Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1941

Vol. 83 No. 17

Supplementary and Additional Estimate. - Gárda Síochána Pensions Order, 1941.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move:

That the Dáil hereby approve of the Gárda Síochána Pensions Order, 1941, made on the 13th day of June, 1941, by the Minister for Justice, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, under Section 13 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925, and laid before the Dáil on the 17th day of June, 1941.

This order, as the House is aware, is accompanied by another document which has been placed on the Table, and in respect of which Deputy Norton has an annulment motion. This order is designed to provide pensions for officers and men of the Gárda who have been found to be inefficient. The matter was mentioned here during the discussion on the Estimate for my Department, and I agreed that there were certain senior officers in the Gárda who were unfit for their positions. I said on that occasion that it would be necessary to introduce these two orders to deal with the situation.

I should like to say at the beginning that some of the rumours that have reached me, and that are current throughout the country, as to disloyalty and unrest amongst the Guards are absolutely unfounded. There was never any suggestion at any time that that was the case. The position simply is that some officers have shown themselves unsuited for their posts. The vast majority of the officers and men have been all that could have been expected. I tried to make that clear when dealing with the matter on the Estimate, but unfortunately the scare headings given to other matters in the newspapers so overshadowed it, that the impression got abroad that there was a grave state of unrest and general inefficiency in the service. I should like to correct that impression now. At the same time I must say that some senior members of the force have shown themselves to be unfit to remain in their positions.

It is to deal with that situation that this order has been made: providing that they shall be pensioned at the rate to which they would be entitled under the regulations which provide for the retirement of people who are incapacitated by ill-health. They will be entitled to a gratuity only of one-twelfth of the salary for eight years' service. In the case of those entitled to pensions, those with over ten years' service will get at the rate of one-sixtieth of each year's service. For any officer or man having 20 years' service or more each year after 20 years will count as double. I do not think we have any officer with more than 20 years' service, so that the order will mean that those retiring will do so on a pension of one-third of the present salary. I am not quite sure how many it is proposed to retire. In the retirement order the Commissioner must certify that in his opinion certain officers are inefficient, and that it would be in the public interest, as well as for efficiency in the Gárda that they should be retired. That certificate will be sent to the Government, which may order the retirement of the officers concerned.

Mr. Norton

Could we have both orders discussed together, and if necessary have a separate vote?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If it is the wish of the House both can be discussed together.

Mr. Boland

I am anticipating Deputy Norton moving his motion, as it may put the debate on a more realistic basis if I say what I intend to say now. As the order stands at present if the Commissioner certifies in the case of any member of the Gárda —who is not an officer—that it would be in the interests of the force that he should be retired the Commissioner may order his retirement. I understand that exception has been taken to that, and that the point Deputy Norton is interested in is that it means that one person can order retirement without an appeal to any tribunal or to anybody else. There is some force in that argument, but when dealing with the police force the overriding consideration ought to be the discipline and efficiency of the force rather than the comfort of the people making up that force. It will be generally accepted that that ought to be the over-riding consideration. The principle on which the Commissioner is appointed is that he should be directly responsible for discipline in the Gárda Síochána. That is a very good principle. In this order I might point out that there is an amelioration of the procedure regarding the disciplinary code, under which the Commissioner may dismiss any man who is not an officer—the Government dismisses an officer—after inquiry by a disciplinary court. In this case it is not a case of dismissal but of retirement on pension. I understand from the Commissioner that there are some men whom he has been reluctant, on compassionate grounds, to discharge, and as a result the force is suffering. This order will make that easy, and will make for a better feeling in the force generally, when the Commissioner is able to retire men on small pensions. I know that there is a feeling in our Party and in the Labour Party—I do not know about the Opposition—that there should be some overriding authority as well as the Commissioner. I am prepared to amend Section 4, clause 2:—

(2) Whenever the Commissioner is of opinion that it is in the interests of the efficiency of the Gárda Síochána that any member of the Gárda Síochána to whom this regulation applies should retire, the Commissioner may order the retirement of such member.

If it would meet the objections raised I am prepared to issue an amending order and to insert after the word "Commissioner" the words "with the consent of the Minister". I hope that will meet the objections which have been raised. In a matter of this kind I would be most anxious that we should have general consent. It would be bad if there was going to be opposition later by any Party or by any considerable body of the House. It would be very undesirable. The police force is there for the whole country, and as servants of the State it is desirable that there should be general agreement about the matter, as Deputy Mulcahy pointed out when he referred to it. There should be general support in this matter, as action will only be taken for the better management of the police force. That is the only motive that operates in the minds of the Commissioner or of the Government, and to meet any objections I propose to make the amending order. I hope that will be more acceptable.

Mr. Norton

The motion in my name, which can be moved later, is:—

That the Gárda Síochána (Retirement) Regulations, 1941, made by the Minister for Justice on June 13th, 1941, be and are hereby annulled.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is only one motion before the House.

Mr. Norton

Will you allow discussion to take place now on this order, and then we can decide what way to vote? I cannot make reference to retirement if this is voted on now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Both orders are inter-dependent.

Mr. Norton

My proposal is to discuss both now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no objection to that, but there is only one motion before the House. The Deputy will not be precluded from discussing the matter.

Mr. Norton

I presume I will be deemed to have moved item No. 5 on the Order Paper in order to discuss this motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Norton

This order which the Minister for Justice has made seems to me to be a very drastic one, and is putting into the hands of the Commissioner a power which it was not deemed desirable to give him when the parent Act was passed by the House. We are now in an emergency situation, and because of some recent difficulties which have manifested themselves, we decided to give very wide powers to the Commissioner, powers which we did not think it desirable to give on any previous occasion.

I do not know that the set of circumstances which exists at the moment justifies the giving of such wide powers to the Commissioner. I have no complaint against the Commissioner. He may be a very admirable man, conscientious and faithful in the performance of his duties. He may have all the virtues required for the high office which he fills. I am not concerned with the occupant of the office, now or in the future, but I am concerned with the wide powers which we are putting into his hands. I am concerned with those powers in particular in so far as they affect the ordinary rank and file of the Gárda Síochána. Folk who are chief superintendents or superintendents are usually well able to look after themselves, and are not wholly helpless in the matter of discovering friends to plead their case. I am concerned with the ordinary rank and file in ensuring that they do not get a raw deal simply because some folk in high places have, in the view of the Minister, misconducted themselves. I ask Deputies to notice the contrast there is in these regulations as conceived by the Minister. In sub-section (2) of paragraph 3, it is provided:—

Whenever the Commissioner certifies in writing that, in his opinion, it is in the interests of the efficiency of the Gárda Síochána that any member of the Gárda Síochána to whom this regulation applies should retire, the Government may order the retirement of such member.

In that case a certificate is required from the Commissioner, but it will be observed that the over-riding decision as to whether a member of the Gárda Síochána should retire or not rests with the Government. That deals with the case of high officers in the Gárda, and it is quite likely that the Government will not be anxious to act capriciously in dismissing a man. But when we come to paragraph 4 of the regulations, the difference between the two grades is very obvious. Sub-section (2) of this paragraph provides:

Whenever the Commissioner is of opinion that it is in the interests of the efficiency of the Gárda Síochána that any member of the Gárda Síochána to whom this regulation applies should retire, the Commissioner may order the retirement of such member.

It is clear that the authors of these regulations consider that, in the case of the officer, there ought to be a review of his case by the Government, but that, in the case of a sergeant or an ordinary Guard, he is simply to get his walking papers from the Commissioner. That seems to me to be a very unfair discrimination against the rank and file. I do not think that it is going to be put right by the offer the Minister has just made, to introduce an amending regulation.

Let us see what we are doing under these regulations. The Commissioner is getting power to say that, on his own volition, he has decided to retire, let us say, Guard Murphy. He gives a certificate that it is in the interests of the efficiency of the force that the Guard should be retired, whereupon he goes. Under the existing regulations, if that Guard were charged with an offence he would be obliged to get a disciplinary inquiry. He would have to be found guilty before being dismissed. A long procedure would have to be gone through, in compliance with the regulations laid down under the Act, before it would be possible to dismiss him. Under this regulation, there will be no need to do that. The old procedure is being short-circuited.

The Commissioner simply decides that he is going to retire a Guard. No charge has been preferred against him. All that will be necessary is that the Commissioner should certify that the Guard should go out of the police force, whereupon he goes. No charge, as I I have said, is made. The Guard gets no trial, and there is no inquiry of any kind. There is no verdict given in his case by any impartial third party.

I may be told by the Minister that, under the present regulations, if a person is charged with a very serious offence and found guilty, he may be dismissed from the force. But why should a person, whose offence is not such that you could bring him before a disciplinary court, not be given at least as fair a trial as the one whose misconduct is such that you do bring him before a disciplinary court? If at present a Guard is guilty of an offence which merits dismissal, normally, and that his conduct is so reprehensible as to justify dismissal, well and good, there is a definite procedure laid down for dealing with him. But, if you cannot bring a man before a tribunal, from which you might secure a verdict of dismissal, why not give him at least the rights that you give to the person who has committed a much graver offence? In these regulations you say to the man, against whom you cannot frame a charge likely to lead to his conviction and dismissal—because his offence is not sufficiently grave—that he is not to get as fair a trial as the person who may be dismissed. In these regulations, the Commissioner for the time being is given the power to say to a man with short service, five or ten years' service, or it may be to a man with a wife and large family: "In my view it is not desirable that you should remain in the Guards," whereupon that man's service is terminated. He will get a very small pension under the Act. He is thrown out and will then have to fend as best he can for his wife and family. He will be given no reason as to why he was thrown out. No charge will be made against him and no trial held. He will be merely told that he is to get out of the Guards, because the Commissioner thinks it is desirable that he should go. Therefore, he will be obliged to go and take a miserable pittance.

His reputation will be destroyed. Everyone will know that he had to come out, after a short service, on a small pension because the Commissioner certified that it was better that he should be out of the force than in it. With that sort of certificate in his pocket, he is not likely to get much to enable him to maintain his wife and family. How is he going to find employment in a country that is already glutted with unemployed people?

