Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Nov 1941

Vol. 85 No. 6

Gárda Síochána Pensions (No. 2) Order, 1941. - Motion of Approval.

I move:—

That the Dáil hereby approves of the Gárda Síochána Pensions (No. 2) Order, 1941, made on the 14th day of November, 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 November, 1941.

The House will remember that last June a retirement order was made. Following that, a pensions order had to be approved by both Houses. After all that had been done, representations were made to me that the pensions order did not make sufficient provision for some of the people who were being retired. I undertook to have the matter reconsidered by the Government and the result is that we have brought in a new pensions order which will make it possible for the Minister for Justice, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to add years, to a maximum of six, in the case of any officers in respect to whom it is decided to do so.

There is another side to it. There is no case before us now, but if it does happen that some officer or member of the Gárda is retired under this order and we do not feel justified in giving him the added years, or even giving him the period ordinarily given to a man retiring because of incapacity, power is being taken in this order to reduce the period, and there is here also a maximum of six years. In none of the present cases is that contemplated.

In what circumstances would the Minister contemplate reducing the period of years?

Mr. Boland

I do not know at the moment in what type of case it would occur, but it might happen where a man would have to be fired altogether without any compensation. Still, there might be a case for giving him some little pension, something less than he would normally be entitled to. Such a case might arise and, therefore, in this order power is taken to deal with it in that way.

What is the idea of increasing the period of years?

Mr. Boland

I have told the Deputy that representations were made. I was so much influenced that I thought there was a good case and the Government agreed there was a case to be made for added years in the case of those who were compulsorily retired. There is another thing done here. In view of the circumstances under which these officers were retired, it was rather embarrassing for the Commissioner to have to give the usual certificate—that is, the certificate that is given to a person who is retired before he comes to the pension period. When this is passed the usual certificate will not be necessary. That is dealt with in Article 7 (a).

The Minister has met those cases fairly. There is a second part of the order which deals with men retired by reason of a medical certificate—that is, through ill-health. So far as I can judge from the terms of the order, a pension might be as low as 20/-, if not lower, and not in excess of 25/-; that is, so far as those men are concerned. I do not think that, on reflection, the Minister will agree that that is a fair sum. These men were recruited in perfect health. By reason of the circumstances of the period in which they were recruited, or the exceptional duties they were called upon to perform at a particular time, their duties may have had an effect on their health. In these circumstances, perhaps the Minister will review, within the next few months, the section dealing with that particular aspect. The reconsideration that would be involved would not be an expensive matter, but it is obviously desirable that in the case of a body of men such as the Gárda Síochána, who have given such very good service, they should be assured that in a matter of that kind the Minister was more than conscious of their services and more than anxious to treat them fairly.

There seems to be rather strange language used in Section 7 of this order. The Minister talks about reckoning approved service for the purpose of a pension. One would imagine that "approved service" would mean the type of service which would be approved as pensionable service: in other words, service of a character and quality that might be reckoned for pension purposes, and one can quite understand that the Minister might desire to add on some years to that type of service. Strangely enough, however, in paragraph (c) of Section 7, the Minister is taking power to diminish the approved service. These seem to me to be contradictory terms. I should imagine that "approved service" would be service that would carry some kind of hallmark from the Department as service of the type qualifying for a pension; yet, in paragraph (c), when the Minister takes power to increase the approved service qualifying for a higher rate of pension, he also takes power to diminish the approved service. How can you diminish approved service in that respect? One can understand diminishing service, as in the case of the ordinary Civil Service Superannuation Acts, for demerits and so on, but one never heard of diminishing approved service. How did the Minister get "approved service" and the diminution of that approved service linked up together for the purpose of this order? I think the Minister is unwise to equip himself with this order. If the person concerned has got approved service, then he ought to get a pension based on that approved service. If, on the other hand, the service rendered has been of such kind that it merits dismissal, then there ought to be dismissal; but it seems to me that the idea of putting in a provision for the diminution of approved service is a very unusual provision in an order of this kind.

