Vol. 50 No. 17
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £25,846 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1934, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí an Ghárda Síochána (Uimh. 7 de 1925).
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £25,846 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Gárda Síochána (No. 7 of 1925).
This Estimate is required to meet the additional expenditure resulting from the recruitment of the 300 new members of the Force, and secondly, it is caused, in part, by the extra cost of travelling and the responsibilities incurred in preventing or trying to prevent disorder at public meetings. Under sub-head (A) Salaries, Wages and Pay, there are increases for uniform and equipment for the men recently recruited. In sub-heads (C) and (D)—Subsistence Allowances and Locomotion Expenses, this extra cost has been incurred because of the necessity of the Gárda attending at public meetings. Sub-head (H), Transport and Carriage—this item is due to the increase in the Force. The item of £360 under Incidental Expenses (N) is required for payment to the Army for certain arms and munitions which were transferred from the military authorities to the Gárda authorities. The increase in the Appropriation-in-Aid is due to an increase of £4,770 from the Road Fund. This sum would not be normally paid until next year but owing to certain operations under the Road Act it is possible to transfer it now.
This Estimate has been introduced in what I can only call a very unsatisfactory manner. We are here asked to vote very large sums indeed for a new force of Guards. Three hundred men are brought under very strange and exceptional circumstances into the Guards, and not one single word of explanation is given to the House by the Minister as to why these 300 men were brought into the Guards, or what was the need of these 300 young men in the Guards. According to the Minister when in Opposition, there were not only sufficient Guards, but there were at least 2,000 too many Guards. It used to be the burden not only of his speeches, but the burden of speech after speech delivered from these Benches when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition, that there were far too many Guards in this country, that there should be enormous savings made in the Guards, especially by the reduction of their numbers. Indeed, if his memory does not play him false, and if he will just cast his mind back over a very short period, the Minister who sits beside the Minister for Justice— the Minister for Industry and Commerce—would remember how very eloquent he used to grow on the possibilities of enormous savings in the Guards. That is now all flung over. There can be no savings in the number of the Guards. Although the Guards were at full strength when the Minister took over office, or at least when his predecessor took over office—and there was practically no diminution during the term of his predecessor in office—we now discover that that force was not adequate and that 300 new men are required. What has become of the Minister for Industry and Commerce's eloquence? Is it lost? Does he never speak to his friend the Minister for Justice and tell him of the ways in which he was willing to save, and saw that those sums could be saved? Does he never use that persuasive tongue of his to effect a reduction in numbers rather than an increase?
The poor Minister for Justice himself has evidently got to admit now that all that stuff he used to talk in Opposition was a mere vote-catching cry. There was nothing in it; it is all humbug from first to last. The Minister has not even attempted to give us any justification for this increase in the number of Guards and also for the very strange and extraordinary method which was taken to recruit those men. This is a matter which has come under criticism in this House indirectly already and one would have thought the Minister for Justice in introducing the Estimate would have been burning with zeal to explain why this new force was brought into existence and why every single regulation governing recruitment to the Guards had to be flung aside in order that a certain type, and only a certain type, of men should be brought into this new force.
The regulations as to recruiting men for the Guards are very clear and specific. Men must be a certain height; they must have a certain chest measurement, they must be under a certain age, and they must be unmarried. All these things are laid down by regulation for recruiting men to the Gárda Síochána. These three hundred men, as we know, were recruited in the teeth of the Gárda regulations. Many of them did not correspond as far as height is concerned, as far as chest measurement is concerned, as far as age is concerned, and as far as the fact that they were unmarried is concerned. I know that the Minister made a statement in this House that men had been taken into the Guards in previous years before Fianna Fáil came into office who were unable to meet the requirements laid down. That is not so. No men were taken into the Guards who did not fully meet the requirements. The Minister said that men were taken in who were under height. There were two scales of height for recruiting Guards. There was one for the ordinary person who had to be a certain height. There was another regulation dealing with men recruited out of the army and in their case the height standard was reduced. But here we have it admitted by the Minister that these men were taken in not in compliance with the regulations at all. We know, too, because it was stated in the newspapers at the time, and never contradicted, that these men were chosen and selected, not by the Commissioner of the Guards, but by a Deputy of this House, and then they were handed over holus-bolus to the Commissioner with "you have to take them whether you like it or not."
What is the reason for all that? Why could not the ordinary regulations be kept? Why were men long over age taken into the Guards? Why were married men taken into the Guards against the regulations? Anybody who has anything to do with a police force anywhere in the world has always made this discovery, that if you want to have a really good and efficient policeman you must take that man and begin the training of him when he is young. As a matter of fact, I do know that long experience had convinced the leading officers in the Depot that if you want really good policemen it would be better to take them in under 20 rather than over 20. I am informed, and I believe it to be a fact, that actually men with sons old enough to be in the Guards themselves were taken into this force. There was no desire obviously, no wish to get proper or suitable men. There was only a wish to recruit men of one political outlook, and for that purpose a police officer could not be trusted and a Deputy of this House had to do the important work of the Commissioner of the Guards. I am not interested in the insult that that was to the Commissioner, but I am interested in the question of efficiency, and I say that a force recruited in that fashion can never turn out to be a really first-class or efficient body of men. Of course, they were not. We know that. Men taken suddenly, collected together, and selected by a Deputy of this House, were not going to turn out good and reliable Guards.
We had one of the most, in fact I should say without any qualification, the most disgraceful incident in the history of the Guards occurring very recently in consequence, as I believe, of that method of recruitment.
There was a trial before the Military Tribunal, that of Commandant Cronin. There were two charges against him, one being membership of an unlawful association, and the other sedition, because he said that the revolver ammunition had been dumped in his offices by a search party. It was a rather strange case. In the first place, Commandant Cronin was not charged with possession of the ammunition. He was not charged with having the ammunition under his control. The charge brought against him was that he used seditious words. In other words, the Attorney-General had given up hope, and did not consider that there was a prima facie case, even for investigation, against Commandant Cronin as regards possession of the ammunition, or of having it under his control. Seeing that he could not get reliable evidence upon which he could formally found a prima facie case, he fell back upon the second charge, that he seditiously said the ammunition had been dumped. The case went into court, and when he was tried Commandant Cronin frankly admitted using the words, but pleaded their truth. He was acquitted on that charge. In other words, nothing could be clearer than that, in the view of the Military Tribunal who tried the case, the ammunition had been dumped, and dumped by some member of the party which was searching Commandant Cronin's premises on that day.
Has anything been done? Has there been any inquiry? We heard of no such inquiry. We have the findings of the court, that some individual dumped the ammunition. That individual is still in the Guards, and, as far as the public knows, no effort has been made to trace him out by the Guards themselves, and no proceedings have been taken. This is not a matter of mere rumour; not a matter of mere suggestion. The position is that certain members of the Gárda Síochána—beyond question members of the new branch—dumped the ammunition. That is the finding of a court competent to deal with the matter. They had to find that, preliminary to the acquittal, as they did acquit Commandant Cronin.
The House is asked to pass a Vote for an enormous sum of money, £30,000. Certainly it is a big sum in these days to have flung upon the revenue, because 300 new men have been chosen in a most extraordinary fashion, for no reason that the Minister has been now or at any other time able to put forward to satisfy the people of this country or this House. What were these men recruited for? Why was this new addition made? The Guards were adequate in number. They had kept the peace of the country splendidly for many years. There was no section of the community—of the law-abiding section, at least— that was not perfectly satisfied with the existing Guards and the way in which they did their work. They have won the admiration of every law-abiding person. Nobody could challenge their efficiency. What we do challenge, and what we must challenge is the fashion in which this body has been recruited. Therefore, you are going to change the old system, and instead of having a force of Guards that will command the respect and confidence of every law-abiding citizen, you want to set up a force which, certainly in one instance, has shown itself entirely unworthy of the Guards' traditions. You have set up a force which you recruited in that extraordinary fashion solely for political motives. You are endeavouring to have a particular political section of the Guards, that the country cannot trust to do their duty. If more Guards were required—and the Minister has not shown us that they were—then they could have been got in the ordinary way. Recruiting could have been opened at the depot. The men could have come up for examination and could have been selected in the ordinary way by the Commissioner and then absorbed into the force, wherein there would be companionship with old, experienced, highly-tried and trusted members of the Guards. In time they themselves would learn their duty and would, if properly selected, become highly respected and highly competent members of the Guards. But we have none of that now. We have men sent out through the country who do not command the confidence of the people—of course, I mean the law-abiding people.