I do not allege, and it is no part of my case to suggest, that the Commissioner would abuse the powers given to him under these regulations. At the same time, I know that despots are made by giving despotic powers. When people get despotic powers they are more likely to be despotic than if they had not such powers. My object in moving for the annulment of this regulation is to secure that a man will get a fair trial. No matter what offence a person may commit in this country we provide courts of justice for his trial, and if there is any reflection on the integrity of any member of the Gárda Síochána he ought to get a trial. At present you can try a man for two types of offences which, on conviction, may lead to disciplinary action or dismissal. Why not give a man whose offence does not justify you in invoking that type of machinery against him the right to a trial before you dismiss him? Let the man know the charge made against him, give him an opportunity of defending himself, and let some impartial body pass a verdict on the facts as presented against the man and as urged on his behalf. I suggest to the Minister that this matter is quite easy of solution, if it is his desire to help to bring about a solution. If it be thought that there are cases in which it is desirable in the interests of the efficiency of the Gárda Síochána, that a Guard should be retired, what is the difficulty in serving notice on such a man that it is proposed to superannuate him on a certain date in accordance with the other regulations, at the same time giving him the right to appeal against that proposal? What is the difficulty in constituting a tribunal of representatives of the Department of Justice and of the Gárdaí themselves which would be presided over by some independent person, to review the facts of each case? If the tribunal agreed with the proposal to retire a Guard, then his retirement could take place in accordance with the pension regulations. A man should at least know what he is charged with. He should at least have the opportunity of putting forward some defence to the charge made against him, and he should be sure all the time that he will get a fair trial and an impartial verdict. He should be assured that his career, his future, his honour and his reputation will not just be the plaything of any person who cares to fill in a certificate authorising his removal from the force.

I think the Minister might very well reconsider this whole matter and try to provide some right of appeal for a person whose future and whose livelihood are in jeopardy and the future of whose family may well be put in still greater jeopardy by the despotic or injudicious use of the powers with which we are arming the Commissioner under the order which has been placed on the Table. I urge the Minister, therefore, to amend his order so as to provide for trial of the person concerned, so that he will know the charges made against him and be given an opportunity of meeting them and so that a fair verdict can be given. Having got a verdict that the person concerned should be retired in the interest of the efficiency of the Gárda, that person should go. If the person concerned elects, of his own choice, to go when he hears the proposal, let him do so. If he contests the justification for pushing him out of the force, he should be given an opportunity of meeting the charge made against him and getting a fair verdict.

I hope the Minister will see his way to amend the order much more extensively than he has proposed to do. If he does, I think he will undo some of the mischief which, I am satisfied, has been done to the Gárda force by the statements made recently. I do not think that anybody can come in contact with any member of the Gárda without learning that the members were gravely perturbed by the statements made on June 4th. The Minister said on that occasion: "In raising it (the conduct of certain officers of the Gárda) I consider that Deputy Mulcahy made a very useful contribution concerning the safety and the security of the State, generally." I, for one, do not believe that the safety or security of the State was in any way endangered by the Gárda Síochána. I do not believe for a moment that the difficulties were of such a character as to justify the use of the phrase "safety and security of the State". It may be true—it probably is true; I do not doubt the accuracy of the statement—that certain persons in the Gárda were not doing their duty in the efficient manner we were entitled to expect, or that some persons in the Gárda had not shown the responsibility associated with their rank. While that may be so in respect of a handful of persons, we must remember that there are 7,000 persons in the Gárda, that there is universal admiration for the force and that we do a grave disservice to that force and are calculated to undermine public respect for it if we indulge in language suggesting that the safety and security of the State are endangered when a handful of people have shown that they could not adhere to the high traditions and the excellent standard of efficiency and loyalty which have characterised the Gárda force.

I hope that the Minister, when replying, will go even further than he has gone already and say on behalf of the Government, as I say on behalf of those I represent, that he believes the Gárda force, as a force, will be loyal to any Government elected in this country, that it will serve the State to the best of its ability and that it has shown in the various vicissitudes through which we have passed but one concern—to serve the best interests of the State. If we make statements reflecting on the conduct of the Gárda as a force or, in our desire to censure certain members of the Gárda, make statements calculated to refer to the force as a whole, we do a very big disservice to a very valuable body of public servants—a body which, during the past 20 years, has, certainly, given service to the nation which entitles it to the admiration and respect of all the citizens.

Mr. Davin

I second the motion. Since this State was established, it has passed through a very troubled time. During the period that has elapsed since the establishment of the Gárda, the Chief Commissioner has been changed, or retired, on four or five occasions. Notwithstanding the troubled times through which we passed, the overwhelming majority of the people have absolute confidence in the efficiency and honesty of the general body of Gárdaí. During that time also—the Minister has more information on this than anybody else— large numbers of officers and men have been either retired or dismissed without any of the ceremonious and rather sensational statements of the type made here by the Minister when we were discussing the Estimate of the Ministry of Justice.

I am satisfied that the headlines given to the statement made by the Minister in the papers misrepresented what was in the Minister's mind. So far as I can learn, they have badly shaken the confidence of the people as a whole in the efficiency of the Gárda Síochána. There has been no time in the history of this country since the Gárda was established when it was more necessary that the Gárdaí should have the confidence of the people as a whole than the present time.

The good conduct of the Gárdaí, and their efficiency as a police force, are very closely associated with the defence of this country, both internal and external. Personally, I think that the bringing in of this order might have been discussed either with members of the Defence Conference or representatives of the different Parties before action was taken, and before the recent statement was made by the Minister for Justice. We all know that there are many busybodies in the country anxious to manufacture stories which will suit their point of view in present circumstances. It is the busybodies— the fifth columnists and the sixth columnists—who are responsible for misrepresenting the mind of the Minister in connection with this whole matter. If five or six or fewer officers of the Gárda have been certified by the Commissioner as unfit to occupy their positions because of misconduct, they should be retired from the Gárda without long discussion or ceremonious statements which would cast a slur on the whole body during these very difficult and dangerous days.

This is a matter on which the less said the better under present circumstances. I appeal to the Minister to accept the very good advice given him by Deputy Norton, and to make it quite clear in his concluding statement that the sins of the few officers or members of the force will not be made a reason for casting a reflection on the Gárda, as a whole, and thus undermining the confidence of the people in a body which should enjoy the highest possible confidence in present circumstances.

Mr. Murphy

There are two features of the Minister's proposal about which I want to speak very briefly. With regard to the small number of people among the higher officers who are concerned in the Minister's proposal, I think that the proposal to give them an increased pension allowance is peculiarly strange. I see no reason why this House should be asked to give its approval to putting a premium on inefficiency. I think if this matter is investigated—and I think it should be fully investigated—ordinary methods of dealing with matters of the kind could be discovered, and that special treatment in cases of this kind is hardly called for and can hardly be justified. That is not the particular point that I want to discuss as much as the rather drastic powers that are sought in the Retirement Order over members of the Gárda Síochána. I object, as one member of the House, to giving the powers that are asked there to anybody. I do not care how impartial a Commissioner of the Gárda is, and I do not mind how fair a Minister may be—and the present Minister is a typical example of one who can be fair and generous—I object to giving powers of that kind summarily into the hands of one or both together. I think it is asking too much. It is laying down, because it is going to be part of our permanent code, a precedent which can be most unscrupulously and dangerously worked in future. I object to it for that reason. I do not think that any single person, or any two persons, in authority should get this power.

I agree, from a general knowledge of the country, that the number of things that could come within the scope of an investigation of this kind would be likely to be few, and I want to say with regret that, if there is any decline in the morale of the Guards throughout the country, the reasons for it are fairly evident. We had a situation not too long ago when everybody in authority in every parish in this country felt that he had the power of life and death over the Gárda force. Such people felt that a letter to a certain place would have the result either of transferring a Guard or dismissing a Guard, and the discontent, restlessness and uncertainty that were created by political interference and the political terrorism of that kind have had a bad result. I do not say that for the purpose of embarrassing the Minister in any way. I disassociate him entirely from anything like that, but it is a regrettable fact that things of that kind went on, that men were moved and that men were put in a position of being looked upon unfavourably because certain political influences were used against them.

I want to know who is going to be the judge in this matter of inefficiency. Inefficiency is a term that can be very vaguely and very widely used and it might have not the same meaning for different people. I suggest to the Minister that in looking for powers of this kind that are sought to be permanently embodied in the code that will govern the administration of the Gárdaí in future, he ought to set up, as Deputy Norton has suggested, a committee of representatives of the Department of Justice and representatives of the Gárda, appointed through their representative body, who will have the power of review in this matter and of submitting, if necessary, their findings to the Department or to the Minister for Justice.

I am glad that the Minister has made it perfectly clear that the scare stories which spread so rapidly throughout the country recently had no foundation in fact. I appreciate the Minister's desire in matters of this kind, as in all other matters for which he is responsible, to be fair but I think he will remove a good deal of reason for apprehension and doubt in future if he is able to lay before the House proposals that will ensure that nobody in authority, either now or in the future, will have the power, the wide and extreme power, of being able to dismiss Guards at a moment's notice and without giving any reason whatever. I think the Minister would do very well to go further into the question of amendments to this order so as to set completely at rest the fear that the powers that are now sought may be used unfairly or unscrupulously in future.

General MacEoin

I am glad to see that the Minister has signified his intention of improving the order by leaving the members of the Gárda a further appeal to himself, so that the decision to retire any member of the Gárda can be reviewed by the Minister. That is a definite improvement in my opinion. I should like respectfully to suggest to the Minister that he should take the further step of providing that when a report is about to be made upon an officer, an N.C.O. or an ordinary member of the Gárda to the effect that he is inefficient, that member of the force would be sent for by his immediately senior officer, that the report which is going to be made about him should be read out to him, as happens under an Army regulation, that the accused member of the force would then sign the report, admitting that it had been read to him but not necessarily admitting the facts of the statement contained therein, and that he would have 48 hours to prepare a defence or a reply to that report. It might further provide that there was an obligation upon the Commissioner, upon the superintendent in the case of a sergeant or inspector, or upon the sergeant in the case of a Gárda, to transmit the defence to the person who is going to make the decision so that the Government would have the full grounds for the proposed retirement and the person affected would know that he had some chance of putting forward a defence.

