Vol. 83 No. 17
Now, on item No. 5, a motion by Deputy Norton—
"That the Gárda Síochána (Retirement) Regulations, 1941, made by the Minister for Justice on June 13th, 1941, be and are hereby annulled,"
Deputy Norton has the right to conclude, despite any arrangement come to at the outset.
I move No. 5. In the few minutes at my disposal I want to dissipate the impression sought to be created from the Fine Gael Benches that we were somewhat in favour of a relaxation of the discipline of the Guards. As far as we are concerned we want to see the discipline of the Guards maintained at the highest possible standard. We do not think that that is a matter for any Party but that it is a matter for the whole nation that that standard should be maintained.
We want to see the Guards made into the most efficient police force that we can make them. We do not stand for any weakening in the discipline of the Guards or for any soft treatment in the case of obvious indiscipline, but the Minister confessed this evening that this breakdown in the morale or discipline of the Guards—for a breakdown it apparently is—has not been of recent growth, but that there has been a steady deterioration going on for some time. What can we think of a Gárda administration which permitted such a state of affairs to arise to such an extent that the Minister can now suggest, as he has, that the matter is constituting a menace to the safety and security of the State? What can one think of a person who allows such a condition to arise and who has not the courage to deal with it?
Deputy Cosgrave said that he would rather not have to come in and vote on this order, but he forgot the day on which he came in here to cry and howl about the injustice of the Government in removing a Commissioner of the Guards. We are told now that the Commissioner and the ordinary Guard must trust the Government, but the Deputy forgets the time when the trust in a Government of a Commissioner was utilised in one case for the removal of the Commissioner without any explanation, and in another case for the removal of a Gárda officer, also without any explanation. Yet, in face of that experience—a painful one for Deputy Cosgrave both then and subsequently—we are told to trust the Government.
There is no reason to give these autocratic powers to the Commissioner, whoever he may be. There is nothing to justify us in giving these powers to a Commissioner or to the Minister, and it is because the greatest criminal in the land can get a fair trial and is entitled to know the charges against him, that a Gárda should also know in black and white on what grounds he is being put out of the force with an attenuated pension, and should have a chance of having his case tried on its merits by some impartial body, and get a verdict accordingly. He is not getting that under this order. The Minister will not indicate his procedure or give an assurance that the man will get a fair trial. All that the Minister stands over is the certificate of the Commissioner that a man should be cashiered from the force on a small pension, and the only thing that man has is a small pension on the one hand and a dishonoured name on the other hand—a dishonoured name not proved to be dishonoured—all, perhaps, on the hasty action of a Commissioner—and we are supposed to accept that in some sort of passionate belief that the Government will not do wrong. I do not believe it. We are opposed to this order because it is tyrannical, and because it gives power to a Commissioner, which should not be given, to dismiss an unfortunate individual, and because we believe that this House should stand for the rights of a single individual against the powers of the Commissioner or of the Minister.
I second the motion.