The Minister has power all the time to deal with any case where a member of the Gárda Síochána has misconducted himself in any particular manner, but I think the Minister ought not to claim the right to diminish approved service if by "approved service" we mean the type of service which normally carries Departmental approval and is normally reckoned for pension purposes. I gathered, from the Minister's reply to a question by Deputy Keyes to-day, that eight officers of the Gárda. Síochána have been retired under the Retirement Regulations and that no ordinary Guards have been retired and no non-commissioned officers. I suppose we may borrow the Minister's own phrase and say that any of the latter who have gone have been "fired" without any pension, but there seems to be a rather amazing differentiation there. The officer—the superintendent or the chief superintendent—from whom one would expect a very high standard of conduct, but who is considered not capable of discharging what is expected of him, is retired on pension, whereas the ordinary Guard or non-commissioned officer gets no pension and is simply "fired" without pension. How does the Minister justify that? I tried to get from the Minister, by Parliamentary question on some other day, the number of these persons who have retired, but I should like to know the reason for putting an ordinary member of the Gárda Síochána out of the force without pension while giving a pension to a high officer. I object to that kind of differentiation, and I say that the ordinary member of the Gárda Síochána is entitled to at least as fair a crack of the whip as the higher officers are getting.

This order produces rather amazing anomalies, one of which was mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave. For instance, if a member of the Gárda Síochána, in the diligent performance of his duty, manages to impair his health and is retired on medical grounds, in that case only the actual number of years he has served will count for service pension purposes, but if he goes on a prolonged spree and, as a result, his health becomes impaired, then he goes out, with power, in the Minister's hand, to add six years to his service. How can you add six years on to a man's service if his physical disability has been brought about by a kind of permanent spree when, on the other hand, the Guard who conscientiously and diligently performs his duty and is retired on medical grounds will get no added service at all? The Minister ought to consider the question of a particular person who is retired on medical grounds and whose disability is due to a genuine medical disqualification.

The case made for the removal of these eight people, and the case that, presumably, may be made for the retirement of anybody else under the Retirement Regulations, will be that the efficiency of the force will be best served by their retirement. That is not a very high type of certificate to give people on retirement, and yet the Minister takes power to increase their service for pension purposes by a maximum of six years. If a Guard, who has a wife and family, is compelled to retire on medical grounds, why should the Minister not equip himself with powers to add the years of service in such a case? In many cases, the ill-health of the Guard concerned might be due to an excess of efficiency rather than to any inefficiency, and I think that in the case of the retirement of a Guard on such grounds he should be treated not less well than in the case of a person who has been removed from the Gárda Síochána in the interests of its efficiency.

This just goes to show that once you open a door you do not know where it will lead to. The door was opened widely, and, I think, unwisely, in this matter already, and now we see what it is leading to. We are told that it would be embarrassing to the Commissioner to give the usual certificate in regard to the elimination of these men, but where is this thing going to lead us in the finish? Is it going to lead to the point that any individual member of the Gárda Síochána, now serving in the force, can look forward to this: that instead of being "fired," if he does go on what Deputy Norton describes as a prolonged spree, he will be pensioned instead of being fired out without a pension? That is what the open door is leading to, and I suggest to the Minister, before it is too late, that the efficiency of the Gárda Síochána would be best served by the withdrawal of this order and the one that preceded it. I suggest that to the Minister as the wisest course.

Deputy Cosgrave talks of men who have lost their health. This country is filled with men—you meet them every day in the week in the streets of Dublin and in every other constituency of this State—whose health has broken down as a result of services, far better than were ever rendered by any member of the Gárda Síochána, in other and more dangerous days, and very little thought or consideration was given to their health in that matter. I, for one, have a very decided objection to seeing large pensions given to men who, in the words of Deputy Norton, went on prolonged sprees.

I did not say that.

Men whose efficiency was impaired——

That is the case the Minister makes for their removal.

Not only are they getting a pension but they are to have years added to their service for pension purposes. I remember a poor unfortunate man in Cork who had 33 years' service as a messenger to the county council, and the Minister for Local Government at the time refused him a pension. Although he had 33 years' faithful service, without any year added to it, the unfortunate man had to come into the High Courts to get a pension. Is there to be one law for one class of the community in this country and another law for another? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. I, for one, have a very decided objection to this. I thought it was bad enough in the first place when we decided that those inefficient men were to get anything, but it is worse when the Minister wants to add six years to their service for bad conduct—not good conduct, surely?