We had another example which came before the Military Tribunal the other day. In the presence of the Guards a man was able to fire three or four shots into a house. He injured a person in the house. It was the mercy of Providence that he did not kill someone in it. I know that a man has been convicted, but that firing could go on in the presence of Guards, and the persons concerned cleared away. As far as that household is concerned, the two new Guards who were outside were of no help and of no assistance. In a case like that why were not tried and experienced members of the Guards, who would have known how to do their duty, sent there? Not at all. You have only succeeded in demonstrating to this country that by your political method of recruitment, you have selected the wrong type of men. In consequence you have shaken the confidence of the law-abiding citizens of this State in the efficiency of that section of the Guards. It is a very bad thing. If you start shaking public confidence in the way in which a section of the Guards do their work, the country may not be able to discriminate, and the confidence of the public in the old, responsible and tried Guards would be shaken. There is another thing which should never be forgotten, that in a force like the Guards, with its fine traditions, splendidly built up during the last few years, one of the most valued things is esprit de corps. One of the things that can be utilised in the most perfect fashion is the feeling amongst the Guards that they have a force with a fine reputation. Each individual member will consider that he has got to keep up the reputation of that force. In consequence, there will be a driving power behind each member of the force to keep along the straight and correct path. But do the other thing: bring in a man who lowers the reputation of the Guards in the public eye and who lowers the reputation of the whole force in the Guards' own eyes, and you are killing that esprit de corps: you are taking away from the Gárda force one of the very best assets that it has got, and you do so want only and without any cause.
When you come into this House to introduce an Estimate dealing with that body of men you come in with no explanation to offer: just a few short words dealing with the facts and figures, but not one single word as to why this extra expenditure is required and why this extra body has been recruited in this strange fashion. Considering the present economic condition of this State, this sum of £30,000 is a very large sum, a sum which could be invested in valuable work amongst those whom the economic policy of the Government have driven into poverty. You have this sum added on to the Gárda Vote, and an explanation as to why it should be added on is not forthcoming from the Minister for Justice. In my judgment this is not a Vote that the House should pass. If the country wants extra Guards, if there is a need of an extra police force, if the present force is not fit or adequate to deal with crime and the Minister comes to this House and says "There are not sufficient Guards in the country to maintain order; I want more Guards and I am going to recruit them in the ordinary way, I am going to get the best men I can, I am going to let competent officers of the Guards select the recruits."—If the Minister comes to the House and establishes a case such as I have outlined, there will be no member more willing to support him than I will be. The primary object of every Government ought to be the maintenance of order. If the Government wants a police force bigger than its existing police force to maintain order, then most certainly I will support the Government in such a demand, but I will not support the Government in a demand that they may get pay for men whom they have not brought in to make easier the task of keeping order in this State, a body of men whom they have not recruited in the ordinary fashion and trained up in the ordinary, old way, and a body of men who have not helped in the preservation of the peace in this country and in whom the country has not got and cannot have confidence.
The only two charges that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has been able to make with regard to these men who are recruited is the one that has reference to the case against Commandant Cronin, and the incident in Cork. I do not accept the implication which the Deputy wants to assume flows naturally from the decision in the Commandant Cronin case. No reasons were given by the Tribunal for the decision they gave. Undoubtedly, they acquitted Commandant Cronin of the charge of being guilty of sedition, in making the charge that ammunition was "planted," but it is quite possible —I do not know what was in the minds of the members of the Tribunal—that they were quite satisfied that Commandant Cronin had neither knowledge nor control of the ammunition that was found there: that he made this statement bona fide, and having made the statement bona fide at the time, it was very hard to convict him of sedition. The Guard made the charge of having found the stuff there, that was all he charged Commandant Cronin with. He did not know who had control of it. He merely made that charge, and on that charge Commandant Cronin was acquitted.
With regard to the other incident in Cork, I can assure the Deputy—it is very easy for people to see the position reading it from the newspapers— that the superior officers in that particular incident were quite satisfied—it was not confined to the new recruits: there were other Guards in the vicinity —that the Guards from the tactical point of view acted in the proper way in not attempting to arrest at that time. These are the only two charges made against the new recruits. From the reports that I have got, there is a large number of these recruits still under training in the Depot, well over 100 out of the 300. On the reports that we get from superior officers through the country, I am satisfied that, on the whole, they are carrying out their duties, and that the esprit de corps which the Deputy seems so anxious about does exist between them and the other members of the force. I do not see why it should not. They have not been guilty of any indiscipline. There was one case of what might be construed as indiscipline, and the man concerned was very quickly put outside the gates. There has been a rigid discipline enforced amongst these men, and they have yielded to that discipline. The officers under whom they have served are satisfied with them.
One of the points the Deputy made had reference to what he called the irregular way these men have been recruited. He pointed out that in the past there were only two systems by which they could be recruited where there were different ages and sizes. As a general rule that may be so, but if the Deputy had inquired from time to time about the men who were being recruited he would have found that there were numerous exceptions made during those years. I do not want to read in the House the name of any Guard who was recruited. I have a list here giving the height, age, and so on of men taken in at various times, who were over age—some of them 35 years, other 37 years of age, 38 years of age, and so on. Others of them were under height. There is a large number of them.
Would the Minister give us some of the dates when these men were taken in, and would he tell us had they been members of the National Army?
No, the men to whom I am referring were not members of the National Army. Some of them were taken in in October, 1927, others in March, 1928, and others go back to 1926, and so on. I have men on the list here under 5' 5" in height, and so on.
If they were members of the National Army, I am satisfied.
Some of them were not.
Will the Minister consent to send me a list of them?
Yes, I shall send a list to the Deputy. A big number of them had failed in the Civil Service Temporary test, and I think every Deputy will admit that it is not a very difficult test to pass. One man, who was taken in on the 2nd September, 1925, was 5' 5"—hardly tall enough to qualify even for the National Army— and he was aged 26, which meant that his period of growth had passed, anyway. There were regulations, but I am satisfied that these regulations were departed from in many cases. We have conformed to the regulations so far as possible, and there is no use in trying to raise the suggestion—and I think it is very dangerous to raise such a suggestion—that this is purely a politically recruited force. They are not kept as a separate force. Some of them may be utilised from time to time in detective work in that branch of the Guards, but others have been found more suitable for the ordinary uniformed branch. I suppose the Deputy knows how the force was originally recruited. There was not a Deputy on that side of the House, who had not the unfortunate Commissioner of that day haunted day after day to get their friends into the Guards, and considerable pressure was brought from time to time to get recruits into the Gárda. Men are now taken in in the ordinary way, and these 300 men had to follow the ordinary procedure. They had to get recommendations from their parish priests and from other responsible persons and so on, just as in the past. If the Commissioner was not satisfied that they were of good character and in every other respect suitable they were not accepted. They had to pass the literary test. Nobody was taken on that did not pass that test set by the Civil Service Commission— not one that I am aware of, at any rate, and I think I have it fairly complete.
A complaint has been made as to the necessity for this recruiting and as to the strength of the force. Deputies are aware that it had not been at full strength. I think it would be; roughly, about 470 below full strength.
What were the actual numbers?
I have not the actual numbers, but I should say that to-day the strength would be, roughly, something like 7,400.
Yes, and in ordinary times it would be 6,900.
The Deputy was Minister in 1928, and what was the strength them? In July, 1928, it was 7,211. The strength to-day is 7,276.
It was reduced in 1928.
In 1933 we have 7,276, and in 1928 the full strength was 7,211.
What was it in 1929? Unless my memory is at fault, it was 6,900.
On the 30th November, 1929, it was 7,004.
That is 200 less than you have now.
Yes, practically 200. I cannot follow very clearly the Deputy's line of argument. If we are to agree with the claim made here that a good deal of disorder has existed in the country, it is the duty of the Government to afford protection against those disorders. Deputies opposite say that so short are we of protective forces that they have to build up a Blueshirt or private army to assist the police, if not actually to take over the duties of the police. We have to try to deal with that position and to provide police to do the work that these other people try to assign to themselves. If you say that it is necessary for the Blueshirts to come along and give protection at meetings, and we say that it is the duty of the Guards to afford that protection, then it is apparent that it was necessary to increase the force of the Guards. So far as I can see, the Deputy wants to cut down the numbers of the Guards and at the same time to say that their duty must be performed by people not under our control. The Deputy will remember a minute he received in 1927 from the then Commissioner. I do not want to go into it here, but I think the Commissioner had in mind increasing the force by something like 800. We are told that since we came into office, particularly during the last year, there was never such disorder in the country, and that it has increased in the country. If that is true, and if we want to combat that disorder, is it not more necessary now to have an even greater number than that if 800 were required at that time? I cannot see that the Deputy has made any case.
There were two things which struck me very much in the Minister's speech. One is the statement that these new recruits of the Guards are not in any way kept as a separate unit and that they have been completely absorbed into the force and are entirely ordinary members of the force. That is a statement which, certainly, has not been made in this House before and is not in accordance with the generally accepted belief. A special name is given to this new body, as far as I understand. There is a special name given to them in your regulations. We are all perfectly aware that another name was given to them which was ruled to be unparliamentary here the other night and which, consequently, I shall not use. Am I to understand from the Minister that these men do not from in any way a separate unit?
