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.