Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 May 1929

Vol. 12 No. 9

Gárda Síochána Allowances Order, 1929.

I move:—

That the Gárda Síochána Allowances Order, 1929, made on the 15th March, 1929, and laid on the Table of this House on the 24th April, 1929, which amends, by way of reduction, as from April 1st, 1929, the scale of allowances to officers and men of the Gárda Síochána contained in the Gárda Síochána Allowances Order, 1926, shall be and is hereby annulled.

The position is, that an Order of this kind made by the Minister is to lie upon the Table, and if within 21 days from the first day of sitting after the paper has been laid on the Table, the House passes a resolution annulling the Order, the Order is thereby annulled and is no longer in force subject to the validation of any acts done under the Order before the date of annulment. It must be known that the position of the Gárdai is one of difficulty in the matter of calling attention to any, shall I say, injustice or complaint by the fact that they are not enfranchised, and that they are not allowed to have any political associations. They must act through their representative body by way of representations to the Minister. One must look at this question with some regard to the history of the Gárdai and to what has passed in the last six or seven years: to the position that the Gárdai occupy in the public estimation as well as the ambitions and desires of all reputable persons that the Gárdai should be highly honourable, well-disciplined and respectable in the best sense of the word. The Gárdai may be said to have been the chief monument erected by the activities of the late Minister for Justice, and we have to be quite sure that nothing will be done that will militate against the good conduct, the efficiency and the prestige of that force. I want to ask the House to agree that this Order is liable to be detrimental to the force as a force, and that it ought not to be put into operation.

I do not know to what extent Senators have made themselves familiar with the effect of this Order. Speaking broadly, there is a reduction in the rate of subsistence allowances for all classes: commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioners, chief superintendents, superintendents, sergeants and guards. There is a reduction in the cycle allowance and in the uniform allowance. There is the abolition of the boot allowance and a reduction in transport allowance. The two main items that I have to deal with are the items affecting the mass of the lower ranks: that is to say, the cycle allowance and the boot allowance. These two allowances are to suffer a reduction in one case from £5 per annum to £2 10s. in the case of cycles, and the abolition of the boot allowance, which is 1/6 per week. In effect, in respect to the great mass of the Gárdaí all over the country, this Order involves a reduction in their pay of 2/6 per week. I use the word "pay" in the non-technical sense. Pay is undoubtedly different from allowance, but so far as the spending power of the men is concerned, in effect it does not matter to them under what head they receive it, nor does it matter to them under what head it is being reduced. One shilling or one pound received under the head of pay or under the head of allowance is no more valuable and no less valuable, and buys no more and no less than if paid to them under a different heading.

Could the Senator tell us whether the reduction would affect their pensions?

No, I think not. But, in respect to their month by month, or year by year income, so far as the great bulk of the sergeants and guards is concerned, it is, in fact, a reduction of their income by 2/6 per week. There have been several changes made in respect to the pay— using the word "pay" in the general sense—of Guards since the force was established. They came under the general rate fixed by the Desborough Commission in regard to police from the beginning. But, in 1924, there was a Pay Order issued which had the effect of reducing the pay of the Gárda Síochána by round about 10/- per week per man. That was in respect of the Guards themselves. At that time there was an assurance given that the new rate was based upon the estimated cost of living index figure at 85 above pre-war, and that it was intended to stabilise pay so long as the cost of living figure ranged within the figures 70 to 100. They had the definite assurance that no change would take place in that respect.

I point to the fact that in 1926 an attempt was made in the Dáil to bring about a change in the remuneration of the Gárdaí. That is to say, it was urged that some reduction ought to be effected in the Estimate for the force, and the suggestion was made and worked out in detail as to how that reduction could be best arrived at. The suggestion was made that there should be a stop put upon increments. Now I propose to draw the attention of the Seanad to the position that was then taken up by the late Minister for Justice. Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, in his rebuttal of the suggestion that there should be any change made in the remuneration of the Gárdaí.

I would like to know from the Senator what is the usual remuneration paid to the Gárdaí as well as the average reduction proposed under this Order?

The rates of pay, of course, vary. They vary from the £3 a week paid to the man coming out of the recruiting depôt to the salary paid to the commissioner.