That is so.
Am I to understand that they have been taken in as ordinary recruits——
Yes.
——and that nobody has been made a sergeant or an inspector or anything of that kind within a week or fortnight or month of his being enlisted; that not a single one of these recruits has been given the rank of sergeant or receives more pay than an ordinary recruit coming into the Depôt? If these are the facts, it is very strange that the Minister has allowed it, without contradiction, to be so often said that these men are receiving a higher rate of pay than the ordinary men who were recruited to the Guards received, and that they were receiving considerably more than the 50/- a week which they should receive for their first six months. That certainly has been stated, and I have seen it in print. It is rather curious that the Minister has not contradicted it if it is not a fact. I have also seen it stated that some of those new recruits were promoted to the rank of sergeant, and I should like to know if that is so.
The Minister has not attempted to deal with the other matters at all. Why was this method of recruiting adopted? Why was this large body of men collected on one day, and why was the selector a member of this House? These are matters with which the Minister has not dealt. The Minister says that more men were required to preserve the peace. I already stated that if the Minister could make a case for more men, and could say that he was recruiting these men in the ordinary fashion, speaking not merely for myself but for the whole Party, I would support him. The Minister has not said that in to-day's discussion. He has not been anything more than hypothetical in the whole of his speech. If he says the Guards are not keeping order at meetings, then we ought to have more Guards.
That is what you, people, say.
I agree. But does the Minister say it? If the Minister does not say it, then he has absolutely failed to make a case for any new Guards. If the Minister admits frankly that the country is getting out of his hands, if he says that new Guards will help him, and that he will recruit them in the proper way, I, as I said before, shall support him. But let him recruit them in the proper way, and let him allow his Guards and, especially his old trained Guards, to do their work without let or hindrance. Let it be emphasised to all concerned in the giving of orders that the main and primary duty of the Gárda force, as of every police force, is not the conviction of criminals so much as the prevention of crime. Do not let us have the hands of the Guards tied by orders, so that horrible crimes can be committed and the Guards will not be allowed to interfere to prevent them. If the Minister wishes to utilise the Gárda force, without let or hindrance, in the proper discharge of their duties in preserving order, and if he recruits the right type of men, then, I say, let him have as many men as he is advised by the competent heads of the police are required. We have not heard even a suggestion that this body of men was recruited upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police. I am not satisfied at all—I shall not say with the case made by the Minister, but with the refusal to make a case. That was the characteristic of the speech of the Minister.
This Vote of £8,000, odd, for what is, to all intents and purposes, an auxiliary police force would want some explaining, especially having regard to the method of recruitment. I know many of the members of the new force, and I do not want to say anything against them. No matter what they are, or what they are not, or what they have been, the method of recruitment vitally concerns any police force. When the Minister proceeded to supplement the police force, he was not in the position that obtained here in 1922, when there was practically no police force and there had to be mass recruitment. The men recruited had to get as quick a training as possible and had to be sent out to do duty. The Minister started to recruit men about 5th August, of last year, and, as far as any evidence I have goes, I do not think I would be wrong in saying that these men were turned out to do police duty without any training at all. A lot of play has been made in the debates here to-day and yesterday with certain matters. I could say a good deal about these matters but I should not like to do so on account of certain notes struck in the debates both yesterday and to-day. It would be much better for the country if these notes could be carried a bit further. It is an appalling situation to find this country having, in 1934, what is, to all intents and purposes an auxiliary police fore and —I say it without any offence—a political auxiliary police force. The note that has been struck is a good one and I hope responsible people on both sides of the House will give ear to that note and let us, as soon as possible, get down to normality. Whatever differences there are, let them be genuine differences of economic policy or of political outlook, if you like. The words "murder" and "murderer" have been bandied about very much, but since then a better note has been struck and it would be well to get on to that note.
It is not fair in dealing with a police force for the Minister to recruit men and send them out to do duty without giving them a proper training. There was a dangerous occasion on 20th September last in connection with the sale of cattle in Linehan's pound. To quote the President, that was an action that no man could make popular in this country. It was sworn by a member of this special force that he was in charge of this force on that occasion. The Superintendent of the Gárda, who was nominally and outwardly in charge of all the police there, was really not in complete charge. He had no knowledge of this force being there officially. This junior officer swore that he was in immediate charge of this force of special Guards. He said there were about 40 there all armed with guns. A number of these were put up as witnesses, on the advice of the Attorney-General, and every one of them swore they had guns and that they got these between the days they joined the Guards and the 5th August and 9th September. Now men who joined on 9th September had only eleven days from the day they joined until they were sent up to deal with, what was sworn to be, a dangerous situation in Linehan's Pound. Forty men without any training were there with their guns in their pockets on that occasion. I do not think that is a good way of preserving the peace or that it was a proceeding which should be allowed in any civilised country. Some of those Guards who swore that day that they were armed were men I could identify and did identify in June as men who were leading gangs round to break up meetings.
You cannot refer to any particular Guard, or indicate in any fashion a way that a man might be identified as to his previous conduct. These Guards are now officers of the State.
We are dealing with a Vote of £8,000 to pay for a special branch of the Guards.
Let us be clear about this. We are not going into the past history of any members of the Guards.
I am not going to give any names.
No matter, they could be identified by the way the Deputy is speaking.
If we are asked to vote money, can we not ask what we are getting for that money? To use an old colloquialism, are we to be asked to buy a pig in a poke? We are asked to vote £8,000 of public money; are we not entitled to know the nature of the article we are buying?
I am not objecting to the Deputy discussing the type of men they get in the Guards under the present Government. I am objecting to any officer of the Guards being subjected to criticism in such a fashion that a particular officer can be identified.
I only gave an instance as typical of the quality of what we have bought for this £8,000, and I ask the Minister does he deny that? As I said at the beginning, I do not want to strike a discordant note on this matter, as I hope that the spirit shown yesterday and to-day will be built upon here. I would be glad to see before long these Guards assimilated to the ordinary Guards here, and not kept in a separate corps of their own to help to build up a dictatorship. I hope they will not be used for that purpose. Events have been pointing to that, but perhaps there is a change of heart and that that will not come off.
I cannot see what need there was for this special force. We were informed that there was sufficient force at the disposal of the Government to preserve the public peace. The public peace was not preserved, as the Minister well knows. It was during the term of office of his predecessor, Deputy Geoghegan, that a big meeting was held in O'Connell Street. We partly in Cathal Brugha Street. We were told to-day that everything reported to the Attorney-General, by way of disorder at public meetings, was taken up by him and a prosecution instituted and the culprits brought to justice. At that meeting in O'Connell Street, at which there were 40,000 or 50,000 people, there was obviously organised opposition to freedom of speech and everything else. Loud speakers were installed and right over where the police were drawn up a man climbed on a pole and cut down a loud speaker. The police officer remonstrated with him but the man remonstrated as much as the police officer, and yet he was not taken into custody.
May I ask the Deputy what was the date of that occurrence?
I cannot give the exact date but it was in January, 1933. I can get the exact date for the Minister if he likes. It was the first public meeting our party held in the North City in the opening of the election campaign of last year. I could give the date but I am sure the Minister could get it quite easily himself. I do not think there was any case in the courts arising out of that meeting, although 22 of our supporters had to be treated medically for wounds they received from bricks and bottles in Cathal Brugha Street. There was no inquiry and there was no reshuffling in the police force. There was no censure or suspension of any senior officer. The officer who was on duty in O'Connell Street that day was the same officer who was in charge of the force in Linehan's Pound, and was forthwith suspended because he did not order a baton charge in Linehan's Pound and has since been put out of the force. That was Superintendent O'Connell. Will the Minister contradict that?
Not for the reasons the Deputy gives.
What sort of reasons does the Minister want? I suppose if a man has his brains knocked out the Minister would condescend to hold an inquest and then make inquiry as to who did it. The Minister's job, I submit, is to preserve the peace and to stop breaches of the peace in order to save life. I put it to the Minister was the peace broken on the occasion I mention? What authority had any man to climb up a lamp post and cut down a loud speaker that we had put up there?
The Minister for Justice is not responsible for that.
The Minister for Finance smiles. I am not surprised that he is smiling, not in the least. He would be the first to squeal if he were in a tight corner.
You know.
I do know and I had to take him out of corners often but that mistake will not occur again. It is not a laughing matter. I should be delighted to see the olive branch held out here. It has to a certain extent been held out and I hope it will not be rejected by the other side. We are not dealing with politics now. We are dealing with peace in the capital city of the country. I am giving the position that existed when there were no Blueshirts.