As the order stands, I am afraid of it, not that I think it will be abused or anything of the sort but, as it stands, human nature being what it is, the danger is that an officer may be charged, tried and convicted behind his back, and may not hear a word about it until he is simply told to "get". Similarly with a member of the force. I do not suggest that that is the intention but, as it stands, that is possible, and in the interests of the force and of the State that should not be the position. I am satisfied—and I wish to pay this tribute to the Gárda Síochána—that through no action of theirs was the State ever in danger in any way but that, on the contrary, they are the most loyal servants that ever existed in any country. The proof of their loyalty is to be found in the fact that this Government time after time has paid tribute to them when, some short years ago, they were not so sure that they would be so loyal. It is, therefore, essential that the Minister should improve the order by making provision for the protection of the force.

It appears as if this were a regulation made to meet a situation which has arisen. Let us hope it is only a situation of a temporary nature, in which four, five or six people—I hope not more—are involved. This is going to be held as a sword over the heads of the Guards for the years of their natural existence because of defects in three or four people at the moment. I think there should be some method of either reviewing or terminating this regulation, and I suggest that it be given effect for six or 12 months and then, if after the lapse of some time it is found to be either useful or to have served its purpose, it can be reintroduced or allowed to lapse.

There is one point in support of the contention I have made and, in speaking of it, I trust I will not be regarded as being offensive to anybody. A section was inserted in the Defence Forces Act designed to grant benefits to members of the forces, that is, the half-pay section. In reality, it was intended as a means of giving members of the forces an opportunity of finishing their education. It was inserted as a privilege, so that if a member of the force were studying law or medicine, he had 12 months in which to complete his studies and could then be reemployed by the Minister. It was inserted in the administrative part of the Act as a privilege, as an advantage, to members of the Defence Forces.

By reason of some peculiar interpretation that privilege section has been turned into a penal section, and anything which it is possible to do in any Act or in regulations to the disadvantage of servants of the State should be guarded against, and we should not make it possible for something to happen which none of us intends should happen. I suggest that it and when this order is considered necessary, these amendments be incorporated in it. In that manner I think we will go a long way towards satisfying members of the Gárda and the public generally that justice and fair play are being given, and that there is an appreciation of the services of the force, and also that the Government intend to see that no injustice is done to any member of the Gárda, but that each member of the force will get what he is entitled to, and that the people will get from the Gárda the service they are entitled to get from them.

General Mulcahy

I did not think that I would have to say any more on this matter, but I should like to recall that when I raised this matter on the Justice Estimate I said, at col. 1278 of the Official Reports of 28th May last:—

"There are certain districts in the country where, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others, there are senior Gárda officers who are not fit for their responsibilities there, who have discredited themselves in the eyes of the local people, and who are no longer held in any respect at all. That is not a matter that has occurred since the emergency, but the fact is that, at the moment, to go back no further than that, there are districts in the country where there are senior officers of the Guards who should not be in the position in which they are, and whose presence in that position is a blow to the institutions of the State. Their character is such that they are not only not able to attend to their business, but they are disedifying, and their administration is partial."

Later on I said:—

"At the same time, men who are working in the Guards ought not to be asked to work in circumstances in which, through the lack of character and the weaknesses of their superior officers, they and their corps are in danger."

I entirely support the Minister's action in bringing forward the order in regard to officers and I entirely support him in his feeling that, when doing that, he has to strengthen his hand in regard to dealing with the ordinary members of the Guards, because, as some Deputies have pointed out, there are 7,000 men in the Guards, and incapacity or unsuitability of officers can damage the whole force and can be unjust to the whole force as well as being unjust to the State. I also conceive it possible that unsuitability of ordinary Guards may be a danger to the officers above them, or to the men who are their colleagues, and the Minister was simply dealing with the matter completely and effectively when he brought forward the order as dealing with the Guards as well.

I do not know whether some of the criticisms made here were made because the Minister did not outline when introducing the order what steps would be taken inside the Guards themselves by way of charge and reply, but I cannot conceive of any action being taken with regard to an officer in which the case against him would not be plainly stated to him and in which he would not have an opportunity of stating his case. As the order contemplated suggests, there is no way in which the Government could judge a matter at issue on a report from the Commissioner unless they had a statement of the charges against the officer and the officer's reply. I feel sure that the Minister should be able to satisfy the House on that point. I cannot conceive either how the new proposal, that any intention to dispense with the services of a Guard will have to go to the Minister, could get to the Minister without the charges having been put to the Guard, and without his being given an opportunity of answering, and the whole case then put before the Minister.

It has been suggested that a Guard should have an appeal to a tribunal, but I do not think that anybody who considers the responsibilities of the Minister and of the Commissioner, with regard to a police force, could suggest that there could be erected in any way a tribunal that would dictate to the Minister and the Commissioner combined that a man should be kept in the Guards when the Minister and the Commissioner, having reviewed what is to be said against him and what he has to say for himself, had decided that he should go. I think the position of the Minister and the Commissioner would be utterly impossible, if, in relation to a force like a police force, there was to be set up, independent of them, any tribunal which could dictate that they should keep a man in the force who they both considered should not be in it. I think any Minister with any sense of his responsibility would have to resign, and any Commissioner with any sense of his responsibility would have to resign, if, against their judgement, a man was kept in a disciplined force who they thought was not a suitable person for the force. I am glad that the Minister is able to meet the objections, or some of the objections at any rate, to the original draft of the order. Although in present circumstances it might not be necessary to hold the Commissioner completely responsible, I think that in particular circumstances it might not be unreasonable to throw complete responsibility on him.

The two orders that are being made seem to me to be a protection to both officers and men rather than anything else. I do not know how the situation that has been complained of has been allowed to arise, but I do say that while it is quite easy to get up and say that the Guards are respected from one end of the country to the other, there are districts in this country where the Guards have not that respect, districts where the individual members of the Guards and officers of the Guards know that they cannot hold up their heads because they know—to deal with superior officers alone—that there are higher officers among them who are a disgrace to their cloth, in the first instance, and who are a danger to the position, to the happiness, and to the honour of the men under them.

What the Minister is asking is that where, in particular circumstances, a man is found not to be suitable for the kind of force that a Gárda force is, they shall have power to remove him, and power to remove him without penalising him in respect of the services he has given. I think that anybody who has been a member of the police in recent years is entitled, in the absence of any definite crime that can be charged against him, to have taken into consideration the earned increment which has been withheld from him during those years towards his pension. I do not think anybody should object seriously to men who, for reasons of their non-suitability, have to be removed from the Guards, being paid whatever quota of pension was earned as a result of the number of years' service they have already given. I do not know of any other way of dealing with the situation that is in front of us than by giving the responsibility to the Commissioner and the Government—the Commissioner in dealing with officers, and the Minister in dealing with Guards.

Injustices have been done to officers and men in the past, I believe, as a result of the laxity that has grown up. I doubt if injustices are going to be done under these orders, but even if they should occur, they could only be a fraction of the injustices that have been done to men in the past as a result of this particular laxity. If injustices should be done, then both the Minister, and the Commissioner through the Minister, are responsible to this House. To those who have objections of one kind or another, such as to the absence of any kind of clause in the order with regard to inquiry and so on, I would appeal that, if the position is that the Minister assures us that all officers and men would be heard, and that the men's case and the officers' case would be heard, either by the Minister or the Government, respectively, the powers that the Minister is seeking for should be given, because there is a particular, if a small, situation to be cleaned up, and I think it would be unfortunate if, in the cleaning up of that situation, the Minister would not have the full support of the House. I believe that he has, and I think that everybody who has spoken appreciates that the Minister is a man who will deal with this matter in a purely detached way. I feel, on the other hand, that the Minister will be able to assure every Party in the House that no man is going to run the risk of suffering an injustice under any of these orders, but that he will be fully heard so far as anything he has to say is concerned. I do not think that anybody should be kept in the Guards at the present moment who both the Commissioner and the Minister say is unsuitable for it.

When I spoke on the last occasion I mentioned the possible effect, not only on the people around, but on the Local Defence Force, the Local Security Force and the other forces that have been organised for the protection of the State in these areas where there is this laxity. I imagine it was these remarks of mine that made the Minister use the words that were complained about to-day by Deputy Norton. I know of nothing, in any part of the country, connected with the Guards that would suggest that they were disloyal to the State. I should be sorry to think so, and it was not because of any disloyalty of that particular kind that this matter was raised. It was raised simply from what can be read in the terms in which I mentioned it here. There is, however, a serious situation in the country, which requires the fullest possible confidence and the fullest possible discipline in the Guards.

Mr. Everett

What is the serious situation?

General Mulcahy

The serious situation is the situation arising out of which we have had to raise an army of 40,000 or 50,000, to organise 100,000 men in the Local Defence Force and the Local Security Force, to organise people in the Air Raid Precautions and Red Cross, and similar organisations— the situation of which these things are the signs and the indication. In circumstances in which we have to throw up that organisation, in which we have to spend that money and call on our people to join in all kinds of protective organisations, the police should be a body standing rigidly to attention with perfect discipline and confidence in themselves—the men in the officers, and the officers in the Commissioner— and they should have sufficient confidence in us here to know that we are not going to see any injustice done. I think we can only act through the Minister and the Commissioner, and I think the Minister will be able to give these assurances that have been asked for here.

