Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1950

Vol. 119 No. 4

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Increments for Gardaí.

asked the Minister for Justice whether he is aware that three Gardaí in Clonmel have had their increments of salary stopped because of the fact that they had no court cases, and whether, in view of his reply to my question of the 1st December, 1949, he will take such steps as are necessary to have the increments restored to the Gardaí in question.

The answer is in the negative. As I informed the Deputy in reply to a question on 1st December last, it has never been the practice to judge a member's efficiency solely by the number of prosecutions for which he is responsible.

I am informed that in 1947 the Commissioner decided to defer the grant of their final increments to three Guards in Clonmel because he did not consider that they had qualified for the increments under the Garda Síochána Pay Order. The Order provides that the final increment on the Garda pay scale may be awarded at the discretion of the Commissioner only to members who have completed 25 years' service and have shown sustained zeal and efficiency in the performance of their duties. The increments were awarded in 1948.

Am I right in taking it that the Commissioner's exercise of his discretion as to what is sustained zeal and efficiency is governed by the number of court cases brought by members of the Gardaí? Might I ask the Minister further, arising out of his reply, is he aware, in respect of the Guard concerning whom my query of the 1st of December was addressed, if disciplinary action has been taken against him to the extent that because he had no court cases he has been shifted, and shifted to his disadvantage?

I said, in my reply, that the answer to the Deputy's question "is in the negative". If there is any particular case which the Deputy has in mind, and if he will let me know of it, I will be glad to have it examined. I want to assure him that what he says is not correct. Secondly, the Commissioner is the sole authority to decide efficiency. That is laid down in the statute.

Will the Minister agree that, whatever the theoretical regulations are, it has been the practice of the higher Garda officers to penalise Guards who have no prosecutions in the courts?

The regulations are not theoretical. They are very positive. I am satisfied that what the Deputy says is not so, and that a Guard gets what he is entitled to under the regulations. The Commissioner is the authority to decide that.

Top
Share