I think it would be very unfortunate that what Deputy Corry has said should be taken as representing the facts with regard to the removals or retirements from office in the particular case in question.

It would take a lot of water to wash them.

Deputy Corry, of course, is quite free to slander here in this House, but he should keep those remarks for outside, where they can be challenged and dealt with. It is not true to say that, at any rate in the majority of those cases, they were removed from office because of drink.

Mr. Boland

Perhaps the Deputy will allow me to intervene for a moment. Deputy Norton has said that I made the case that those officers were dismissed for going on prolonged sprees. I want it to be made clear that I never said it.

Perhaps you will allow me to clear up that misunderstanding. I was talking about an objective case. The case I made was that, under this order, a man who goes on a prolonged spree and impairs his health will be retired on pension, and the Minister has power to add six years to his service; whereas if, by diligent service, a man impairs his health, he will be retired and no year will be added to his service. I pleaded with the Minister to treat the man whose diligent service brought about ill-health no less favourably than the man whose want of diligent service probably brought about illness. It is purely an objective case, and has no relation whatever to the persons being retired.

So long as it is quite clear that the House and the country understands that what Deputy Corry has said does not represent the facts as far as those retirements are concerned, I am satisfied.

The country understands all right, whatever the House pretends to understand.

Deputy Corry seems to know far more about it than I do, or than the House does, or than the Minister for Justice does. The Minister has said that he never made that case. I should like to add my voice to that of Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Norton with regard to those persons who are forced to retire because of ill-health. I know of at least one case of a sergeant who has been in the Gárda Síochána, I think, from its very foundation about 1922 or 1923. His health has now broken down, and I understand that he has to go on a pension of about 25/- a week. He is a married man with four or five children, and after 18 or 19 years' service he is now faced with being thrown out on a pension of 25/-. When this order was being framed. I think the Minister should not have deprived himself of the power to deal with cases of that kind. I cannot understand why the Minister should have withheld from himself power to deal with particular cases of retirement through ill-health when they arise. I support the order from the point of view of adding six years to the service of those who are removed, but I wish the Minister would reconsider his decision to withhold from himself power to deal similarly with those men who are forced to retire because of ill-health.

I believe the present Minister for Justice is a very fair-minded man, and I would be prepared to leave in his hands the decision as to what treatment should be received by people who were being retired from the Guards, but I am sure the Minister will admit that he is not all powerful in matters of this kind, and he is not taking all the power he might take to deal with cases other than those of high officers of the Guards who are retired for one reason or another. I do not like to give power to the present Minister, or to any other Minister, to diminish a pension, without at least getting from the Minister or his advisers the kind of case on which they base that claim. What is the kind of case the Minister has in mind for diminishing a pension? Some case has been put up to the Minister for the purpose of persuading him that he should take those powers, in consultation, of course, with the Minister for Finance. We have a fairly good idea of what the Ministry of Finance are in cases of this kind. Apart from that altogether, I do not think the Minister for Justice could satisfy himself that there are good grounds for giving added service to officers of the Guards who have been retired in the public interest, and refusing any consideration to those below the rank of inspector. I am certain that many men in the Guards from the rank of inspector down have been fired without getting any pension or any consideration, for reasons that might not be any worse, at any rate, than the reasons why those eight officers are being retired, and not alone given pensions under the ordinary regulations, but given added service as well. I do not think the Minister for Justice will stand up here in the House and say that he is clear in his own conscience that that is a sound proposal, or that he can justify it. It is not in the interests of the Gárdaí as a whole to defend that kind of policy.

Deputy Corry has been very hard upon the Minister and upon everybody concerned in this matter, but Deputy Corry has already voted in this House for retiring certain officers in the public interest, and promising them pensions from a certain period. Apparently, he is arguing only about the question as to how much they should get. Is it possible for the Minister to take back this order at this stage, and go very carefully into the consequences of making a claim in this House for power to diminish a pension, and refusing up to now, at any rate, to give to officers and members of the Guards who have been retired on medical grounds the same consideration as he is giving under the terms of this order to officers who are retired in the public interest? I do not know whether the Minister has given the matter that careful consideration which it deserves. I would appeal to him to take back the order, if it is possible, and reconsider the points which have been so very well put by Deputies Cosgrave, Norton and Lynch.