Mr. Keyes

Deputy Mulcahy opened his remarks by indicating that he thought it would be difficult, if not impossible, to have justice done to a Gárda officer without having reference made to the Minister or having an opportunity of allowing the officer to present his side of the case in the charges made against him. Deputy Mulcahy then proceeded to reiterate the very wild statements which he made previously and which he quoted to-night. From my knowledge of the country, I can only characterise these statements as wild, unwise and intemperate. The Deputy may have had some individual experience of the kind of laxity he speaks of, but from my experience in my own part of the country I can say that the statements made by Deputy Mulcahy and the reception they got from the Minister, who congratulated him, so to speak, on his patriotic action, have caused more distress in the minds of the public generally in regard to the administration of the Gárda force than anything actually existing would warrant or justify.

Deputy Mulcahy proceeded to-night to repeat his statement about people being a disgrace to their cloth, unworthy and unfit. I think it is perfectly unworthy of a gentleman who has held a responsible position in this State to make those charges against a force that deserves the very best from this Government, from the previous Government, and from the country generally. The history of the Gárda Síochána is a matter for pride, and if there have been some lapses it is only what might be expected from any member of the human family.

I think Deputy Mulcahy has been very seriously led astray. I believe he has done much more harm than the good he seeks to achieve. I am sure his intentions are the very best, to try to restore confidence in the Gárda. A responsible Deputy would not be expected to make these statements, if he had not very good ground. He seeks to pillory the whole Gárda force without any evidence. He asks that the officer should produce evidence to defend himself against a charge, but he condemns the Gárda force without producing any proof to the House in support of some rumours or whisperings he has heard. He has no better opportunity for hearing things than any Deputy of this House. As far as I am concerned, and I move through the country as much as any other Deputy, I have not seen anything to warrant this strong language, but I have got evidence of the disturbed state of public feeling that has been aroused by the statement of Deputy Mulcahy, and this order is attributed in the public mind to Deputy Mulcahy's utterances, and from the order it would seem that his statements are accepted in toto. Under the order there is the right to dismiss Gárda by the officer in charge without any inquiry of any sort or kind, the right of the superintendent to dismiss an officer of the Gárda by making representations to the Government, which must be accepted. That means you are setting up a dictator, completely and entirely. Whoever he is, any man is capable of erring. Deputy Mulcahy has stated that, prior to now, injustices have been done to Gárdaí and to officers. He should know. He was in the Government for long enough in this country. I wonder if the proper steps are being taken to secure that injustice will not be done in future. I suggest that when all these powers are vested in any individual, let him be the most worthy individual who could be selected, he is capable of abusing these powers. The right of dismissal should not be vested in any individual. Responsible as is the function of the Gárdaí and the superintendents, they still ought to have a right as individuals to some form of trial. As I said earlier on, the history of the force is one to inspire confidence. This seed of distrust that has been sown is likely to create disturbance. I think that is a most unfortunate position. Deputy Mulcahy in his last remarks did withdraw that he had any evidence of disloyalty.

General Mulcahy

On a matter of personal explanation, the Deputy will have the greatest difficulty in finding any proof in any of my remarks that I suggested there was disloyalty on the one hand, or that I suggested that this lack in the Guards was in any way widespread.

Mr. Keyes

I am giving the Deputy credit for the very belated withdrawal he has made in the last line of his remarks.

General Mulcahy

I withdrew nothing because the Deputy will not point to anything that had to be withdrawn. The Deputy is dealing with a serious matter. He is treating it very seriously, and I would ask him to point out in the record any statement of mine that he considers was a wrong statement and that he considers has been withdrawn.

Mr. Keyes

There is no record of it in the Official Debates because I am quoting what the Deputy said five minutes ago.

General Mulcahy

What was that?

Mr. Keyes

The Deputy said that he regretted if any of his remarks were responsible for the words the Minister used. He did not want to allege there was any disloyalty amongst the Guards.

General Mulcahy

I said no such thing.

Mr. Keyes

That is my recollection of what the Deputy said.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy picked me up completely wrongly.

Mr. Keyes

Dealing with the Gárda Síochána as a whole, I do not think, apart from the question of disloyalty, they should have epithets hurled at them by certain sections in this country, or that it should be suggested that they are completely out of control or under the control of those who are a disgrace to the force. No individual is mentioned and each county is asking: "Is it my Gárda Superintendent who is in trouble, and how many of them are involved?" The thing is growing like a snowball. It would be well for the country and the Gárda force as a whole if an early opportunity were taken to disclose the names of the individuals and the number who have in any way incurred the displeasure of the Commissioner. It would be preferable to having this kind of rumour which is undermining the confidence of the people in the Gárda force. I hope the Minister will not allow this atmosphere to lead him into taking steps that will be too drastic, that he will see justice is done and that those men who have given good service will not be lightly cast aside by giving powers to some individual who, because of bias or heat or passion at some particular time, may mar the life and finish the career of a man who had given and was prepared to give good service, and who might have been guilty of some breach or alleged breach of discipline. I think that power should not be given to any individual. There ought to be a tribunal, as has been suggested. The officers and the men are entitled to get an opportunity to defend themselves. I think that is only bare justice, the minimum this House ought to give to a force that, individually and collectively, has given good service to the country.

Mr. Cosgrave

I approached consideration of this motion with great regret, and a decision on it with reluctance. There are two forces in this country which must be disciplined, which were disciplined when this Government took over office, which were worthy of the confidence of the people, which were efficient. It is, in consequence, a matter of very great regret that the years should not have added to their efficiency, and should not have made them even more disciplined than they were. It is not, in my view, the fault of the Gárda Síochána that it has become a cause for consideration here and the subject for disciplinary action by the Commissioner of the Guards together with the Minister. There is no doubt whatever that the moment this proposal was first brought before the people of the country there was considerable uneasiness. In my view there is scarcely a real cause for that uneasiness. It would have helped very considerably in connection with the discussion of this motion if the Minister had given us an approximate estimate of the number of the officers and men whom he had in mind who would fall to be dealt with under these two resolutions. In the normal course, the administration under these two orders calls for very considerable ability, not only that, but for confidence on the part of the public and of the Gárda. If I were asked from what sources I would have selected a Commissioner of the Guards I would have said right off that one of the last places I would seek for him would be in the Civil Service. I think the House is prepared, and the country is prepared to take the Minister's approval in appointing the present Commissioner. The House and the country are prepared to take that, but it is a very big responsibility. It is a responsibility that ought not to have been put upon him. There are many capable men, many men of ability, who are not competent in the control of men, and this particular new duty that is going to fall upon the Minister is perhaps the most onerous that could possibly be put upon a man.

In view of the unusual character of this order, there ought to be a time limit on its operation. I would not regard the putting of a time limit upon it as any concession on the part of the Minister. It would be in the interests not only of the Gárda but of the people and of the Commissioner. In all the circumstances, and in view of the Ministry's responsibility for this situation having arisen, in my view, an officer or a man ought to get a final chance if he makes a case for it. In my view also, an officer or a man should get an opportunity of tendering his resignation, if he so desires, instead of being retired. If we are to look for an efficient, competent and disciplined force, we must give them the maximum security regarding their permanency in any office that they may occupy, from the latest recruit up to the office of Commissioner. There should be at some time or other a statement from the Ministry that there will not be political interference with the Guards. On a previous occasion, when I put that to the Minister, he thought it was an offensive proposition. I want to assure the Minister of this: he knows I have no friends in the Ministry—none. Other than the Minister himself, there is possibly one other Minister to whom I would give those powers—only one. This is a disciplinary code, a very severe disciplinary code.

The suggestions which have been made here for dealing with this situation do not commend themselves to me. You cannot run either a police force or an army on the lines on which you would run any other service or any other business. They have a discipline of their own and a code of their own. As it is a very severe disciplinary code, one must ensure that the greatest possible security will be afforded to the members of both those services regarding their permanency. There must be no interference with them. It is quite clear that that has not been the case during those last few years. It is unfortunate that that is so, and the fact that we are now faced with the necessity for an order of this kind is perhaps the best reminder to us that that situation has been allowed to develop. An efficient and disciplined police force is an almost priceless possession in any country, and this country has been particularly well served from the earliest days by the Gárda Síochána. It can continue to give this service only if it be a strictly disciplined force.

It can continue to give it only if it gets the support of the Ministry, a support which to my mind has been lacking in recent years. We are satisfied that the Minister, since he took up office, has endeavoured to improve the situation which was allowed to go on for so long. In the course of the administration of this very large body, there had been during the time of the previous Government regular and systematic inspections of stations. Would the Minister tell us, towards the conclusion of the proceedings here to-night, whether that policy is still in operation? If not, it is rather unfortunate that it has been allowed to pass into disuse.

No efficient and disciplined member of this force, in my opinion, need have any apprehensions regarding his position after this motion has been passed. As matters stand at the moment, the Commissioner and the Government have very great powers in dealing with either the officers or men. Under this particular order, it may be put into fewer words, but the power was there, and is not very much affected by this particular order. In this case, where the Minister comes before us and tells us that the second most important body in the country— if it were not for the present emergency it would be the most important body—requires an extra disciplinary code, we have no option, in the interests of the country and in the interests of the Gárda force itself, but to give him those powers. Any apprehensions we have in regard to it are bound up with the manner in which those powers will be exercised. In the exercise of them we want something more than mere blunt honesty. We want ability, experience in dealing with men, a proper sense of judgment in assessing what is efficiency, and a capacity to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case.

Reference has been made here by one Deputy to the fact that the country will be faced with the necessity for paying pensions now under those peculiar circumstances. That is quite true; that is one of the prices we have to pay for what is by some people called "democracy". If you have a democratic system which allows abuses to occur, which allows indiscipline to meander its way all along the line, you have to pay for it, and make up your mind whether or not you have been a contributing factor to those abuses. The amount involved will not be very considerable, I should say, although we have no direct information from the Minister with regard to it.

If it increases the efficiency of the Guards, and if ultimately it gives the Guards themselves a greater degree of security—which in my opinion it ought to give, and will give if it is properly administered — then, notwithstanding the fact that it has all the appearance of a surgeon's knife which is not particularly sharp, it may do well. At any rate, I am supporting this, as I say, with great reluctance because of the circumstances. I believe it to be my duty to do so. If a Minister of State comes here and makes a case for an order such as this, to enable him to assure the public that they are going to have an efficient and competent service, I can see no reason why he should not get my support for it. I only regret that the occasion ever has arisen when an application of that sort should have been made to the House.