The Deputy has said that this incident occurred at the first meeting of the Party. The Deputy would have in his mind what date that was. That would be over 12 months ago and, probably, outside the ambit of the discussion on this Vote.
In a sense yes, and in a sense no, because the Ministry I am sure, did not decide in a night to recruit this force. They had been considering it and finally came to the conclusion, I take it, that they would institute the force and recruit for it. The interval between the time when they actually recruited for the force and the time I am speaking of, was only six months and that is not a big lapse of time for strong bodies to move. We always hear that great bodies move slowly and I take it they moved slowly.
And I take it we shall move on now.
That is the quality of the peace officers that have been recruited by the Minister—come in to-day, given a gun, go out on the street to-morrow as a peace officer. That is really what we get here. I am not saying that should not be so if there was necessity for it. Will the Minister show us the necessity for it, considering that according to the Minister's spokesman, and particularly his colleague the Minister for Finance, years ago we were over-policed? We must be over-policed still and yet we have £8,000 here for an auxiliary force. It was so urgent that they could not be trained. They come in, they are given a gun and out they go. They had no uniforms to put on them. Whether they contemplated putting uniforms on them or not I do not know. I wonder is the Minister satisfied that this is conducive to peace, that this is an addition to the peace forces? What reason has he for varying the system of recruiting for the Guards from the old system? Why not recruit Guards in the ordinary way? Why not give them ordinary police duties and send them out into the streets of Dublin and throughout the country trained men knowing their duties and prepared to do them? But no, the Minister did not do that. Can he blame anybody for thinking, to put it no stronger than that, that this is a political force?
The position boils down to this that despite all we have heard about this Party system, when a Party gets office it should govern for the whole of the people and not for its own Party. Why did not the Minister police for the whole of the people and not for the Party? Why is there need for this political force which is charged up to the country's account? We know the qualifications for it. They were sworn to in open court. The Minister will not attempt to deny that. Will they preserve the peace? Will they help to preserve the peace? I have seen them in action and I am afraid they will not. I have seen them in action in the last ten days and I am afraid they will not. I hope the Minister will admonish them and advise them to act as police officers and not as partisans. I hope he will further advise them to try to stop breaches of the peace and not to try and create breaches of the peace. I know what I am talking about when I throw out that hint. They are in the force now. We will make them worthy of the force by advising them, and advising them strongly, to act as police officers. We, of course, have been told that other people are causing breaches of the peace. We know the way that breaches of the peace are caused and I am not going to go into it. I would advise the Minister in order to develop the little atmospherics that were introduced here by his leader, to act so that in preserving the peace, he will depend more on the uniformed Guards. If he wants to use his new force, let them go out in uniform so that they will be known, because many of them have been so well known in other directions that the last body in this country with which people who know them, would connect them, would be a police force. Even if he insists on gathering in his recruits from political clubs there is one thing that I would strongly advise him to do and that is to recruit no more Black and Tans for it.
There is no Black and Tan in it.
When did they leave it?
To whom is the Deputy referring?
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has ruled me out of that. You will not catch me out there. Do you say there was no Black and Tan in it?
I deny that there is any in it.
I am not talking of to-day or yesterday. I am talking of a date of which the Minister is aware. Did you recruit any Black and Tan into it? Well, then, a member of the Guards swore falsely that he was formerly a Black and Tan.
He explained what it meant.
What did he explain?
Do not be technical.
I am not going on a technicality. He said that he came over from Birmingham to join the Black and Tans.
Was he not an agent of the Republican Government?
He came over and he had his price. He sold himself to the highest bidder. He sold himself to three or four different opposing parties and well the Minister knows it. With that knowledge he recruited that man to be a special Guard.
There is no money in this Vote to pay him, anyhow.
Am I to understand that he is out of it, then? I saw him in this House to-day, apparently on duty. I may be wrong. He was looking more prosperous than ever I saw him before, so if he did not get it, he must be expecting some of this money. Perhaps that is why he is here. After all this country has gone through, is it not a terrible insult to men who lost everything to be put in the dock and their lives falsely sworn away, or an attempt made to do it, by an ex-Black and Tan, at the instigation of a so-called Republican Government? That statement is true. The Minister for Industry and Commerce laughs at it. It is something worth laughing at.
There will be weeping in a minute.
I did not think, no matter how I might differ with them in other ways, that there was a single Minister who would stand for that. But that is a fact, sworn to in open court. We are asked to vote money to pay this fellow. The suggestion is that he will get none in the future.
I do not know who is referred to and I do not know any member of the force. I was simply asking was any of the money in this Vote going to pay the individual referred to.
I think the Chair previously ruled that the Deputy was not entitled to make reference to any member of the force which would enable him to be distinguished.
I will not go any more closely as regards anybody, but the last time I came up against this gentleman he was in this special branch of the Guards.
Is this the friendly note you are striking?
It is, if you like, and the Deputy knows well that we cannot have friendship if ex-Black and Tans are to used to spy on old comrades. Surely the Deputy will not say that is a friendly gesture.
I know the man risked his life.
I think it is a very bad practice that officers of this State, who can be identified by the way in which they are referred to, should be discussed in this fashion here. It is an extremely bad practice and I have said that before to the Deputy.
I obey your ruling. When it was put to me to identify this man I refused to do it. I would not do it, in any case. I would not do it by virtue of your previous ruling and I am not going to go into it more closely. If none of the £8,000 will be used to pay him or to pay any old colleagues of his in the British auxiliary forces here, I will be glad. It is the Minister's job to ascertain what forces are required as peace officers. It is his responsibility to recruit adequate forces and it is our responsibility to vote him the money he requires. I hope the Minister will very soon— there is no reason why he should not do it forthwith—get to the ordinary practice of his predecessors in the matter of recruiting men for the Guards. I have no doubt that the Minister and his colleagues would like to make up leeway and provide old friends with jobs; it is natural and I do not blame them for it; but that can be done just as well by recruiting men ordinarily and training them properly before sending them out on duty. They should be trained and educated into their duties so that they will be a help and not a hindrance. Give the people good police and not recruits who are paid full money. My colleague from the North City and myself will, I suppose, do all we can to keep the olive branch aloft.
A prominent lawyer Deputy, who made a very forcible speech last night in the House, referred to the Gárda Síochána as a political police force. I want to see the least possible political interference by this Government with the uniformed forces of the State, who carried out their duties in an impartial way during the lifetime of the previous Government. It is generally admitted that the uniformed forces carried out their duties in an impartial way. We know that of no police force in the world would it be possible to say that all the members of the force were saints. I think the circumstances under which the Guards were set up in this country, and the subsequent conduct of that body, should make every Deputy here feel proud of the manner in which those men carried out their duties. I think it was the same Deputy who referred to the present Chief of Police as the political head of a political police force. I believe the present Chief of the Gárda Síochána is a good officer, an efficient officer, and he should not be referred to by any Deputy of any Party as the political head of a political police force. It is a wrong thing to create the impression in the minds of the people who do not know the man personally that he is what the Deputy alleged him to be. I have been informed that certain of the recruits recently taken into the Guards were sent out to do detective work without any previous training at the Depôt in some cases, and I say it is very wrong and most unfortunate if it is true some of these men were sent out to do that work in their own native areas.
That is right.
I would like to have some justification from a Governmental point of view for sending those men to do detective work in their native districts. It is certainly a most undesirable proceeding, and it should immediately be stopped. It is unfair to a man, who is anxious to work conscientiously, to send him to his native locality to do detective work. No matter how conscientious a man might be, you may find that either he or members of his family have a grudge against some neighbour, arising out of some difference within the past ten or 20 years, and I submit that that officer is bound to bear that grudge or grievance in mind when carrying out his police duties and he may overstep the mark in order to get a bit of his own back, as a result of the power placed in his hands. He will have an inclination to get his own back on someone who did him an injury in years gone by. If any police officer, who may have been recently recruited, is to-day serving in the area where he was born and reared, I hope in the interests of efficient police administration he will be changed to some other area, and that that policy will not operate in future.
Is it a fact that some of the three hundred, or whatever the exact number may be of those recently recruited, were sent out to do detective and other police work without any period of training? I think it is very desirable that recruits to the Gárda Síochána should have some reasonable minimum period of training in the Depôt before they go out to do any police work. I do not see how you can get any reasonable number of Guards—except an exceptionally brilliant man who is cut out for police work—to go out and do efficient police work in a month or two or perhaps a week or two after being taken into the force. They surely should learn something about police work in the Depôt before they are sent out to do their duties, either in their own native area or in any other area. Is it a fact—I have been informed it is—that some of the men who were recently recruited, and who are serving in their own native areas, are allowed to interfere with the work of the uniformed Guards? Is it possible, in Dublin City or anywhere else in the country, for one of the men recently recruited to go out in the City of Dublin or in any other area without the knowledge of the superintendent in the particular area, and make private reports to the headquarters, or to the chief superintendent of that area, or even to the Minister direct? I am sure the Minister would not stand for such a policy. A policy of that kind is bound to create demoralisation in the Force if allowed to go on. In my opinion any man recently recruited, especially any man now engaged on detective work, should not be allowed to interfere in any way with the work of the uniformed Guards.
