A few matters arise upon this Estimate which I think should receive the consideration of the House and the Minister. Deputy Mulcahy has touched upon the question of the motive behind the appointment of a civil servant as Commissioner of the Guards, and I presume the Minister will give some information on that point. On the question of recruiting, it is a well-known fact that the duties of the Guards are being increased almost daily by Government policy and that the force is considerably under strength. We should like to know whether it is the Minister's intention to open recruiting for a certain number at an early date this year so as to relieve the pressure of work upon the Guards.
There is another matter which I think is not receiving the consideration it should receive from the Government. It is the matter of the housing conditions under which the Guards are living. The barrack accommodation in a great number of places is not what it should be. The married quarters for a sergeant, his wife and family in the barracks is very cramped and I would say that the conditions under which a great number of these married officers reside in the barracks are not conducive to efficiency and discipline. The matter of housing accommodation for married Guards is also a very serious problem. I know that transfers have been held up because of inadequate housing accommodation in the towns to which Guards are about to be moved, even where it would be in the interests of discipline in the force, and of the force itself generally, that the transfers should take place. I think the Government should have at leást one or two houses in every town and village, the same as in the Army, as married quarters for the ordinary married Guards, so that, if efficiency and discipline can, in the opinion of the Guard officers, be improved by transfers, Guards can be transferred without being able to put up the case that there is no accommodation and that they are being separated from their wives and families. All these things have an effect upon the Guards generally.
On the force itself, I have no comment to make except to say I was rather perturbed by the state of affairs which arose at the funeral of a person in County Leitrim recently. I should like to know if the Government issued any orders to the Guards in relation to that funeral or if the Guard officers and Guards acted on their own responsibility on that occasion, because either of two things should have happened. Either two Guards with the butt of a pencil and a notebook should have gone to the funeral, and nobody else, or if a display of force was to take place, the force should have been effective. A number of armed Guards went to that funeral and a number of men with rifles attended it also. These men fired their volleys and walked away. I should like to know what steps the Minister has taken in the matter. Were the Guards' orders that they were only to give this demonstration or was it that the Guards are suffering from the frame of mind that jurors and certain judges are suffering from, that, if they do their duty, they cannot be sure that the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Defence will not walk up to Arbour Hill next day and let them all out again? It is a very serious matter.
On the Offences Against the State Bill I said that, in my opinion, the ordinary law was sufficient for every purpose. I am giving here an instance of the ordinary law not being enforced. We know that, in the old days, one R.I.C. man with the butt of a pencil, as I say, and a notebook, was a very dangerous person. He did very little, but he saw much and heard much. It all went down in the notebook and, after careful consideration by the authorities, police came out with a warrant and lifted a number of people. Alternatively, if they had to have a display of force, they had it but, in this case, there was neither the one nor the other. There was a certain display of force and shots were fired over the funeral party by the Guards. What was the point in firing shots over the funeral party, if not to hit somebody? If they had orders not to hit, or if they were afraid to hit, why fire at all, because it is a very serious thing for the State forces to use firearms, when they are used only as a sort of threat? It is very hard to know exactly what happened. There was no inquiry that we are aware of. We do not know what the policy of the Government in these matters is, and I wonder if the Guards themselves know. We do not know whether a prosecution is being considered in this case, whether any arrest took place, or whether there was any search for arms.
The Minister should make some statement on the 101 points that arise on this Vote. We find that there is vigorous enforcement of the Licensing Acts and prosecutions in some districts while, in other cases, there is laxity in the presentation of cases before district justices. Whether that is due to political pressure or not, I do not know. I know that in one particular town a Civic Guard had a prosecution pending against, what I might call a prominent politician, but a member of this House sent for that Guard and said that he was not to push it too hard. He did not tell him to drop the prosecution, but to trot the horse instead of galloping it. I hold that that is a very dangerous action, and is not conducive to the effectiveness or the efficiency of the Guards, or the impartial administration of the law. The result in such a case is that, because a person is of a political colour, a guard is faced with the problem that in X town a politician wants him to go easy. The Guard is thinking of what is going to happen him if he goes on with the case. The point I am at is, that I am not satisfied with the policy of the Government in relation to Gárda administration. The Government should lay it down definitely, and assure the Guards that if they do their duty, no matter what colour or political affiliations a person may have, that they are about to take action against, they will not be punished. When I say punished, I mean that they are not going to be hauled up for an explanation as to why they did this or that thing. It is not that anything would happen to them, but there is the feeling that they will be called up for an explanation, and the demand for that explanation may arise out of a letter written by some one to the Minister for Justice, stating that Paddy so-and-so was a great supporter of the Government in the district, and that only for him the Fianna Fáil policy would fail, while the Guard concerned might be described as a well-known supporter of the Treaty. I think that is the line that might be taken, that the Guard and all belonging to him were supporters of the Treaty. The result is that if there is a prosecution an inquiry may be held.
In my constituency Deputy Victory is looking for an inquiry into every matter, whenever a Fianna Fáil Club or someone else complains about the action of a Guard. The inquiry is not held, but there is a private inquiry, and that, in my opinion, is smashing the effectiveness and the efficiency of the Guards. The Guards are not the children of either Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or any other Party. They belong to the State, and to the people as a whole. I do not want to stress it any further, but I think the force should be maintained, as was intended, as an impartial disciplined force looking after the maintenance of law and order, irrespective of creed, class or politics. That is the way to maintain a high national standard of efficiency in the police force. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that these matters are receiving consideration. I regret that the Vote for the Department of Justice went through before I arrived, because there were some matters to which I wished to refer. I suppose I am debarred from doing so on this Vote. However, I can find some other occasion for doing so.