Dr. O'Higgins

In a time of real emergency, uncertainty and danger, I personally cannot subscribe to any motion to withhold temporarily or permanently from whatever group of people happen to be the Government any powers, no matter how drastic they may be, in order to bring about higher efficiency or more discipline in any of the services of the State. I say that with particular reference to the uniformed services of the State. If the only choice before a Deputy in this House is to take a clean-cut vote either for the order as it stands without the alteration of a single comma, or the motion to annul the order and leave the normal unwieldy delaying procedure to be used within the uniformed services in the face of real uncertainty and grave emergency, then I would have no hesitation in voting for the order without the alteration of a comma.

There has been a certain amount of exaggeration, in my opinion, in association with this debate. The suggestion is that there is something unjust within this order, that in some way or other the force is being victimised or may be victimised. I have great respect for the Gárda Síochána and great regard for the Army, and I wish that a few of the tears shed here this evening could have been reserved for the Army. If the ordinary soldier or officer in the Army got conditions half as good as the Guards will enjoy under this so-called unjust order, they would give their eyes for it. Remember, I would throw a brick as often as a bouquet, and I meet a brick as often as a bouquet. I do not see any particular reason why, if ever there is a debate affecting or relating in any way to the Gárda, everybody should be competing with one another in paying compliments, but if it is the Civil Service or the Army we are debating, nobody feels obliged to pay compliments. They are all Irish services and they have all been efficient, loyal and satisfactory, and all equally so. There are conditions now being applied to the Guards, described as harsh and brutal, which I would like to see secured for the Army to-morrow. Every officer of the Army would like that, too.

There is not an officer or a soldier who cannot be retired at the order of the Minister, without knowing why, and there is no elaborate machinery to ensure that that man is at least entitled to a pension for the years of service that have gone by. Somewhat similar powers are being taken within this order to retire Gárda officers and to retire members of the Gárda, but every precaution is taken to ensure that they get the full pension for every month, week and day served. What would the Army officer not give to be in that privileged position? Is there any reason why you should particularly discriminate against the Army officer? I believe that the population of this country is so small that what is fair for one is fair for the other. If you accept that the Army has been groaning under appalling injustice for the last 21 years, and that they have got a fair measure of justice now, that measure of justice plus a substantial bit extra is being applied to the Gárda Síochána—and we are wailing about it. If the wails are sincere, I want to see the roof pulled down off this building the next time we have a discussion on the Army here.

I did raise one or two questions of this kind in association with the Army on one or two occasions and no one got weary counting the number of votes that accompanied me through the Lobby. What is the position? Members of the public and Deputies were disturbed, mentally excited, because a statement was made to the effect that the Minister wanted powers to deal with high officers in the Gárda Síochána, in order to increase the security and protect the safety of this State. Let us take our minds away from the cities. In fact, the whole question of the safety and security of life and property in the average county hangs like a shroud from the shoulders of the chief superintendent of the Gárda. I do not care whether it turns out ultimately to be a military job or not; the eyes, the ears, the agents of the State, who must be on the alert and on their toes all the time during this emergency, are the members of the Gárda Síochána. If there is any flop there, if there is any flabbiness, any laziness or leaning back—no matter through what cause, whether through insobriety, through laziness, through absence or through slackness—unquestionably the stability and security of this State are threatened and undermined.

We are living in times when, perhaps, our sense of values must change from day to day, just as was outlined in the last debate regarding the day-to-day change in the value of ships. I believe that from month to month there is an increase in the value of vigilance, alertness, reliability and all those factors that go to make up security. That value is increasing as one day passes another, and things we could afford to ignore in normal times cannot be ignored without danger in times such as there. Everyone of us is soft-hearted, everyone of us is human and has the normal weaknesses of a human being. We do not like to see any man getting into trouble or losing his job, and in normal times, perhaps, many of us would say that these men have given good service for 16 or 17 years, and that one should be lenient with them now. It is just like an army in war time. Things to which one would not give a thought in times of peace justify the penalty of death in times of war, because the lives of so many may depend on one simple private soldier letting up on his job. We are not living in times just now when we can view with any degree of easy mind any State official, but particularly any uniformed official, any uniformed member of a disciplined force, letting down on his job. That is so true that the weak links have to be severed in the interests of the State.

What is being done here? Yesterday you had no choice but to fire every-one of those men without a pension, without a gratuity. In the Civic Guard Pensions Regulations a man, I believe, could only get his pension having served his full service or if he went out on medical grounds. If he went out for any other reason, for inefficiency, misconduct or by way of resignation, he was not entitled to a pension. Steps are being taken here to ensure that a man will get whatever pension or gratuity is due him according to his years of service. That is a very reasonable thing. Arguments have been advanced here: "Why not let the man go before the court? Why not let him either get the charge proved or clear his character?" I wonder who is the best friend of the people who may be affected by this order? Supposing the Minister says: "Done; we will send the whole lot of them before a disciplinary court." Even if, in half the cases, the charges were proved, there is no power either in this order or in the previous order to give these men, with the large families that Deputy Norton spoke about, a halfpenny a year as a pension. They go out disgraced, discredited men without a halfpenny a year of a pension after their many years of service. That would be the result of tying up the Minister's hands so that he must, willy-nilly, send them before a disciplinary court.

Mr. Norton

Surely that is a misreading of the order?

Dr. O'Higgins

What order?

Mr. Norton

The order we are discussing.

Dr. O'Higgins

I am referring to the Deputy's motion to annul the order and leave things as they were. If you want to get rid of a man for inefficiency you have to bring him before a disciplinary court.

Mr. Norton

That is a different tune to the one the Deputy was whistling a few moments ago.

Dr. O'Higgins

I may not have a good ear for music, but I have a good tongue for words. If the Minister is left in this position that, conscious of his responsibility and conscious of the possible dangers that we are facing, he must eradicate any weaknesses in that force, even what might be regarded as minor misconduct three years ago, it must be taken up promptly and, if he has not the machinery that is proposed here, then he has no other way of strengthening that force but to try the men and, if there is sufficient evidence to dismiss them from the Guards for misconduct, for gross inefficiency, he cannot give them a pension. Would any of us like to see any of the men going out on those conditions? Many of us may have our weaknesses. Many of us may have given ten, or 15 years' good service and then break down other than in health—go over the rails. None of us wants the service of past years wiped out and merely the crime or misconduct recorded and tagged round a man's neck for the rest of his life.

This order is a reasonable order and a modest order under conditions such as exist now. The two orders, taken together, one being the complement of the other, show certainly a very reasonable effort to ensure efficiency, discipline and vigilance, and at the same time be as reasonably fair as the taxpayers can afford to the person whose services you are dispensing with. In an emergency situation this order is a reasonable order. I am not so sure and I am not so very trusting that it is wise to make an order of this kind for all time. We have no intention at the moment. The Minister has a certain intention, but only one intention. The Commissioner has only one object in view, to increase the soundness of the force, to increase the respect the general public has for the force, to increase the amount of confidence that people have in the force. We will have many more Ministers and many more Commissioners. You may have a Minister or a Commissioner who takes a petty view of affairs and who would dispense with the services of an officer or Guard for some really minor offence.

If those powers are to last for all time, I would not be so enthusiastic in supporting them. I strongly urge the Minister, in the interests of the force and not as a person in any way opposing these proposals, but in order to get the greatest volume of support behind the proposals inside and outside of the Gárda, to consider that aspect. I do not believe there is a member of the Gárda who would object to these proposals if they were war-time proposals. The ordinary soldier does not object to run the risk of being shot for a minute's absence from his post during time of war. It would not be reasonable to hold such threats over a soldier's head in times of peace. We are in something like a war situation. No officer and no member of the Gárda would object to those powers having life as long as the emergency lasts, and after that being renewable every 12 months. I believe the longer we experience these powers the more we will begin to see the justice of this new arrangement, and the less we will be afraid of injustice. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider the advisability of giving for this order's first span of life a life like other emergency measures—for the duration —and after that give it a life like our Army has, existence from year to year. If there are any injustices, then they can be discussed here from year to year and the powers withdrawn, if necessary. If the order is proceeding along perfectly satisfactory lines, as I hope and believe it will, then I think the sound commonsense of the Dáil will see that there is no good in bringing this forward every year, and it will be passed as a final measure.

Mr. Esmonde

I wonder if it would be possible for the Minister to give the House some information, approximately, of the number of members of the Civic Guard involved and, in addition, to indicate generally, consistent with the necessity of the situation and with discipline, what type of offences are intended to be dealt with. Since this matter was first mentioned in the Dáil, considerable public attention has been focussed on it, and questions have been directed to Deputies inquiring what is wrong in the Guards. Some people have offered opinions on what they thought could be wrong, but if it is possible for the Minister to indicate what the offences are it would allay public disquiet. Possibly the Minister realises that that would be the right thing to do, but it is for him to use his own discretion. It would be of some assistance if he made a statement. Since the present situation has arisen it has been found necessary to issue orders which are complementary. Under the Police Force Amalgamation Act, 1925, which is the Act dealing with discipline in the Guards, and under which terms of service and allowances are fixed, there are two sets of orders prescribed, one under Section 13 dealing with pay and retired allowances and one under Section 14 dealing with discipline. The order made under Section 14 of the Act is a very extensive one and is a complete code for dealing with offences. It sets out, first of all, what offences are contrary to discipline, and the other one sets out what the authorities can do to deal with breaches of discipline. One of the things they can do is to dismiss an officer but, so far as I can find, there is no provision made for retiring an officer or member of the Guards.

