Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1933

Vol. 47 No. 17

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 32—Office of the Minister for Justice.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Ruttledge)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £24,364 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Dlí agus Cirt.

That a sum not exceeding £24,364 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, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice.

As compared with last year's Estimate there is a reduction shown in the Vote of £3,554. That reduction is mainly accounted for under the head of Headquarters Staff. The number of principal clerks have been reduced by one and one of the higher executive officers has been transferred. It is not necessary, I think, to go through the various sub-heads. They are very similar to those of last year. As the Deputies are aware, the Department of Justice controls the law courts, the Civic Guards, officers, and so on. I might mention that the amount of fines collected last year from the District Courts, Circuit Courts and High Courts amounted to £11,000. With regard to the Film Censor's Office the fees that have been received in stamps for the charges of the film censorship amount to £2,300. That particular branch of the Department is self-supporting. Other questions may arise on the Estimates or questions may be asked by Deputies. I leave these matters to be dealt with after the questions have been raised.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Heretofore it has been rather customary that the whole of the Votes which come under the Department of Justice should be taken together because it is very difficult to discuss the policy of the Minister for Justice on the Vote of his Department and then to do it again on the Vote of the Gárda Síochána. I would venture to suggest for the purposes of economy in time and to prevent myself and other speakers having to go over the same ground repeatedly, that we should take the Minister's various Votes altogether and discuss the whole as one. That has been the usual procedure heretofore.

Mr. Ruttledge

I think what was done was that you only moved one Vote and then discussion was allowed on the others. At the end of the debate these were automatically moved without any discussion.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not mind, but when discussing the Gárda Síochána Vote it would be better if the Minister introduced the Vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The discussion can range over all Departments. The Votes can be taken separately after, but the discussion should range over all the Votes in the Minister's control.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

In these circumstances we will discuss the whole matter, but I do venture to think that if the Minister had introduced the Gárda Vote before I spoke, as I have to speak on the matters connected with it, it would save time. What I purpose doing is discussing very largely the question of the policy of the Minister upon this Vote and then go back upon the policy and upon the general question concerned with the administration of the Gárda Síochána on the next Estimate. Of course, the most important part of the Department of the Minister for Justice is the part of it which is connected with the administration of the Gárda Síochána. This year we have had very great changes in the Gárda Síochána and I certainly would have liked to have heard the Minister upon this Vote before I come in any way to discuss it. We have had most sweeping and most drastic alterations made in that Department.

We have had two of the most efficient members of the Gárda Síochána, the Commissioner and a Chief Superintendent, dismissed and dismissed for efficiency. There was no fault to be found with them. Nobody in this House, no member of the Administration could allege that in any way they had been guilty of dereliction of duty. Nobody could say that they did not discharge the duties of their office with the highest skill and with the highest efficiency. It could never be suggested that these two officers of the Guards were not the most distinguished men in the service and yet we discover that as part of the administration of the Department of Justice without any reason and for no good cause, but quite wantonly, we have these high officers removed from their positions. As far as the successor of the Commissioner is concerned, I do not wish to say anything. I sincerely hope, as everybody who is interested in this force must hope, that he is a man who will ultimately make good, but I do think from what we see at the present moment that there is being an effort made by the Minister for Justice to change, to swap, and to make every alteration seemingly that he can. In other words, the Minister is a very new broom and he has got it into his head——

[Attention called to the fact that a quorum was not present. House counted and quorum being found present.]

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

As I was mentioning, there has been a policy evidently of making as many alterations as possible and seemingly making them wantonly and without excuse. It is pretty obvious from the speech which the Commissioner made in the presence of the Minister for Justice at the Depot, which I have quoted, that the Minister for Justice must have been opposed to the policy of his colleague, the Minister for Finance, in introducing a cut in the pay of the Guards. It seems to me, judging from the Minister's actions recently, that he wishes completely, if I may use the expression, to stymie the Minister for Finance. If the Minister for Finance has insisted, against what I take to be his wishes, that the pay of the Guards should be cut, he has evidently made up his mind that in another direction he will manage to waste so much money in the administration of the Guards that at the end of the year he will be able to snap his fingers in the face of the Minister for Finance and say: "You thought you were going to save £33,000 this year on the Guards' Vote, but I have taken good care that you have not." As far as I can see, there has been, at what must be enormous expense to the ratepayers, a general shifting during the last few months of chief superintendents, inspectors, sergeants and Guards. You will hardly find one chief superintendént in the district in which he was a year ago. They are all being run about. In the same way, you will see changes in ordinary superintendents almost daily. All that is done at State expense. To move a Guard at State expense even is a heavy item. To move a chief superintendent, or a superintendent, is a very much heavier expense. These changes are being carried out now, and men are being moved from one station to another at a rate at which there could be no precedent for in the administration of the Guards up to this.

I think every Deputy will agree with me that if there is need for economy in the Guards, and necessity to cut the pay of the Guards by £33,000, it would be far better to see what economies could be effected in the administration of the Guards, and that there should not be what appears to me—and it is an opinion that I shall hold until the Minister can give an adequate explanation—a deliberate waste of public money in unnecessary transfers of officers and men from station to station and from county to county. Then again —I dare say the Minister was quite right in this—there has been a tremendous number of promotions from one grade to another. The result of the cuts has been completely minimised. I have already expressed my view that the cuts are entirely wrong. As far as that is concerned, I was very glad to see that the Minister for Finance had got the worst of this internecine strife between himself and the Minister for Justice. But, in the other respect in which the Minister for Justice has shown himself so determined to reduce the Minister for Finance's scheme to a state of complete impotence, he seems to forget that when he is wasting public money by the unnecessary transfers which are going on, he is not only causing a great deal of trouble and inconvenience to various individuals, but, at the same time, he is lessening very much the value of the force. If you have an officer who knows a district, he is very much more useful there than an officer who does not know the district. I have in mind the case of one headquarters where there was a chief superintendent and an ordinary superintendent. The chief superintendent has been a considerable time in the county, and knew the county. The superintendent, a very excellent officer, had been in his station for some time, and he knew his station. Suddenly, in the same week, the chief superintendent is sent to a county right across the whole width of Ireland, and the superintendent is removed to headquarters, some couple of hundred miles away. Two entirely new men are put in to do the work. That seems to be an entirely unnecessary change. It must be obvious to every Deputy that wantonly moving men who know their districts and the work of their districts, and as a general scheme, putting in men who are strangers, militates very much against the efficiency of the force.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.