we debated in this House comparatively recently. The reduction consists principally in a cutting off of the allowance made to the Guards for boots and also a reduction in the allowance for cycling. These were the main grounds of reduction. I am not going into that now because it was fully dealt with recently. The only matter to which I might draw the attention of the House is that this year we anticipate there will be a certain reduction in other respects in the Gárda Vote, because recruiting has been entirely stopped for this year. We anticipate a certain saving under that head. The annual wastage in the Guards is roughly about 200, and this year we are not filling any portion of that wastage. It must not be thought that the policy which we are adopting this year in not filling up wastage is a policy which can be pressed very far. In the present condition of the country, and taking into account the various and manifold duties which the Guards have to perform, it is almost impossible to shut up any of the existing stations, because as soon as an attempt is made to do so, the inhabitants get into a state of fever and excitement, every single one of them complaining that they have not got the proper protection which they should have, that small pilfering can go on, that their turf, eggs and little bits of property are not safe unless the district is regularly patrolled by Guards from the vicinity. I do not anticipate in the near future any large reduction in the strength of the Guards, or any large diminution in the number of stations. Setting off the reductions we have made against the annual increment which, of course, put the pay up, the total decrease this year is £29,065.

Sub-head A shows an increase of £5,752. The annual increments payable to the members of the force would ordinarily have caused an increase of about £28,000 on this sub-head. Last January, however, the Executive Council decided to suspend all recruiting for the Gárda Síochána, and it is not intended that recruiting shall recommence, at all events during the current financial year. As a result the vacancies which are being caused by resignations, deaths, and dismissals are not now being filled. The normal annual wastage through these causes may be taken at about 200, so that by the end of the financial year the strength of the force will be less by that figure than the numbers shown in the printed Estimates. It will be observed that in consequence of this decision it is estimated that a sum of £25,975 will be saved during the year, and a deduction of that amount has been taken in arriving at the total for this sub-head. It may appear at the first glance that the arithmetic is a little defective, but the reason is that all the 200 Guards do not resign on the first day of the year and, therefore, there is not a saving on the complete pay of each man for the year. Some may resign, say, when there is only a month to go, so that there would be only one month's saving of their pay, and in other cases, for some short periods, there will be a certain number of places not filled up. That explains the particular figure in the sub-head.

Sub-head B shows a decrease of £20,800 below the corresponding figure for last year. This reduction was made possible by a revision of the allowances payable to members of the force, as I have already told Deputies. Had this revision not taken place the sub-head would have shown an increase of more than £7,000 on the figure for last year, owing to the increase in the number of married men drawing rent allowances.

The revised Allowance Order, which came into operation on the 1st April, provided, however, for the discontinuance of the payment of boot allowance, thus effecting an annual saving of over £27,000. The allowance payable to men engaged as motor drivers or mechanics, shown in the printed Estimates as being at the rate of £18 per annum, has been reduced to £15 per annum. Sub-head C. The rates of subsistence allowance payable to members of the force necessarily absent on duty from their stations for prolonged periods were revised by the recent Allowance Order. As a result of this revision, the amount of this sub-head has been reduced by £600 below the figure for last year. Sub-head D., Locomotion expenses, shows a decrease of £19,250 below the figure for 1928-29. Of this figure a saving of £13,500 is being effected by the reduction in the rate of cycling allowance payable to sergeants and Guards from £5 per annum to £2 10s. per annum. It is hoped to save about £4,000 by a revision of the allowances payable to officers and inspectors for using their own cars on official duties. Hitherto these allowances have been paid on a mileage basis, and the question of revising this basis of payment is at present under consideration. For that reason Deputies will understand that £4,000 is the best estimate we could make. We cannot guarantee that the £4,000 will prove accurate. Sub-head E shows a decrease of £1,459 below the figure for last year. In the other sub-heads from F to L there are only slight variations. Turning to sub-head M, this shows an increase of £1,810, due to the increased number of stations at which telephones have been installed by the Post Office. Of a total of about 840 stations outside Dublin, a considerable number have been already provided with telephones. I have not got the exact figure at the moment.

Deputies will, of course, understand that for the carrying out of police duties a telephone is most useful by enabling one barrack to communicate with another. I would like to see every barrack with a telephone, especially for the detection of crime. In the case of a bank robbery, for instance, where a man may have been observed escaping, it would be very helpful if the nearest barrack were rung up and given that information, as it would probably lead to the robber's arrest. Sub-heads N and O call for no special observations. In regard to sub-head P, it is estimated that the Appropriations-in-Aid of this Vote for the present year will be £6,570 less than the amount for last year. This decrease is mainly due to the fact that the police rate in the Dublin Metropolitan area will be at the rate of 4d. in the £ as against 5d. in the £ for last year. This reduction was provided for by Section 16 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925, which enacted that the amount of the rate should be reduced annually by one penny in the £ from its original figure of 8d. in the £, until finally extinguished in the year 1933. These are the only figures in the Estimate that I think I need mention. As regards the numbers in the Guards, rates of pay, comparisons with pre-war strength of the police force, and so forth, all these matters were fully gone into six months ago, and I think that all the figures were fully dealt with then. The costs were gone into, and I think that I would only be wasting the time of the House if I repeated what I said a short time ago. I realise that the House does not want me to re-say what I said on that occasion. In introducing this Estimate, I do not think that I have any further remarks to make.

I move "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration." The Minister has come before the House with figures practically similar, as regards personnel and strength, to those which he brought before us in connection with last year's Estimate. Last November figures were given by me and other Deputies showing that the country was over-policed, that a much smaller force might be equally efficient and equally effective. I am not going to go into the question of policy now, as I understand that that has already been ruled out and that we are to confine ourselves on this Vote purely to the administrative side. I pointed out at that time that the present strength of the Civic Guard for the Twenty-Six Counties, excluding the Dublin Metropolitan area, is practically the same as—very little short of, at any rate—that of the R.I.C. in 1918. I gave the figures at the time to the Minister and stated that the strength of the R.I.C. in 1918 was 9,867 for the whole of the thirty-two counties, excluding the Dublin Metropolitan area, and the cost was £1,443,432. The Minister referred incidentally to-night to the position in the country. I understand what the Minister referred to, but I assume that on this motion I am not entitled to go into it, except to state that I believe that the position in 1918, from the police point of view, could not be described exactly as normal. I gave particulars at that time to show what was the comparative strength of the police in other countries compared with population. I showed that in New South Wales it was 1 to 784 of the population; in Scotland 1 to 754 of the population; in England 1 to 831; and in the Free State 1 to 428.

At that time the Minister for Justice emphasised the many Acts which had been put into operation which imposed extra duties on the Guards. He also referred to the various Acts which were passed relative to the Department of Agriculture and also to the carrying out of the Census, to the enforcement of the School Attendance Act and so on. I think, however, if the Minister inquired into the matter he would find that there are very few Acts which impose extra duties on the Guards with the exception of the School Attendance Act, which is not very efficiently administered, according to the reports of the various teaching organisations. If we take the strength of the Guards at present we find that it is exactly the same as last year. Are we to assume from the Minister that there has been no change in the conditions of the country since then? When I quoted figures last year, I was told that the position was not normal and that in the then existing conditions it would be inadvisable to make any reduction in the strength of the force. Are we to assume that the alleged efficiency of the Guards has not resulted in improving those conditions and that it is necessary to maintain the force at the same strength to-day as when we passed a similar Vote last year? I move to report progress.

The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. Thursday, 23rd May.
Top
Share