Now, in the opinion of the Minister, a situation has apparently arisen in which he and his advisers think it necessary that towards certain members of the Guards steps should be adopted which are half-way between dismissal and half-way between voluntary retirement. If the first order granting a superannuation allowance or a pension under circumstances unprovided for in the existing code is passed, obviously there must be another order. It is in connection with the second order that the difficulty has arisen. I suggest to the Minister that he should try to meet the propositions put forward practically by every Deputy who has spoken, by limiting the time that the order for retirement will be in operation, and also to give the person concerned some warning that he is going to be charged with an offence under which he will be retired. As far as I can see, what might happen is that any member of the Guards might become a victim of this order. I am not suggesting that there should be a court of inquiry, but it is right that a man should know before the actual decision upon what grounds he is to be retired. He should know definitely in writing that he is the person that it is contemplated should be retired, and a reason should be given for such retirement, in order to give him an opportunity of explaining his position. If he were unheard, it might be that grave injustice might be done. If the person concerned had an opportunity to explain his case, it might be quite satisfactory. That would safeguard the individual concerned. If there was a time limit on the order for retirement, and an opportunity given for explanation, I would not quarrel in any way with the order. It seems to me that the whole situation with regard to these two orders has arisen out of kindheartedness on the part of the authorities, and the wish not to have to invoke the drastic penal powers they have to get rid of any member of the Guards under the regulations, but to adopt an alternative method which, although the person involved is guilty of an offence, does not deprive him of a right to some superannuation.

Mr. Cogan

As an independent Deputy I wish to support the appeal made by the Leaders of the other Parties for a time limit on the operation of the order. On the whole the order is not unjust to some members of the Gárda, inasmuch as under the existing law Guards found guilty of grave offences are liable to dismissal without any chance of obtaining pensions. While this order is necessary in the present emergency, it definitely contains an element of danger if made permanent, inasmuch as that might, in the hands of a less impartial Minister, or a less impartial Commissioner, be too freely used against a member of the force. It contains another element of danger, as it might be used to the disadvantage of the taxpayers in many cases. The order might in some cases become a danger both to members of the force and be unjust to the taxpayers. I can visualise circumstances in which a commissioner faced with two alternatives, either to dismiss a man who has been guilty of a serious offence, or to take disciplinary action against him, dismisses him and then he would not be entitled to any pension. If the offence was a serious one that would be a proper decision, but where the Minister has an alternative of availing of this order he might be tempted to inflict an injustice on the taxpayers by allowing the man a pension out of kindness of heart. The taxpayers' interests should be considered in addition to the interests of the Guards, and for that reason it is desirable that this order should be confined to the period of the emergency.

Having regard to the fact that the Minister has agreed to amend the order, so as to take the power to dismiss members of the rank and file out of the hands of the Commissioner, without his approval, I think the House should be unanimous in support of the order. It is a matter of the utmost importance that the efficiency of the Gárda should be maintained at the highest possible standard. This is not only a question of preserving peace and order, because we have also to rely on the Gárda to take measures that affect the economic life of the country, by ensuring the operation of any emergency measures that concern our essential supplies.

We also have to rely on the Gárda to make effective the various economic measures adopted. In a period of great emergency it is absolutely necessary that we should have a most efficient force. Therefore I think that no member with any sense of responsibility would be anxious to oppose the Minister in obtaining the powers that he is now seeking.

Mr. Dillon

I listened with great care to what Deputy Mulcahy had to say on a previous occasion in regard to this motion, and to what he had to say to-day. I adopt every word he said. I do not think he overstated the case, and I do not think he understated it. I think he stated the case as it ought to be stated, and as it required to be stated in the circumstances. The discharge of a public duty of this character is never pleasant for the Minister responsible, nor for any member of the Opposition who has to approve of it. That should not deter any man who deems he has a duty to discharge to go ahead, and Deputy Mulcahy did what I expected he would do. The attitude of the Labour Party is that they are all concerned for paper safeguards, but no paper safeguards will save the situation. If we envisage a situation in which the Commissioner and the Minister are going to enter into a conspiracy to victimise a Guard, the paper safeguards will not save him. As I see the situation, any member of the Gárda Síochána who is called upon to resign under these regulations must ultimately be called upon to do so by the Minister, acting as a sort of court of appeal. The Minister knows that the decision he gives in that capacity is liable to be called up for review in Dáil Eireann.

What better tribunal does a Guard in this State want for the security of his position than the Commissioner to begin, the Minister to follow, and finishing up with Dáil Éireann, a tribunal which no ordinary litigant in the State has access to? None of us can review, or call into question, the decision of a judicial tribunal, but every time this particular tribunal functions its decision can be called into question. The Minister can be called upon in Dáil Éireann to answer for its decisions. Similarly, the Minister for Justice, or the Taoiseach himself, may be called upon to answer for the Government's decision in regard to an officer.

In my opinion, the concession which the Minister is prepared to make to the order is a prudent concession. It removes from my mind the last apprehension I had in regard to the way in which this order might be administered now or in the future. Deputy Murphy referred to some possible causes of present dissatisfaction, or, perhaps, I should say, of present unsatisfactory conduct in the ranks of the Gárda. I think that the moderate terms that he employed could not be improved upon, beyond saying that I think they accurately describe the true source of our present difficulties. I do not propose to elaborate them further. There is always the difficulty in this country, and particularly in this House, that if you have occasion to refer to any shortcomings in an individual national school-teacher in this country, somebody gets up and charges you with denouncing all the national school teachers in Ireland. If you refer to the impropriety of a comparatively rich citizen fraudulently collecting the dole, you are denounced as the mortal enemy of the unemployed, and so it is suggested that the terms in which the inefficient officers and men who do exist in the Gárda force at the present time have been described, amount, in the words of Deputy Keyes, I think, to a denunciation of the Gárda Síochána, and to the employment of reckless language to destroy the reputation of that force. Far from Deputy Mulcahy using reckless language, I suggest that it was Deputy Keyes who allowed himself that indulgence this evening. There is no question of anybody attacking the men of the Gárda Síochána.

I say quite deliberately that I consider the Gárda Síochána to be one of the finest police forces in the world. I say deliberately that, in my home town, if any young man asked me by whom he might safely take example, I would recommend him to model himself on the members of the Gárda Síochána serving in that town at the present time, and that if he did so I would rest perfectly sure that he would come to be a good citizen and a decent man. But it is the very fact that the force is so satisfactory and deserves so well of this country that should make us solicitous to discharge our duty by that force. When we entered public life we undertook the obligation to do the dirty jobs as well as to collect the fruits of office, if they ever came to us. It is not the job of a Gárda down the country to discipline his own officer, though it may be well known to a Gárda that much of what is unsatisfactory in the area where he serves is due to the shortcomings of his officer. If we sit idly by, or prevent the Minister from doing his duty in order to remove abuses, then, far from doing an individual Gárda or the Gárda Síochána a service, we are betraying them, and making it impossible for them to maintain the high standards which hitherto have reflected credit upon them.

I do not know why we are all so chary, building up in this House a sort of awful mystery about what we understand to be the shortcomings which require to be dealt with. Some people charge me, I know, with being indiscreet. I do not believe it is ever right to hide the truth from the people. So far as I am aware, there are some senior officers in the Gárda and they have got into the habit of going on "the better". Now that is a thing that any of us might do—go on "the batter"—if only we would come off it. That is plain talk. When you have gone to a man time and again and said: "Look here, this must not occur again, it is giving scandal to the men under you, it is bringing disgrace on your uniform and is making your position in the community where you are a senior servant of the State impossible," and it goes on occurring, what are you to do? You must do one of two things.

You can sack him or get him to retire on superannuation. Here is a decent fellow who gave yeoman service to the State in dangerous times, who stood fast and held his men together. He was as good a man as one could possibly meet, but he suddenly developed what a venerable parish priest of my acquaintance once described as "a good man's fault" and he cannot cure it. Now, having exercised patience and forbearance with that man, you know that if the Gárda Síochána in his area is to be kept together, you have got to get him out. How are you going to do it? Do Deputies want that man to be kicked out and to be disgraced? I do not. I welcome the terms of this order which enable the Commissioner to go to him and say:-"If you have not got sense enough to resign, we will resign you." If that does not succeed in knocking sense into that man's head, nothing will. That course of action will give him an opportunity of sobering himself, of pulling himself together and of becoming a credit to himself and his family. This order contains the only hope of salvation for such a man. As I have said, he is a really decent man. His shortcomings may be due to weaknesses he developed when he was a much younger man—during a period when he gave yeoman service to the State. I do not think it is wrong to the people to tell the people that.

I believe there is another abuse. I am not speaking with any special information. I did not ask the Minister or the Commissioner for any information, and I do not know anything of the inner secrets of the Gárda force. I think that there is another abuse and that it is no harm to mention it. I think that a practice has grown up in which certain weak men have allowed themselves to be imposed upon by unscrupulous persons who desired to lend them money and get them into their power. Having got themselves into that position, these men are unable to extricate themselves and, though cautioned and checked on previous occasions, have allowed themselves to fall into similar traps again. Such men are not fitted to discharge the duties which they are liable to be called upon to discharge at any moment as officers of the Gárda Síochána. I am profoundly convinced that the men guilty of these offences constitute but a microscopic minority of the general body of the Gárda. But if these abuses were allowed to become a daily fact of Gárda life, if such conduct were to be tolerated in the uniformed forces of this State, then, unless the Gárdaí were angels, you would find that sort of demoralisation spreading out through the force and men would say: "What is the use of conducting yourself with restraint and setting an example higher than that required of the secular community when the fellow who fails to do so has as good a chance as you?" What we have to do is remind the Gárdaí that, though not always passing encomiums on them or throwing bouquets at them, we appreciate the fact that the vast majority of them have established, and maintained, a splendid standard, that any falling away from this standard on the part of a few individuals has to be noticed and action taken effectively and promptly, and that we are not afraid of the responsibility of doing that. It is our confidence that prompt handling of this situation will restore the high traditions and morale of the Gárda Síochána, which encourages us to face this duty, disagreeable as it may be.