Am I to understand that those recent recruits, now doing detective work, are responsible to the superintendent of the area in which they are operating, or are they allowed to go outside a particular superintendent's area and make reports about officers and members of the uniformed Guards direct to some other centre? If the Minister is not quite certain that those things are going on I would ask him to make careful inquiries, and if what I allege is correct I hope he will take the necessary steps to have it stopped. I am not quite sure whether there has been any alteration in the method of carrying out their duties in the detective branch, or whether any people who are to-day engaged as detective officers in the Gárda Síochána have the privilege—I do not think they should have it—of reporting direct to politicians or to the Minister; or are we to understand that all such reports must go to the headquarters, or to the Minister if necessary, through the recognised officer of the area where such work is carried out?
I have been told, and I think there are some grounds for referring to it here in the House, that some of those recruits are allowed to go out and make secret reports about members of the Guards in the Dublin Metropolitan area. I have been told that that has been done in a couple of cases by new officers of the detective force, and that reports have been made against uniformed members of the Dublin Metropolitan Division with whom some of those people came into contact, and into conflict, during the civil war period. If such has happened it should not happen again, because it is not very desirable that it should be allowed to go on. If any interference is to take place with the uniformed members of the Guards it should be by the officer who is immediately in charge of that particular uniformed Guard, sergeant or whatever else he may be. Reports of a disciplinary nature should be sent through the proper recognised channels to whatever quarters they must finally reach. It was never more necessary than it is now to see that the police force of this State is not interfered with in any political way. I think, if the uniformed officers of the Gárda Síochána are to be expected to administer in an impartial way the Bill which passed a Second reading here in the House to-day, it is very desirable that there should be no political interference with those people in the administration of delicate duties of that kind. I have every confidence that the present Chief of Police, as a good police officer, as a man who has had long and considerable police experience, and who was appointed to and filled a very high position during the régime of the late Government, will carry out his duties in a fair and impartial way if he is not interfered with by politicians, or by people who may be attached to either one side or the other in the conflict that is now going on.
You need not look at us. We will not interfere with him, anyway.
I am looking at you because it was from your side of the House the allegation came that the present head of the police is the political head of a political police force.
You do not suggest that we are going to interfere with him?
I would suggest to Deputy Bennett that in this particular matter he should talk in a very friendly way to the responsible lawyer Deputy who made that unfounded allegation in this House here last night.
A Chinn Comhairle, we are opposed to this huge increase in the Gárda Vote. This is another instance of the non-fulfilment of the economies that were pointed out to us at various times by the Ministry opposite. At the very beginning of this year we were told there would be no new recruits wanted for the Gárda; that there were sufficient police, and that recruiting would be put off for an indefinite period. During the debate that has taken place yesterday and to-day it would appear from the Attorney-General's statement that there was very little real unrest in the country. They were forced, he said, to put into operation the Constitution Amendment Act and to set up a Tribunal, but it really was not necessary to use it; there were very few cases brought before that particular Tribunal. It would appear, therefore, that on that particular point this new force was not needed. One would have to examine one's conscience very closely— at least, the Minister would—to make a definite case as to why this Force was brought into operation. I for one, before I go any further, would like to say that I have as much respect as anybody—perhaps more respect than some—for our police force in this country, from the top to the bottom. Anything that could be said in their favour I would say, and back it. They are an excellent body, who are doing their duty, and who are fully capable of doing their duty without any addition to their service. Whatever few remarks I am going to make are not directed against the personnel of the new addition. I do not know any of them personally. I have no doubt that quite a number of them, perhaps all, are excellent men. What I am objecting to is the expense to this State of the unnecessary addition to this force. This force was brought in some time last August or September, for what reason one does not quite know. The Ministry, evidently in a panic, believed that there was some modern Guy Fawkes somewhere in this Party, alive with the intention of blowing up those premises, or something similar. There was, I believe—I do not know for what cause — some little smoke appeared at the back of those premises, and possibly the Ministry imagined, as they appear to imagine in every instance of any like occurrence, that it was caused by a big plot amongst the occupants of these benches. Now there is no use, I suppose, in our saying or declaring that we know nothing whatever of such a plot. That is definite. In any case, some of us were surprised one morning to find that this place was manned by a new police force, a force that even Deputy Davin would admit—and I am not referring to their personal characters—should not be allowed into this country—men put into uniform at a day or two's notice.
Would the Deputy say when the new force were put into this building?
I cannot give the exact date.
It was just a week ago.
A week ago?
Yes, the members of the new force.
Does the Minister say that there were no members of the special force here until a week ago?
No members of the new force were on duty here up to a week ago.
I am to take it from the Minister that there were no members of any force, except what we recognise as the old Gárda force, on these premises or any other place until a week ago. If the Minister says there were not, I will take his word.
They were not on duty here.
I will accept the Minister's word that they were not on duty here——
There was a terrible lot of them about, anyhow.
We all saw them here.
——but they were here, and for what purpose I do not know, but it would have been better for them to be up in the Phoenix Park being trained, as Deputy Davin would like them to be trained. It is a lamentable thing that the Minister should make that statement to-day. When it was commonly mooted that a certain force was in occupation, the Minister should have taken the first opportunity to deny it. He now says that they were not on duty, but they were here. If they were not on duty here, what right had they to be here?
I spoke to some of them that I knew.
In this Estimate, we are asked to vote £25,000, part of which is to pay men, who were being paid while they were not on duty and who should have been in the Phoenix Park undergoing training as Gárdaí, learning how to conduct themselves properly— again, I am not speaking personally, but one recognises the value of training —and learning how to carry arms, if you like, with safety to the public and themselves. It is a monstrous proposal, and unless, as I said originally, it was because the Ministry got it into their heads that there was a modern Guy Fawkes among the occupants of these benches, I can see no reason for the institution of this force. One finds it difficult to believe that the activities of the United Ireland Party made it necessary to provide an addition, requiring some £25,000, to the existing police force. There may be other matters in respect of which the services of this particular police force were required, but I, for one, object to the employment of any police officer as a cattle dealer, for instance. I think it is absolutely unnecessary that the police forces of this country should have to engage in those duties. If it is necessary for the Government to employ men to engage in cattle dealing, they can get other men in this State to do it, and to do it openly, without employing the police force.
We rather expected on the advent of this Government into office that, instead of the almost monthly additions to taxation in the way of Supplementary Estimates, there would have been a promise or a hope of reduction. Certainly, in regard to this particular vote for the Gárda Síochána—one of the most excellent police forces in the world—we did expect that the men already recruited were in number, in equipment and in efficiency capable of supplying the needs of this State. There has been nothing from any Minister who spoke, even in the heated debate which we had on another matter, to prove that there was any necessity whatever for any addition to the numbers already in the Gárda Síochána. I altogether agree with what Deputy Belton has said as to the different uses to which this particular body have been put and I can only say, in conclusion, that one cannot too strongly object to a Supplementary Estimate to provide an addition for which no great case has been made to a force, part of which has been used to parade around these premises, not on duty but, I might say, on vacation, at the expense of the State.
I do not propose to say very much on this Vote, but while Deputy Belton was speaking, I could not help feeling that he and his Party were largely responsible for the bringing before this House of Supplementary Estimates of this kind. Were it not for these theatrical military tactics of August and September last year, it would possibly not have been necessary to augment the force as apparently it was found necessary during that period. The Deputy ought to remember that during that period, we had declarations by gentlemen bearing military titles that they would insist on holding parades in Dublin, and that come what would, they would not be deflected from that course, and after emulating the Duke of Plaza-Toro, who is reputed to have marched his army up and marched them down again——
That is apparently what the Guards were doing here.
The same gentlemen came along afterwards and announced that they were going to hold chapel parades all around the country, using the churches as meeting grounds for their political camp followers and again, the country was told that no matter what happened, these demonstrations would take place, and no matter what sacrifices were involved, these demonstrations would be persisted in. I want to ask Deputy Belton what effect these kinds of declarations, these declarations of intention to hold large-scale demonstrations which were to be carried through no matter what the cost, apparently, in physical suffering or bloodshed, had upon the necessity for recruiting a force of this kind? The Deputy stooped to-day to using this House as a means of attacking individual members of the new force—
On a point of order, I did nothing of the kind and Deputy Norton is not going to get away with it. Let him make his own speech and his own case but let him not try, by innuendo, to accuse anybody else.