I did not like to interrupt the Deputy when he was speaking, but I should like him to tell me now when that vote was taken.

That is a matter of information, on which the Deputy's curiosity can be satisfied elsewhere.

Is the Deputy going to vote against the order now?

No. The other was an agreed motion.

While I am in favour of this order, I think the circumstances under which it has been introduced call for some explanation. There is, I feel, a danger that Gárdaí might perhaps be thrown out of their jobs in future without any consideration whatever. There may be some reason for dispensing with the services of certain Gárdaí, but surely there is in the Gárda Síochána some disciplinary code to deal with Gárdaí and officers who are not doing their duty?

The Deputy will realise that we are not now dealing with the original order. This is an implementing order, dealing with pensions.

I am aware of that, Sir. I am pointing out that within the regulations governing the Gárda Síochána, there was surely some disciplinary code for dealing with both officers and men. Before the House at the moment, there is the question of a retiring allowance for a number of officers who have gone out. I do not disagree with the allowance given to those officers, but I am surprised that the Minister for Justice and whoever is responsible, should have come to this House to retire these officers. Surely there was, as there is in every other country, some other way of dealing with officers who were unsatisfactory?

The merits of the original order do not arise now— merely an increase or decrease of pension.

I am coming to that part of the question now.

The other question has already been decided.

In fact, I shall support the Minister on this question of providing a pension for these men because he really has no other option. If he gave them a greater pension, it would be merely in consonance with the action which he induced this House to take in this matter already, an action that as I say should have been carried out through the disciplinary code of the Gárda. I disagree entirely with Deputy Corry that men who are medically unfit should be retired from the Gárda without pension, even though medical grounds may sometimes be used as a cloak for somebody who has gone on a spree, as Deputy Davin stated. In my opinion any man who is compelled to leave the Gárda on medical grounds, from the rank of Gárda up to the rank of Commissioner, should be treated in the same way as the officers who are being retired under this Bill. Take the case of a man who has 16 or 18 years' service in the Gárda and who has given good and efficient service. There is nothing on the file against him in a disciplinary way but his health becomes impaired. Why should he be retired without some form of allowance? The Guards have passed through a fairly anxious and serious time since the days when the force was first formed, and I think they are entitled to the best treatment we can give them. I know myself of cases where Gárdaí through no fault of their own fell into bad health. Some of them were married and had families. There was nothing against them of a disciplinary measure. Why should these men be fired out of the force without any pension? Is it to make room for somebody else whom Deputy Corry would like to put into the force? There is no reason why a decent Gárda should not be treated in the same way as the officers of the force.

As regards the power of the Minister to add a certain number of years' service for pensions purposes, I agree that that power exists in all Departments, but I think that the Minister should not have power, if a man has given efficient service, to diminish his years of service. In fact, I think that in any circumstances that is not a power that the Minister should reserve to himself. If there are men who are not giving good service, the right of diminishing their service should be left to the Commissioner or to some other superior officer. We all agree that the Minister should have the power to add years of service, but he should not take the right to diminish years of service. That should be left to somebody within the force dealing with disciplinary matters. I hope that an occasion when this House will have to deal with the dismissal of Gárdaí, either officers or men, will never arise again. That is a matter that should be left to some body within the force which has had special powers conferred on it to deal with such matters.

I think that in the interests of the loyal service amongst the rank and file of the Gárda this order should be amended. Listening to the Minister, it would appear that a man who is compelled to retire, and who has served the public interest, will get less than a man who has not served the public interest and who is also compelled to retire. I think that is likely to cause grave dissatisfaction amongst the Gárda as a body, and that it is hardly fair to the Gárda. I think we shall all have to admit that, having regard to the disturbed period through which the country has passed in recent years, the Gárda is as fine a force as any country could have. I have in mind the case of a man who gave 17 years' service in the Gárda. I understand that he was a very good member of the force, but he broke certain regulations, and he has now been sacked from the force without any pension. Having regard to the fact that the officers who have been compelled to resign have been given pensions, I think that the treatment meted out to other members of the force who were compelled to resign for other reasons is not likely to make for loyalty amongst the Gárda generally. I think the Minister ought to look into this matter again. As to the points made by Deputy Corry, I think Deputy Corry has as good a knowledge of the people of this country as anybody else, but I should like to remind him that certain remarks made in this House on a previous occasion gave rise to grave dissatisfaction amongst members of the Gárda. It is only fair to say, taking into consideration the stirring times through which they have passed, that 99 per cent of the Gárdaí are as fine a body of men as could be found in any country in the world.