I do not think that any reasonable man in the country interpreted Deputy Mulcahy's remarks or the Minister's comment as meaning that the Gárda were "rotten." They knew what was going on and hundreds of them said: "Thanks be to God because I used to ask myself whether the Minister could have known some of the things I knew and had tolerated them." Citizens will come to know now that these facts were known, carefully excogitated and that the position was handled by the Minister as they would be by any prudent man. It would have been easy for the Minister to lose his head and to call on the Commissioner to dismiss this, that and the other man. I think that he showed forbearance and prudence in saying: "This news is disagreeable but let us not rivet our attention on these fellows' failings. Knowing their failings, intolerable as they are, let us think of their past service and see if we cannot devise a plan to remedy the evil in the Guards and still not lean too heavily on the men whose weakness has brought them into this position."

I shall vote for these two orders but I think it would help everybody to support him if the Minister would accept Deputy MacEoin's proposal—that is to say, that where a Gárda or an officer is to be reported to the Commissioner and his case is to be subsequently reviewed by the Minister or the Government, as the case might be, he would be afforded an opportunity, on terms analogous to those obtaining in the Army, to set down his answer to the charge, so that he would feel that the Commissioner and the Minister would see the allegation against him and his answer to it at the same time—that the Minister, on appeal, would not be prejudiced before he had time to tell his tale. We are all human and, if somebody makes a report against us, and if we get in with our story only 48 hours later, we feel that authority's mind has become rigid and prejudiced against us and that our tale is looked upon with suspicion.

If the charge sheet and the answer go up together, the Commissioner sees both, and the Minister reads both, no reasonable man can urge that his case has not been fairly stated. Unless a member of the Gárda is prepared to go forward and say that he believes that the Government, the Minister, and the Commissioner are actuated by corrupt motives, he cannot believe that substantial injustice has been done him by compulsorily resigning him and giving him a pension which he would not be able to get but for the passing of these two regulations.

I do not want to conclude without reaffirming what I believe all Deputies, without exception, feel—that the Gárda Síochána, taken as a body, are as fine a body of police as there is in the world. It is that knowledge, and an appreciation of that fact, that enable most of us to do our duty so as to ensure that there will not remain in its ranks men whose conduct might ultimately result in the demoralisation of the entire force.

Mr. Costello

The actual order before the House is not that which is referred to in the motion by Deputies Norton and Davin, but is the order enabling the Minister to grant a pension, in certain circumstances, to members of the Gárda. I should like, for my own information and guidance as to my attitude on this order and on the motion by Deputy Norton, to know whether sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Police Forces (Amagalmation) Act, 1935, was complied with before this order was made. Sub-section (2) of that order is, curiously enough, not recited in the pensions order before the House. That sub-section provides that, before making such an order as we are now considering, the draft of the order should be given to the bodies representing the several ranks and grades of the force to be affected, and that the Minister should consider the representations, if any, made to him in respect of that draft order. I thought it was rather peculiar—there may be nothing in the point—that, in the order itself, there is no recital that the statutory provision was carried out. I thought it might have been an oversight.

Mr. Boland

It was carried out.

Mr. Costello

It struck me as peculiar that compliance with the statutory requirements had not been referred to in the order. Assuming that it has been carried out, I should like to get information from the Minister as to what representations, if any, were made by the representative bodies of the officers and men affected by this order because my attitude towards this order and the order referred to in Deputy Norton's motion would be largely, if not entirely, influenced by the representations made by the representative bodies of the various ranks affected by the order. The Minister did not say, in his opening statement, whether or not the order had been given to the representative bodies but he now says it was given. I should like him to tell us what they thought of it, if he is at liberty to do so.

On one aspect of these orders, an additional safeguard is being given to the officers and men affected by the provision that, in case of compulsory retirement, a pension is secured to them. It may be that officers and men of the Gárda were satisfied with that position. It may be that they asked for additional safeguards under this order or that they objected to it in its entirety. I think that the House is entitled to know what representations were made by these men, if the Minister is at liberty to give that information. It would have some little effect on my mind to be assured that full opportunity was afforded to the representatives of the officers and men of the Gárda to consider these two orders and make representations.

Deputy Dillon stole a phrase which he saw on the back of my papers and I have a grievance against him on that account. He said he had not any use for "paper safeguards," which was my phrase. I have no use for paper safeguards.

The safeguard that is offered by the Minister here is paper, and flimsy paper at that. It is hardly paper at all, because the Minister says that he will provide an additional safeguard in the order to the effect that the Commissioner can certify only with the consent of the Minister. When I consider the remarks of the speakers who have preceded me as to how the position of the men would be improved or disimproved by that addition, so far as I have been able to come to any clear decision on the matter, owing to my entire disbelief in paper safeguards, I have come to the conclusion that it would be disimproved rather than improved. I appreciate the fact that the offer was made in an effort to allay misgivings that are felt in all parts of the House as to the drastic nature of the order and the way in which it may be administered. On the whole, I should prefer a Commissioner in whom I could have confidence, a man who would be independent in the exercise of his functions either of the Government or of the Minister, and who would be prepared to mete out impartial treatment in the interests of the public to all sections of the force. I would prefer to trust him rather than to have on top of him the political influence of a Minister.

I want to repeat what has been said by my colleagues, that I trust the present Minister. I am not at all sure that I would go so far as my leader in saying that I would trust one other Minister, but, at most, there is only about one other that I would trust. I have confidence in the Minister, but that does not decide the principle in this matter. In fact, the alleged safeguard offered by the Minister causes me rather more misgivings over this order, because once you introduce the principle that the Minister can interfere with the discretion or the exercise of the powers of the Commissioner, then you introduce a method by which all the political clubs in the country can bring pressure to bear in the matter. You will then have the Guards brought to a state in which they will believe that if they are going to avoid compulsory superannuation or resignation they must have certain political tags, ties or affiliations so that they can, if necessary, bring certain influences to bear to override the decision of the Commissioner. That is the danger in giving the Minister control.

It may give the Gárda a safeguard against a dictatorial Commissioner. But when you come to work out how it is going to operate, you inevitably reach the conclusion that, no matter what safeguards you provide in an order or in a statute to preserve the individual rights of officers and men, unless an order of this kind is fairly administered, no safeguard, even in a statute, is of any use. We had an instance of that in connection with the Magazine Fort where the officers had certain rights under statute and we know that the case of these men was prejudged before they got an opportunity of arguing their case. Yet they were supposed to have certain safeguards. When I heard the Minister making this suggestion that the consent of the Minister should be necessary before any order for retirement or resignation became effective, the case in connection with the Magazine Fort came to my mind and I came to the conclusion that the Minister's safeguard was not worth the paper it was written on.

Deputy Norton asked for an inquiry as provided for in the Act of 1925. That would appeal to me personally as a far better safeguard than the one offered by the Minister, but again it is only a paper safeguard. If you have a dictatorial commissioner who wants to get rid of a certain officer or man, he can rig up a disciplinary body who will obey his dictates. They will be his subordinates and he will be in a position to browbeat and intimidate them into bringing in the findings that he is seeking. Therefore, I reach the conclusion that paper safeguards are of no use whatever. I can make only one suggestion and that is, that the order should expire annually, that it should not have life for more than one year and that, at the end of that time, if it is necessary to renew it, we should be entitled to consider the administration of the order for the previous 12 months.

Deputy Norton directed most of his remarks to the rank and file of the force. He was apparently satisfied with the position as regards the officers. I am not at all satisfied with the position as regards the officers any more than I am with the position of the men. The officers cannot be removed except by the Government. The first speech I made in this House, I may recall, was a protest against the action of the Government in removing a commissioner of the Guards. The Government sat in judgment on the highest officer of the force years ago, and all the present trials and tribulations of the Guards are traceable to the action of the Government at that time. Deputy Mulcahy has, however, stated that a certain situation exists amongst certain sections of the officer personnel of the Guards that calls for some sort of power such as this order provides. So far as I am concerned I accept, and would accept at all times, anything Deputy Mulcahy says in that respect unhesitatingly. Such a statement would not be made by him unless he had the strongest ground for it. The charge, if it can be called a charge, made by Deputy Mulcahy the public will believe, as I believe it, unhesitatingly and unquestioningly, and he would not have brought the matter to the notice of the Minister if he had not very serious grounds for his action. I accept what Deputy Mulcahy has said as being absolutely and entirely true, and I agree that it calls for some such action as the making of this order. I think, however, there should be a time limit to the order or that it should be necessary to renew it every year. I think that that is the best safeguard that this House can give to the officers and men of the Guards, that orders of this kind will not be abused. I do not think any sort of paper safeguards is worth anything. They are hardly worth the paper they are written on. The only safeguard which the officers and men can have against a politically-minded Government or Minister or a subservient commissioner is that action taken under the order can be reviewed in public in this Dáil when the order is being renewed.

Mr. Boland

Might I intervene to ask whether there is any chance of getting this order passed through the Dáil to-night, because the Seanad has been summoned specially to-morrow to consider it?

Mr. Byrne

I have only one or two questions to ask, and I think there is not likely to be any other speaker before the Minister concludes. I want to know whether the Minister can, in this order, take power to himself to deal with cases that have occurred during the last 12 months in which men have been dismissed or called upon to resign without pension, and who feel that an injustice has been done to them? There are at least three cases in Dublin in which men believe that an injustice has been done to them. Take a case, for instance, where it might be said a man did an injustice to himself. A man with a service of from 20 to 22 years, owing to family trouble and in a fit of pique, refused to go into the office to do his work, and he was dismissed. I should like to know whether the Minister has power to deal with cases of that kind. That unfortunate man, as I say, had from 20 to 22 years' service. He stayed out from his work and was discharged. He is now perhaps a little bit sorry. I have also a case I mentioned here a week ago, of a Guard to whom his friends, who investigated his case, feel that a terrible injustice has been done. If his case were reviewed he would get at least a small pension, after 16 years' service, which would enable him to justify his position. He would be able to get employment, and the small pension will enable him to keep his wife and family, and save him from going on the rates. There are only three cases in the city that I know of, and I ask the Minister to take power in this order to reconsider these cases, which are causing trouble to a good many Deputies. I saw these same men talking to three Deputies in the last week here.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to make two points before the Minister speaks. I propose to give the Minister my personal support in this matter, but with the great trepidation and reluctance which Deputy Cosgrave has already expressed. That support will be somewhat influenced by the answers he gives to these points. I want to know whether the situation which has developed, and which calls for this particular enactment is a sudden emergency, whether it is a case of people with a good record suddenly succumbing to some unexpected temptation, or unexpectedly breaking down as a rein sult of some peculiar circumstances, or is it a second situation which may have developed, representing an observable and observed deterioration over a period of years, or whether it is even a third situation representing the natural and inevitable outcome of bad appointments and promotions. If it is the first, I cannot conceive of any big number being involved. I, therefore, think the situation must have developed out of the second or third position, and, if that is so, I should expect the Minister to tell us, with a certain amount of penitence, that he has a certain share of Parliamentary responsibility with regard to what has come about, and, if he would reveal himself in an honest and frank way, as we expect from him, he would get the sympathy of the House, in regard to this emergency which has arisen, whether over a period or suddenly.