The clearest possible proof of the fact is that he was called to order by the Chair for doing so and what more conclusive evidence could I have of what I said than the fact that the Deputy was called to order for making the statements he made?
On a point of order, that is not so. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle called me to order and said that he did not want individuals described in such a way as might identify them, and neither did I describe them in a way which would identify them. The Minister asked me to name the particular man and I said "no."
You described him, of course.
I did not name him when I was asked to. Let Deputy Norton go and make his own speech if he has one to make.
Short of producing a photograph of that member of the Gárda, the Deputy identified him perfectly clearly.
Who is he then? Does the Deputy know him?
I am not going to be provoked into following these discreditable tactics of the Deputy by making attacks on individual members of the Gárda or using my privileged position in the House to abuse people whom I apparently dislike. It is nothing new to the Deputy's Party in any case. For the past six months here, we have had the Front Bench of the Party describing a section of the State Forces as "Broy Harriers." One could understand that mentality in a tenth-rate politician at the cross-roads but for responsible leaders of a Party to use this House to describe a section of the police force as "Broy Harriers" is nothing short of disgracefully bad public taste—I think it is wrong.
The expression "Broy Harriers" was ruled out of order yesterday and the Deputy withdrew the words. Matters once ruled out of order should not be debated.
I am glad to hear that decision, Sir.
The Deputy heard it yesterday.
I am sure, Sir, it will be within your recollection that that phrase has been flung around this House for the past six months.
It should not be flung around the House by Deputy Norton now.
I will not refer to it in this debate in the future. But the fact remains that a section of the State forces have had an epithet applied to them which is in bad taste.
The Deputy must get away from that point.
I am getting away from it.
Slowly.
Very slowly.
It would be better if Deputy Norton thought over his speech and got up again.
If I took six and a half hours to make a speech I would never again open my mouth in this House.
You would die if you did.
Deputy Norton cannot get away from it.
I never left one Party to join another in the hope that I would be made a Minister.
Hear, hear.
Deputy Davin should not speak on that subject. He was one of the men in the Labour Party who voted within the Party against the Public Safety Act. I am competent to tell him that.
I am competent to tell the Deputy something, too, if I liked.
I am afraid that Deputy Norton's note of personalities is contagious.
I made some people uncomfortable.
Yes, Deputy Norton.
No Deputy can change from one Party to another at the speed at which Deputy Rice did. The growing practice of referring to State forces by a particularly offensive epithet is a practice that should be stopped. And while it will be stopped under your ruling in the House it is a thing that should not be repeated outside the House. For the purpose of making political capital out of the recruitment of members of the Gárda Síochána, Deputy Belton has spoken as to the cost of the additional Gárdaí who have been recruited recently. He might have told the House how many Gárdaí had been recruited in advance of the General Election in 1932, and he might have told the House what were the credentials of the men recruited.
On a point of order. I want to say that I made no objection to the recruitment of additional Gárdaí, but to the manner in which they were recruited and to the manner in which, without training, they were sent out on duty.
There were not as many recruited recently as were recruited in advance of the General Election of 1932.
At that time they trained the Gárdaí before they sent them out.
Before Deputy Belton goes out to talk about the Gárdaí he should get a brief from somebody who knows something about them. A couple of days ago we had Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney here quoting things about Henry VII and Henry VIII, and paying tribute to the moral character of the latter gentleman. We have now Deputy Belton talking about the recruitment of the Gárdaí. Somebody ought to put a brief in Deputy Belton's hands so as to prevent him making foolish statements in this House.
That is the best proof that a man is a fool—when he calls another man a fool.
Deputy Belton came in and raised his hands in strong protest against the recruitment of additional Gárdaí recently. But he did not tell the House under what circumstances 300 new Gárdaí were recruited just in advance of the General Election in 1932, when the Party opposite saw the writing on the wall, when they said: "Here goes for a short life, but a merry one." Deputy Belton told us nothing about that.
Because I was discussing the Estimate for the recruitment of the Gárdaí in 1933, not in 1932.
If the Deputy wants to discuss the extra recruitment of Gárdaí this year, it is interesting to know that he is so very critical this year as to the necessity for the recruitment. He had no criticism to offer for the recruitment of 300 Gárdaí in 1932. The Deputy was wisely not critical then.
Deputy Norton should know that I was not here then.
The Deputy could have raised it in February, 1932, and members of his party knew perfectly well that a large number of Gárdaí had been recruited. The pace at which the Gárdaí were recruited in February, 1932, makes the recruitment of the recent addition to the Gárdaí a matter of a snail's progress. The Deputy should have thought of making enquiries as to what were the qualifications and tests in 1932, and who were responsible for placing numbers of the Gárda Síochána and if he had that information in his possession he would not come along here to-day deploring the fact that additional people were recruited recently; and he and his party would not be deploring the fact of these additional recruitments in circumstances that justified the recruitment of additional Gárdaí much more so than the recruitment previous to the election in 1932.
Yesterday evening when we discussed another Bill mention was made of the fact that the Government should use all the forces at its disposal to insure a fair and peaceful hearing for all parties in the State at public meetings. I want to put it to the Minister for Justice now that very definite instructions should be given to the Gárdaí as to their conduct at public meetings. They should be told definitely what their instructions are and they should be told that it is the desire of the Government to insure that peace will be maintained at all costs at these public meetings. I suggest to the Minister for Justice that he ought to close his ears to any complaints against the Gárdaí as to the way in which they carry out their duties at these public meetings. The Gárdaí should have definite instructions as to the manner in which they discharge these duties when they are sent to these meetings. It is important that the Gárdaí should be told publicly and privately that no effort should be spared to maintain order and that they will have the support of the Government in doing their duty in that respect.
The very fact that there is any doubt as to the Government's view on the matter of the maintenance of peace at public meetings, or that any complaints are brought to Ministers against the Gárdaí is calculated to cow the Gárdaí in discharging their duties at public meetings and this inevitably causes a certain uneasiness amongst the Gárdaí. I hope the Minister for Justice will tell the House that the Gárdaí will have these definite instructions. I hope further he will use this House as the platform to give these instructions and that he will tell us that he will do everything to help the Gárdaí to put down interruptions at public meetings.
I am not going to reply to the questions that have been raised here by Deputy Bennett. I had already replied twice in this debate to these questions before Deputy Bennett spoke, and I think that is enough. I do not think when a Deputy leaves the House for some hours, then wanders in and raises a question already dealt with that I should be expected to go over all those matters again. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, in his second speech, made an attempt to cause some suspicion as to the pay and allowances of these new recruits. It was stated here already that these people are paid according to the statutory allowances and nothing more. The suggestion that they are getting special pay and allowances that are not given in the ordinary way to the other members of the force is a suggestion that I deny. It is contemptible when a denial has been given to an assertion like that, that it should be repeated.
I pointed out already that a large number of these recruits, over 100, are still in the Depôt. They are on probation the same as any other Gárdaí there going through their normal course of training. That course of normal training is not a matter that has ever been strictly adhered to. The officers in charge of these recruits will train them and give them instructions and these officers are the best judges as to whether those new recruits are capable of performing their duties as Gárdaí. Reference had been made to it by Deputy Davin. Again I say it is not a new practice that in the course of getting instructions some of these new recruits are sent out on duty with trained men. I think that is a very necessary part of their training. They are responsible to their officers and they always keep in contact with the men who know their business better than they do and who have long experience in the force.
The suggestion has been made by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney that they are not allowed to do their duty. Either the Deputy has some information or some information is available that the Guards and their officers are being interfered with by me or some member of the Government. I do not want to use strong words, but I say it is incorrect and untrue. I have not at any time interfered, through the Commissioner or otherwise, with any member of the Guards or with any officer in the discharge of his duty. If the Deputy wants to do a service to the Guards and to the people, if he has a suspicion he will try to get whatever information he can and place it in the hands of the Commissioner or in my hands.
What you already know.
I do not know. I have stated that there has been no interference. The Deputy will not accept that and I cannot put it any further. Deputy Belton complained about what he called mass recruitment. Deputy Norton dealt with one of the reasons, at any rate, that there was at the time what might be called mass recruitment. In that mass recruitment —if you wish I shall accept your description of it—the ordinary methods were employed. I do not see that there can be any particular grievance about departing from the old practice, which was a recommendation from Cumann na nGaedheal clubs. I know Deputy Belton may have a grievance about that, but if he understands my position in August last he will see that there is no ground for it. He will realise that in August last Deputy MacDermot's Party, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, and others were in a fluid state. I do not think that they have got much more solid since, but at that time how was I going to go back to the old method of asking for recommendations from the Cumann na nGaedheal clubs?