Mr. Boland

I should point out before the Deputy proceeds further that this order applies to every member of the Gárda, whether he is an officer or not. I should not like the Deputy to continue under the misapprehension that there was any differentiation.

How do the officers get a pension?

Mr. Boland

The officers have been retired.

And the others are sacked.

Mr. Boland

Others have been dismissed undoubtedly, but not since this order was drafted.

Gárdaí have been sacked.

Mr. Boland

Undoubtedly, but not under this order.

Gárdaí have been sacked since this order has been drafted.

I know a Guard who had 17 years' service and he was dismissed because he broke certain regulations, without any pension.

Does this mean that the Minister can retire a Gárda under the order in future?

Mr. Boland

I had better wait to deal with these points until I am replying finally.

The position is really this, I think, that what is causing all the trouble is the fact that people who are being retired under the order will get the benefits, and that people who are retired in the ordinary disciplinary way will not. I think that is the cause of the trouble. I am aware of the case that Deputy Hickey has referred to.

I have some experience of the man in question over a fairly long period, and I entirely agree with Deputy Hickey's point of view, that the order, even as applying to senior officers, should be equally applied to Guards who had long service. If this were a country in the happy position of having a continuing police force for 200 or 300 years, I would certainly oppose an order of this nature. But it is perfectly obvious that men went into this force 18 or 19 years ago without the training they normally would have got when entering a police force in any country that had its own Government for a number of years. There were men put into the position of Guards, sergeants and higher officers who had not the necessary training and background. They gave the best service they could according to their ability. With the development and growth of the police force and the tightening of regulations, these men were not as efficient as they would have been if they had gone through the ordinary training they would have received in a normal police force in any country in the world. I think that applies to the rank and file as well as to the senior officers.

With regard to a number of the men who have been dismissed or who may be dismissed in future and who have had long service, it is entirely unfair to say, if a man's service was good enough for this country for 17 or 18 years and if he is to be dismissed now, that he is to get no pension. If he was kept on for 17 or 18 years, the people in charge who kept him on were doing a wrong to the country; but if he gave the service he should get a pension for that period. I do not believe that Deputy Corry's attitude is any more than an attempt to create a sort of feeling in the country to justify the type of mind that thinks it is a good thing that any Gárda officer or any Army officer should be sacked.

There is a type of mind which wants to see any man sacked who has in his hands the carrying out of law and order in this country, no matter under what Government. That is the mentality of the type of person Deputy Corry referred to. I think if a Guard, who has been in the service for 17 or 18 years, was not efficient for that period he should have been sacked long ago, and that if he has served 17 years he is entitled to a pension for that period.

And there should be years added to it?

That does not enter into it at all.

That is the order. Under this order six years can be added. The only objection raised was to its being diminished.

So far as the question of diminishing is concerned, it merely amounts to this, that the Minister is doing something which he ought not to do himself. If the Minister is satisfied that a Gárda officer should be dismissed under circumstances in which his pension should be diminished, the only answer to that is that the man should have been sacked long ago. It may not be the Minister's fault, but it is the fault of this man's superior officers. What I would like is—and it cannot be a precedent, because we are evolving into the stage of having a settled police force in the country in which it cannot be said in the future that we are starting off with a new police force—that this order would be the last of these orders. Deputy Corry, however, knows well that farmers' sons and labourers went into the force in 1922 with nothing but a national school education, who were efficient officers and who did their work as well as could be expected from them, considering their training and background. Very often the background was not the best one for enforcing law and order, because before that they were doing anything rather than enforcing law and order. If the present Minister for Justice or the Minister for Justice in the last Government was satisfied that a Gárda, sergeant, inspector or superintendent was efficient, but that the time has come when it is necessary to replace him because he is not now considered efficient, he should be given a pension for the years of service he gave.