I do not agree with Deputy O'Higgins that it is an emergency of a war type. I do not think it has anything to do with the war. It may be aggravated by the war situation, but what has been suggested here would be intolerable even in the piping times of peace. I suggest that instead of having suggestions about an annual Act, the Minister take this power to deal with the situation and, when it is finished, wipe out these regulations. I do not believe in this matter of allowing the Minister to slide people easily, on the grounds of so-called inefficiency, into a pension position. It would be better for the House, for the Minister and for the Guards themselves, and make for better promotions and better supervision by the Minister over the Guards, if he took the position of facing up to the harsh and Spartan treatment of sacking a man without a pension and having to give reasons to the House.

If the matter be a question of alcoholic excess, as referred to by Deputy Dillon, I am not in favour of allowing people to drink themselves to an easy pension and that might be the result of having this regulation adopted in perpetuity. I suggest to the Minister that he accept the view that he should deal with this situation under these regulations, then tell us that it is finished and let us get back to the old situation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. Norton

Am I to understand that the Minister will conclude on No. 4, but that I shall have an opportunity of speaking on No. 5, which is an annulment motion on which there is the right to reply?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has the right to reply.

Mr. Norton

We are dealing with No. 4, and we must get it out of the way first.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. MacEntee)

The two are being discussed together.

Mr. Norton

You are not in the Chair yet.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The two motions were discussed together.

Mr. Norton

The Minister moved No. 4 first. Is the Minister going to reply on that motion?

Mr. Boland

We have dealt with the Pension Order and the Retirement Order together. I shall try to be as brief as possible, but I have quite a lot of points to answer, and I do not know how long Deputy Norton will take.

Mr. Norton

There are 15 minutes left. I am prepared to give the Minister nine minutes, while I take six.

Mr. MacEntee

Might I point out to you, Sir, that both motions were taken together?

Mr. Norton

If you would stop your chattering, we might get some business done.

Mr. Boland

I shall do my best.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order, may I call your attention to the fact, Sir, that Deputy Norton and Deputy Davin proposed and seconded the motion?

Mr. Norton

Stop your points of order. They are nonsensical.

Mr. Boland

To deal, first, with the point made by Deputy McGilligan, and which was made by several speakers, as to the duration of this order, I am impressed by the case made for its being an annual order to deal with a situation which exists now. I hope we shall not have to deal with any more such situations, and I consent to limit the duration of the order to 12 months. One danger that I see in doing what Deputy McGilligan suggests, that is, of dealing here and now with the situation which exists, is that there may be men on the borderline and the Commissioner may think that a little time might get them to pull up. I think we should give them at least 12 months in the hope that there will be an improvement. I undertake, however, to limit its operation to this year. If necessary, and I hope it will not be necessary, it can be brought in again, and, if not, it can be allowed to lapse.

As to how this situation came about, whether it was sudden, or observed over a period, whether people were allowed to deteriorate, or whether it was the result of bad appointments, I cannot say whether it was the result of the latter factor. It may have been, and, if men have proved unsuitable, I dare say it must have been. It has been observed for some time, and has been allowed to go on, and I dare say that if we had not an emergency here, it might have been tolerated longer. Although the Commissioner is as good as it is possible to get, he is a human being, too, and when one man has the task of carrying out a dirty job of this kind, he naturally dislikes to throw on the street a man who has given good service when he finds he has become inefficient, if he can avoid it; but things came to such a pass with some officers —senior officers, men in charge of divisions, some of them being chief superintendents—that the position would have become so intolerable that he would have put them out. It might be, and possibly would be, difficult, however, to get a disciplinary court to recommend dismissals to the Commissioner. It might have been impossible, if a court were set up under the regulations, to get them to agree. In addition, he did not want to throw them out. I might as well say that. It is all very well to say that he should have done it, but we must put ourselves in the position of the Commissioner who has to face the job. What he has to do is very big, and I could not expect him to be 100 per cent. efficient in the matter, to have no consideration for anything but efficiency, regardless of the results to the individual. This is a way out, and the greatest pension the man with the longest service will get is one-third. That is a very serious matter indeed for the man concerned.

Even if the situation has been allowed to develop to its present state, it was only natural that it should be, in view of the fact that there was a disinclination to dismiss a man, unless he had become really unfit for duty and would be found guilty by a disciplinary court, and there was no alternative to this pension scheme. I should like to draw the attention of Deputies to the existing regulation. I am proposing to bring in the Minister, but reluctantly. I agree with Deputy Costello that the order is better as it stands. I think it would be much better to leave it all to the Commissioner, and I am reluctant to bring the Minister into it at all, but I have agreed to do so as I saw that there was a demand for it from all sides of the House. I know that my own Party, at its meeting to-day, wanted it, and something like it is wanted by the Labour Party and, I think, by the majority who spoke on the Opposition side, but, personally, I agree with Deputy Costello that it would be much better, in respect of a disciplined force, to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Commissioner, so far as the men are concerned.

I should like to remind Deputies that, with the Minister in, as he will be when the order is amended, it will simply make it a little bit easier on the Guards than is their position under a regulation already existing. I refer to the Gárda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations, 1926, paragraph 24 of which says:

"The Commissioner shall have power, without recourse to the procedure described in paragraphs 7 or 8 of these regulations"—

that is, the disciplinary court—

—"to dismiss from the force any member (not being an officer) whom he considers unfit for retention in the force: provided, however, that he shall not, without the prior consent of the Minister, exercise this power in the case of any member who has completed his period of probation."

In other words, the Commissioner can dismiss a man who is on probation without going near the Minister. Under the present regulations he can dismiss a man, with the consent of the Minister, without any court, and all we are asking is power to grant the man a pension. So that this is actually a concession. At any rate, it has come to this: I am quite satisfied that, in this emergency, I was right in saying that the security of the State was likely to be affected if we were going to allow men in such an important position as that of a chief superintendent of the Guards to be lax in their duty. As one Deputy suggested, there are some things that might be overlooked, either in the Army or in the police force, in ordinary times of peace, which could not possibly be overlooked in times of emergency.

At the present time, when we have all sections of the people rallying to the defence of the State and rallying, in most parts of the country, around the chief superintendent of the Guards, because in most places down the country it is on the chief superintendent that the activities of the Local Security Force—and even the Local Defence Force, although they are now under the control of the Army—the Air-Raid Precautions and other similar organisations, centre. The administration of these bodies hinges on the chief superintendent of the district concerned, and if he is not satisfactory, then the whole thing is in danger, and to that extent, the State is in danger. I do not think I exaggerate the position when I say so.

I say again, however, that the vast majority of the Guards, both officers and men, have been magnificent. I said that when I was speaking on the Estimate, and I said it again to-day. What I am afraid of is that, as a result of the general discussion on this matter, that statement may be snowed under and not given due prominence, and the impression may get around that there is a suggestion of disloyalty to the State on the part of the Guards. It would be most unfortunate if such an impression should be created. I never had any such suggestion in mind. I did agree that, from what I had heard from the Commissioner, Deputy Mulcahy's statement of the position was absolutely correct, but there was no suggestion of disloyalty on the part of the Guards. Deputy Cosgrave wanted to know the number involved. I understand that there are less than a dozen concerned in this, and when it is remembered that there are 27 chief superintendents and 132 superintendents, it will be realised that that is a small number—less than a dozen of the total.

Mr. Norton

How many chief superintendents are concerned?

Mr. Boland

Oh, now, I shall not say that, because that would be coming too near, but out of 27 chief superintendents and 132 superintendents there are less than one dozen involved, and none of them will be dismissed without the certificate of the Commissioner that, in his opinion, it is in the interests of the efficiency of the force that the man concerned should be removed from office. As to what Deputy Byrne suggested, that cannot be dealt with. These things are gone, and if I attempted to do what he suggests, the door would be opened to all sorts of claims and there would be applications, on behalf of every man who has been dismissed in the past for reinstatement. I could not consider that at all.

There was a suggestion of adopting a similar procedure to that adopted in the Army. I do not know whether that can be done or not. I think that the present method is really the best one that can be got. In the case of officers the Government will have to be satisfied that the recommendation made by the Commissioner is justified, and I am quite sure they will satisfy themselves of that before they will go so far as to remove an officer. So far as the Minister is concerned, that will certainly be the case. Surely, the Commissioner is not going to tell the Minister that a certain man must go, without giving a reason for it? I cannot say what the procedure is going to be exactly, but I am quite satisfied that it will be satisfactory as far as the presentation of the case is concerned, and that a man will be told by the Commissioner that he proposes to apply the terms of this order to him, and the man will get an opportunity of making his case, and the Government will reconsider it—that is, in the case of an officer—and where it is the case of a man, the Minister will be consulted also. I do not think I have anything more to say now considering the time, and in view of the fact that Deputy Norton wishes to reply.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am putting this motion first:

That the Dáil hereby approve of the Gárda Síochána Pensions Order, 1941, made on the 13th day of June, 1941, by the Minister for Justice, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, under Section 13 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925, and laid before the Dáil on the 17th day of June, 1941.

Question put and agreed to.