The Minister knows well that that was not in my mind. I was not troubled about the method of recruitment. The point I made was that they should have been given proper training before they went out. How they were recruited is a matter for the Minister and his officers.
As to the time it may take them to be sent out and so on I am not the judge. There are officers in charge who know all about that business. If they take them out after a certain time or for certain duties it was not at my direction or under my instructions they were taken out. I am satisfied that they were taken out by good, responsible officers and that they were taken out because they were considered by the officers to know their business and were considered capable and fit.
Did one plant ammunition in Cronin's office?
The trouble always is that Deputies will wander in here after the debate has gone on for three or four hours. If the Deputy had been here an hour ago when I was dealing with that he would not expect me to go back on it again for his benefit.
What is his record and training?
It is a pity the Deputy would not come in here and make a speech and not be throwing out foolish interruptions.
Well answered.
I cannot be waiting to reply to Deputies opposite when it suits them to wander into the House. I have dealt with that matter already. One of the matters that I do take exception to—I do not want to have any heat about it—is the matter referred to by Deputy Belton. That was threshed out in another place. I do not want to refer to individuals as I know it would be out of order to do so. I am satisfied, however, that this House should not be taken advantage of, any more than the court, which was also in a privileged position, should be taken advantage of, to slander somebody. I do say in view of the evidence tendered at the court that the slander which was tried to be spread about that individual was absolutely undeserved. The Deputy knows well that the body of evidence brought up afterwards went to show that it was a slander.
Certain other matters have been raised by Deputy Davin. The Deputy complained that detectives were put on work in their native areas. I am not aware of that. I certainly say that it is most undesirable that such should be the case. It has been the recognised practice when Guards get married in a certain area that they are taken away from that place except in exceptional circumstances, and even then they are not left in the exact area. I do agree that it would be most undesirable that people should be operating in their native area. I agree with Deputy Davin that there may be old feuds and sores existing between families and that if a person comes into the service of this State he might, if he were of that disposition and had not come under discipline sufficiently to forget these things, abuse his position in a very serious way. However, I shall make inquiries, but I am quite satisfied that the information is incorrect.
As to the period of training, there is no fixed or defined period of training. A man may be more adaptable for certain work, such as detective work and take a shorter period than others would. As I have said already, it has been the practice to take men who are being trained for a particular work out with men who are trained, but in all these cases they act under their responsible officers who sent them out on that particular duty. The question has been raised by Deputy Davin as to whether information goes through recognised channels. It certainly does. There is no direct touch with any member of the Government or any other way by which information is given by any member of the force.
Are Deputies entitled to approach members of the detective division regarding operations in their particular areas?
No; Deputies or anybody else are not entitled to go and ask for information from any Guard. If anybody wants to assist the Guards he can assist them, but the Guards are not entitled to give information, which must necessarily be of a confidential character, to anybody. If anybody infringes that regulation and the Deputy can give information about it I am quite sure he will be dealt with.
It is valuable information for Deputies.
There are recognised channels, of course, for police transferring their information and giving particulars of their duties and these channels have not been departed from. There has not been any departure with regard to the new members of the force taken in. Deputy Norton referred to instructions as to meetings. I referred to that in the other debate. Instructions, explicit and definite, have been sent out to the Guards already, and those instructions will be repeated, that every possible step must be taken to preserve the right of free speech at public meetings. I cannot say any more than that.
I have not much to say on this Vote. I have nothing to say against the personnel of the new force, because I know nothing at all about it. Incidentally, I notice that Labour members take exception to some Opposition Deputies, because they designate the new force as a political force. It is not only the United Ireland Party that conveys that impression, but the Fianna Fáil organisation as well convey it by implication. I will mention a specific incident that has come under my notice. In one district in County Leitrim a Fianna Fáil Club has asked to have some members of the new force sent there on the grounds that the other Guards were not carrying out their wishes, although we heard it stated from the Government Benches and from the Opposition Benches that the Civic Guards are the best and most impartial police force in the world. That is admitted on every side, yet, that impartial and efficient force is not good enough for some of the Fianna Fáil Clubs in County Leitrim, and they want some of the new force. I know nothing about the new force, but judging from the inferences to be drawn from this it looks as if there was something in the charge that it was a political force. That is the only implication that can be got from the action of the Fianna Fáil Clubs in County Leitrim. I am concerned about the £25,800 that is asked for for this force. The present Government claims that they got a mandate—I suppose for this Vote as well as for everything else. What did this Government get a mandate for at the last two general elections? Was it a mandate to increase expenditure? The mandate they got was one to reduce expenditure. They promised to do so, and in particular they promised to reduce the expenditure on the police force. Reasons have been given as to why it was necessary to increase the police force last year. One reason was that the Blueshirts are the cause. It is easy to prove that the Blueshirts have not been the cause, and that they have not created any necessity for the recruiting of an extra police force. The real cause is that the Government, instead of putting down and checking crime, encouraged it. I can prove that by giving a specific instance. At the last election in County Leitrim, cars that were to be used to bring Cumann na nGaedheal supporters to the poll were dismantled on the night previous to the election by a certain illegal organisation.
Worse than that happened in Leitrim at the election of 1932.
Whether it happened in 1932 or 1933 I know that this Government has rewarded the gentleman who was responsible for coming out the next day with an armed force to intimidate and to prevent people from going to the poll. Can that be denied from the Government Benches? I challenge them to deny it.
Give evidence of it.
The gentleman who was at the head of the party has been appointed to a good position worth about £1,000 a year as an income tax collector. Can that be denied?
He is not in the police force.
These are facts. I am not drawing on my imagination. Let it be denied if it can be denied. It is not the Blueshirts are responsible. I heard the Attorney-General stating yesterday that things were peaceful at the last election and that they were not peaceful in 1932. I know the cause of that. If fewer Guards were necessary and if things were peaceful at the last election it was because the people were so intimidated that they had to lie under it and put up with it and had to stay in their houses. That is how Fianna Fáil got a mandate on which they now claim to pass legislation to restrict the rights and liberties of the people of this country and to prevent them from exercising their natural rights. These are facts that cannot be denied and all the eloquence put forward from the Government side cannot alter them. What was the position in County Cavan? Notwithstanding the Attorney-General's denial yesterday I know what happened in his presence in that county. The Cumann na nGaedheal candidate got up on a platform to address a meeting at the fair in Cavan at the start of the election campaign but 30 or 40 hooligans gathered around with the result that about 600 people who were around the platform could hear nothing. These hooligans never allowed Doctor O'Reilly or his supporters to be heard.
A colleague and myself in the Centre Party got on the same platform afterwards, but the same thing occurred. The same crowd shouted us down, so that not a single word was heard by our supporters. The Attorney-General was looking on, yet he got up in this House on yesterday and said that everything was peaceful. Seemingly things were going according to his wishes. If he wishes, he can deny that. I cannot say that I saw him there, but I have it on the best authority that he was there. I say that he was there. Is anybody able to deny it? The Fianna Fáil Party held a meeting afterwards which was addressed by the Attorney-General, and there was not a single interruption. Remember the Fianna Fáil Party were not a majority party in County Cavan. They were a minority party. Fianna Fáil polled only 48 per cent. of the vote, yet the majority party were not allowed to hold their meeting in the capital of Cavan. That is what the Attorney-General tells us was a peaceful time. He said that there was no necessity for the extra police force until the Blueshirts came along. That and similar occurrences all over the country created the necessity for the Blueshirts. There is to be another meeting in Cavan on 17th March, and as there will be Blueshirts there, please God, the hooligans will keep away.
I should remind the Deputy that a vote was taken on the Second Reading of a certain Bill to-day, and that the debate on that then closed. The matter before the House now is a Supplementary Estimate for the Gárda Síochána, and not the history of the last election in Leitrim, Cavan and other counties.
The argument put up by the Government Benches is that this extra force and the money involved to pay for it were rendered necessary because of the Blueshirts. That was the argument of the Attorney-General, and I am denying the statement. I got no opportunity of replying to him because of the closure, and I did not think it out of place to refer to it now.
That is the difficulty. On an Estimate a Deputy may not reply to a speech made by the Attorney-General on a Bill, the Second Reading of which was decided to-day. Surely the Deputy does not think that he can resume yesterday's debate now.
I submit to your ruling, Sir. Am I entitled to examine into the cost and as to why this new force has been recruited?
Yes.