It is a very delicate matter to discuss this order, particularly as compared with the Bill which was before the House, and especially now when you have individuals who have become either the favourites or the victims, whichever way you like to put it, of the Act that was passed. Deputy Linehan's analysis of the position is very correct in theory; but, in practice, if you invest the Minister for Justice with the power to retire some officers—and of course you must invest him with that power, as he has inherently in his position the power to dismiss any officer for a breach of the regulations—it is very hard to define which process the Minister is carrying out. I join with Deputy Linehan in the hope that this is the last attempt at anything of this kind. But there is another background to this as well as the background which Deputy Linehan put before the House. If this Government or any other Government want to increase the police force, why do they not increase it by the ordinary way of getting recruits? Why did we add the "Broy Harriers" to the police force?

That does not arise.

It arises on the matter of——

The question does not arise.

It arises in connection with discipline.

That matter is not under discussion. The original order passed through the Dáil and everybody understood it. It was then discussed. This order deals with increase or decrease of pensions for certain men; whether six years should be added for pension purposes.

We are now discussing an increase of that pension. Of course, broadly speaking, this principle cannot be attacked—that if a man is given a job and does not do it, it is not a bouquet or a pension he should get. That is a broad principle in every job. It is very hard to enforce discipline if that is departed from. There are extenuating circumstances in this case. I submit that the most extenuating circumstance in this case is that the Administration did not keep discipline in the Gárda; that they recruited Guards in times of peace when there was no civil commotion——

That does not arise. That is a matter of administration.

Well, I will put it this way——

The Deputy may not put it in any form as it is not in order.

I take it that the Minister has power to retire Gárda officers, and that he is asking for an increase in his powers in order to give pension rights.

Added pension rights.

If this House is famous for anything, it is for granting pensions. I do not wish to proceed further with this discussion, particularly as officers have been retired. All of them that I knew have my sympathy in their retirement because of the certain amount of disgrace that is attached to it, and I do not want to make their lot worse by adding any words of criticism here. When they are retired I think that is a certain punishment, and because of that I support the order giving them adequate pensions. At the same time, I wish to express the hope that it will be the last of this kind of order or legislation; that people will do their job, or that if they do not do their job they will have to pay the price. I hope that this Administration or any subsequent Administration will not have three or four grades in the Guards; that they will all be recruited on a common level.

The Deputy has reverted to the methods of recruiting, which are irrelevant.

It is the main cause of the present position of the Guards.

When the basic order was before the House the Deputy's point might have been in order. The principle of granting pensions has been decided. It is now a question of increase or decrease in such pensions.

That principle is touched on by increasing the amount of pension. However, we will not split hairs over it.

Mr. Boland

The point raised by some Deputies about Guards retiring through illness does not arise under this order at all, because this is merely a temporary order which has effect only for 12 months from the date it was passed, last June. It was to deal with the problem that we had to face, which was outlined pretty well by Deputy Linehan. People were recruited, I am quite satisfied, at a time when there was no chance of getting experienced men. They were recruited for service during the trouble, and they were not the best men for the position. But the time had come when we had to get the best men.

It was not altogether their fault.

Mr. Boland

No. When we were discussing this and the retirement order, which were both discussed together, I said that at a time of crisis like this we would have to have men and officers of the best type we could possibly get, and that was the reason for bringing the order in then. If the emergency had not arisen, we might have sat back and let things drift. I am glad we did not. We tackled the job and, as I said, when introducing this, representations were made to me, which impressed me, that some of the men who were being retired ought to get more consideration than they had got. That is what is being done now.

In regard to the diminution of pensions, that is not an uncommon practice in the Civil Service. The type of case will arise where a man has been a number of years in the service and has not been very satisfactory, not even satisfactory enough to give him the amount he would have got if he had been retired through incapacity. That has happened in the Civil Service, and I am simply taking power in such a case, rather than throw the man out altogether, to diminish his pension.