That is what I propose to do. I am, perhaps, trespassing too far, but I will try to keep within the bounds of order. We are told the force was established because of the provocation given by the Blueshirts. That is not the fact. What about the provocation that is being given by the armed force that we have in the country? The President referred to that armed force to-day. He said that if he had his way he would see that those in it would hand in their guns. He means to have his way with the Blueshirts and to compel them to hand up their shirts, but he does not mean to have his way with the people who are going around with the guns. He is prepared to coax them: to tell them to be good boys and ask them to hand up their guns. It is generally admitted that it is quite illegal for these people to have guns, but there is nothing illegal about the shirts. That is the position that we have in this country. It is because of it that it is necessary to recruit this extra police force at a cost to the country of over £25,000
We are frequently told about the mandate this Government got from the people. They certainly got no mandate to increase expenditure. They went to the country and asked for a mandate to cut down expenditure, to effect economies, but what do we find? In every direction, instead of economies, we have increased expenditure. It was because of their promises about the economies they would effect, if elected, that they secured a mandate. Of course, other means were adopted to secure that mandate. My friend, Deputy Tom Kelly, could tell us something about them: such as "Vote early and vote often." I do not propose to go into that. The Government certainly got no mandate from the people to increase taxation. Yet since they came into power expenditure on the police force, on the army, and indeed in every other direction has been increased. I hold that at the present time they have no moral right to introduce legislation to increase taxation because they only represent a minority of the people. Even if they did get a mandate at the last election— and in my opinion the majority they obtained was not got by fair means— I believe they no longer hold that majority and that the time has gone when they have any moral right to introduce legislation at all.
May I move that the question be now put?
I am not prepared to accept that motion now.
I object to this Vote on this ground: that there were two objects in the recruitment of the new force. One was to suggest to the country that the Blueshirts were a danger that had to be provided against. The other was the indecent attempt, the cowardly attempt, on the part of the Government to weaken the I.R.A., whom they were not prepared to deal with, by taking into the new force the most formidable members of that organisation. In the month of August last a parade was arranged in Dublin of a peaceful organisation—the Blueshirts. This was availed of to create a panic in the minds of the public by suggesting that there was something sinister behind it, but nobody knew better than the members of the Government that there was nothing sinister behind that parade: that it was a political demonstration against the present Government. But they pretended to be in a panic and they recruited this new force. I was amazed to-night to hear the Minister for Justice say that this force did not come into operation until last week.
Into this building, I said.
I was amazed to hear that said, because we all saw them here on duty immediately after the Dáil met. They looked awkward with their guns exposed in their holsters at the time they came on duty here.
I think the Deputy is confusing them. There were men here in plain clothes, but not the men the Deputy is referring to.
If the Minister says that these men did not belong to the new force I accept his statement, but we all thought that we saw members of that new force here immediately after the Dáil met. I saw some of them in operation elsewhere. The second point on which I object to the Vote is the one that I have stated: that, in my opinion, one of the objects in recruiting the new force was the cowardly attempt to placate the more formidable members of the I.R.A. About six weeks ago one of them appeared as a witness before the Military Tribunal. He said that he had been recruited into the new force last summer. This was a man, remember, who was sent out as a public servant to deal impartially with Blueshirts and everybody else. On his own admission that man's record was this: that he joined the I.R.A. after it had been proclaimed by the Government of this country; that he paraded in the streets of Cork as a member of this illegal body after it had been proclaimed, and when he was asked in cross-examination if the Minister and the people who took him into the force knew that that was his record he said that he believed they did. Is that a proper man to preserve order in this country? Why was he taken in? Is he the kind of man, going around as a Guard in this country, who can be respected as an upholder of law and order by the people who support us? Why was he taken in?
Would the Deputy say why General O'Duffy took 500 of the I.R.A. into the Blueshirts?
Because they have seen the folly of their ways, and because they have come round now to the constitutional party. We welcome every member of the I.R.A. and of the Fianna Fáil Party who has joined us. Will the Minister answer me this: why did the Fianna Fáil club in Ballinacarriga, Westmeath, vote by 45 to 42 to join the Fine Gael Party? Will he tell me that?
It is a miracle.
Did General O'Duffy tell the Deputy that also?
That is an incident that happened, and will the Minister tell me why it happened? It happened simply because he and his Party got into office by false promises, and these people have found them out.
£15,000,000 for housing.
Who said that? Is that the man who used to carry a photograph?
General O'Duffy got a good character from the Minister.
We have this Vote supported by Deputies Norton and Davin, the two members of the Labour Party who occasionally attend in this House. I remember the time, when I came into this House first, when there were 22 members of the Labour Party here, and I must say this, that I looked forward to the position in this country when the Opposition in this House, when the alternative Government here, would be Labour. I looked forward to that and hoped to see it happen. It will never happen now.
You stole Dan from us.
The Deputy says we stole Dan. There were two members in that Party who had character and courage and national instinct, and they walked out of the Labour Benches because they would not stand for the position for which Deputy Davin stood. We introduced the Public Safety Act——
The Deputy must come to the Estimate before the House.
I obey your ruling, Sir. I would love to deal with the record of that Party, but I bow to your ruling.
Keep to your own.
Deputy Norton referred to me as having left a Party I was associated with at one time. I should like to reply to that attack on me. If you say, Sir, that it is not in order to do so, I, of course, shall bow to your ruling, but, with all respect, I think I am entitled to reply to that attack, and I am waiting for your ruling.
Deputies should not take notice of every interruption and interjection.
No matter how rude or how ignorant they may be?
The Deputy is a good judge of ignorance.
Yes, I have seen Deputy Norton for a long time in this House, and I am a good judge of ignorance. I do not know whether you have ruled, Sir, that I am entitled to deal with Deputy Norton and his Party or not. I wish to say that Deputy Norton and his Party are supporting this Estimate. I say that in doing that they are flying in the face of the few people who support the Labour Party in this country. There are 56,000 registered trade unionists in the City of Dublin. That represents at least 100,000 votes in the City of Dublin. They are not able to return one member representing them in the City of Dublin, because the people of Dublin have found them out. Those are the people who say they stand for liberty; and they stand up in this House to support this Vote which, they know perfectly well, is a Vote to maintain——
Can we have the protection of the Guards, Sir, against this man making this speech?
I am glad to see Deputy Davin looking for protection. I know he wants it badly. As I was saying, there are 56,000 members of trade unions in the City of Dublin. 7,000 is the quota in South City and 8,000 is the quota in the North City. They cannot return a single member to represent them here, because the working men of Dublin have found them out and know that they are a fraud and do not represent labour in this country at all. They represent militarism in this country, and militarism is represented by the new Force. That is the expression of militarism in this country, and you are standing for it. It is a degradation of the Party that was in this House in 1927. The tail that is left of that Party now, the eight members who now pose as labour representatives, are a degradation of the Party of 22 members that was here in 1927.
I say, Sir, that I oppose this Vote, and I oppose it because it was only the first step—we have had another step in the Bill that passed its Second Reading to-day—it was only the first step in the policy of the Government to suppress the Blueshirts in this country, who are being suppressed because the Government know that those people are going to put them out of office.
You never wore a blue shirt, did you?
I am too old to wear one. It was the first step, and we had another step in the passing of the Second Reading of that Bill to-day, to suppress the Blueshirts. I wonder did any of you pay attention last night to the speech of Deputy O'Higgins from these benches. Not many of you were there, but I would appeal to you to read that speech and to pay attention to it. He made a moving appeal to this House.
On this Vote?
No, Sir. I am going to keep in order and to obey your ruling, but I am connecting the two things. I say that the first step——
On a point of order, Sir, may I call your attention to the fact that there is a Deputy in this House wearing a blue shirt and asleep?
That is not a point of order.
I connect the two things in this way. I say that the first step taken to suppress the Blueshirt movement was the recruitment of this Force, and I am objecting to the Vote on that ground. I say that the next open step to suppress that movement was the Bill which received its Second Reading here to-day; and I then say to the members of the Government opposite that they should pay attention to the appeal made to them last night by Deputy O'Higgins. It was a moving appeal and an appeal to which every Irishman ought to pay attention. He asked them, for God's sake, to think of what the implications of this measure were; that these young fellows had been restrained; that they had been asked to obey the law and that they had obeyed it; but not to tempt them too far. You are tempting them too far in the measures you are taking now. You first did this recruitment in order to suppress a political body. I do not like the smug look on the face of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I hate that look on the face of a man who ought to feel his responsibility, and I am sorry that he was not in the House last night to listen to Deputy O'Higgins's appeal to him and his colleagues. This is not a laughing matter, nor a matter for a joke. This country is in danger.
Might I ask, Sir, is this in order?
The first step you took to put this country in danger—in serious danger—was the recruitment of that new force——
The Deputy's last sentence is in order.
——and you took your second step last night and to-day.
I move that the Question be now put.
I accept that motion.
Before proceeding to the next Vote, would you allow me, a Chinn Comhairle, to say that I am told that during the discussion on the last Vote, Deputy McGovern made a charge against me that I was a party to interrupting a meeting of his? Such a charge is absolutely untrue, I never had anything to do with any meeting of Deputy McGovern's and never saw him on a platform.