The point I misunderstood was about the guards who were dismissed. Some have been dismissed, and I am sure as long as you have a Gárda force that is bound to happen occasionally, but they have not been dealt with under this order. There is a number of guards and sergeants, I understand, in respect of whom the Commissioner intends to issue a certificate to have them removed, and that matter then will have to be considered. He cannot do that without the consent of the Minister for Justice, and I thought it better to wait till this new order was made, so that they could all be dealt with under this new pension order.

Mr. Byrne

Make it retrospective.

Mr. Boland

It does not require to be made retrospective because, in regard to these particular eight people, retirement counts only from the 1st November, so that they are all covered, and the others have not been retired, so that they will now be dealt with under the pension order.

Mr. Byrne

Guard Clifford.

Mr. Boland

That is a different case altogether. A man may be dismissed and an officer may be dismissed, and if a man goes on a prolonged spree and neglects his duty he is not going to be retired under this order but his case will go before a disciplinary court, and if he is dismissed he will be dismissed without any pension. If we had not got that provision, both for officers and men, the Gárda would get into a hopeless condition. We are only dealing with the problem we had to deal with, but if people go on prolonged sprees they will have to take the consequences and get out with nothing at all.

Mr. Byrne

Will the Minister take power to consider sympathetically the case of Guard Clifford?

Mr. Boland

I have gone into that a dozen times and it is really impossible. I cannot reconsider that question.

Will the Minister reply to the point made that if a man retires on medical grounds he ought to be treated not less favourably than a person would be treated under this order where his removal is in the interests of the exigencies of the service and where the Commissioner is exempt from giving a certificate of faithful and diligent service?

Mr. Boland

This was a special order to deal with a special problem. The whole question of retirement from the Civil Service and the Police Force would be involved in that. I am not proposing to deal with that at all. This order was brought in to deal with a problem arising from causes we all know, and I cannot enlarge this order. I am not prepared to do it. I could not do it. I would have to go back to the Government and I would not be prepared to do it because it is a question not alone of the Guards but of the whole Civil Service. All that would have to be taken into consideration. Although I admit it looks bad to see men who are retired through ill-health being dealt with differently from these people, the case made for some of these people was that they were men in good health who had given good service and who were prepared to give good service and who were physically fit to do it and that, therefore, it was a shame to put them out of the Guards. I was quite satisfied, and so was the Government, that they should be retired, but the case that was made was not such that an ordinary court would stand over. I mean, the man did not come forward; he was not heard himself, and that point was made so strongly to me that I was very much impressed by it and I said: "In these circumstances I admit there is a case for giving more generous treatment than is provided for in the order." But if the men had got an ordinary trial they might have got nothing at all. In some cases, they might have been dismissed. In other cases, the disciplinary court might have said, "We do not find a case." But the Government was satisfied that their continued employment was not justified and, consequently, we are taking steps which we would not ordinarily take. Therefore, I would not interfere. It is not my business. This question of retirement from illness or disability is one which involves the Civil Service as well as the Guards.

Does not the Minister admit that his Department is the first Department which is creating the anomaly that persons removed for inefficiency or want of efficiency are now rewarded by the payment of a higher pension than persons disqualified on medical grounds? It is his Department that is causing this anomaly. Will the Minister, therefore, realising that he is causing the anomaly, examine the whole question with a view to ensuring that persons retired on medical grounds will be no less favourably treated?

Mr. Boland

I could not do that at all.

Do I understand from the Minister——

The Minister has concluded the debate.

Do I understand from the Minister that, arising out of certificates to be issued by the Commissioner in the near future retiring other members of the Gárda, another new order will come up for consideration?

Mr. Boland

No, it will not. There is one retirement order in force. That has not been repealed or amended at all. But with that there was another order that was simply placed on the Table of the House and did not require the approval of the House but could be annulled by a vote of the House. That was taken with the original pension order. We are leaving the retirement order alone but we are amending the pension order to give extra years to any officer or man who is retired under the old order.

How many more are going to come under this order?

Mr. Boland

As far as I recollect, something in the neighbourhood of 30, as between sergeants and guards, and I think there are at least two officers. As far as I know, there are about two officers and there may be about 30 sergeants and guards.

Is that the end of the sweep?

Mr. Boland

As far as I can see. I do not know. I hope so.

The Minister hopes so.

There will be nobody left.

Mr. Boland

We will have a very good force.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share