I understood the Senator to say that the reduction was to be 2/6 a week.

It will be more in some cases, but I think we may take 2/6 as a round figure.

The broad case that is being made is that there will be a reduction in the Vote for the Gárda Síochána of £46,313. I think the figure is somewhat lower now. I think it is intended to secure, by this change, a reduction of something over £40,000, of which the abolition of the boot allowance will account for £27,000 odd, and the reduction in the cycle allowance £13,000 odd. That gives one an idea of the relative extent of these various reductions. As I was saying, in rebuttal of the demands for a reduction in 1926 the late Minister for Justice pointed out that the pay of the police in the Free State was 15 per cent. below that obtaining in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He said: "I do not think that there ought to be a further cut."

He went on to explain:—

"The Desborough scale came into force in 1920. Since then I think I am right in saying that there has been no change except here. We are about 15 per cent. below the scale of pay obtaining in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.... Our percentage cut on the 1920 rate is, in the case of the commissioner, 35 per cent.; the deputy commissioner, 28 per cent.; the assistant commissioner, 18 per cent.; chief superintendents, 9 per cent.; superintendents, 11 per cent.; inspectors, 12 per cent.; sergeants, 13 per cent.; gárda, on completion of training, 13 per cent., and gárda, in training, 28 per cent."

The Minister later on said:

You have to have a man in the frame of mind thinking that he was lucky to get in and would be unlucky to get out, and further, you have to get the pick of the young men of your country for this particular work. If you do not, you will have a bad police force.... The greatest possible sifting and rejecting went on in the building up of this force. The standard was extremely high, and the competition extremely keen, and I think it is necessary not to have in your police force the frame of mind that thinks in this way: "Well. I can go out in the morning and do as well outside. Why should I put up with this severity and discipline, why should I put up with this constant humdrum routine, and have this feeling that I am never off duty and have to be on the mark all the time, and so on." If you bring it down to a parity with the positions which the same kind of men are able to get in civil life, then I do not think you will have a good police force.

Now, I call attention to that because it was the official answer, the Government's answer, to the case that was made in 1926 for a reduction in the pay of the Gárda Síochána. It might be fairly and, I think, was justly taken by the Gárda Síochána to be something in the nature of an assurance of stability. When this question arose, it was brought before a meeting of the joint representative body of the various grades of the force on March 9th of this year. I assure Senators who have not read the report of the proceedings of that meeting that a very serious situation seems to have been created in the mind of that representative body speaking for the Gárdaí throughout the country. I draw attention, in the first instance, to the feeling that was given expression to by the representative of the Superintendents, Superintendent Mansfield, as to whether this was merely a formal meeting. He threw some doubt on the question whether it was merely to comply with the Act that this meeting was being held, that the cuts in question had already been decided upon, and that nothing more need be said, as the Act was in operation and was being given effect to.

The Minister refuted that, and adduced in proof that it was a real reconsideration, and that proper regard was paid to the representations made on behalf of the force. In proof of that he pointed out that the proposal to reduce the rent allowance was ultimately abandoned. But I do not think that assurance is quite sufficient to remove from the minds of the Gárda Síochána the feeling that they are not being considered; that it was not intended that they should be considered before this cut took place, and that they would not have been brought into consultation but for the fact that there was an extra drive for economy which took place a very short time indeed before the Estimate was published.

I would point out that in the Estimates drawn up and published before this meeting of the representative body, there is in fact provided for a reduction of the cycle allowance of 50 per cent. In this Estimate that I have in my hand we see that there was a reduction in the cycle allowance of 50 per cent., while the boot allowance is given in full. So that there were two decisions. There was a decision to reduce the cycle allowance from £5 to £2 10s. per year without consulting in any way, or listening to, the representations of the representative body, and subsequent to the Estimates being published there was a decision to abolish the boot allowance. So I think that there was some justification for doubt and suspicion, and that notwithstanding that the Act provided for a meeting with this representative body in regard to conditions, and so on, a decision had been come to to deprive the men of some of their emoluments without any consultation whatever with them. However, the consultation was ultimately held and the men's spokesmen—superintendents, sergeants, inspectors and guards— made their case, and the Minister commended them for the manner in which they had done so. He expressed his highest testimony to their business-like proceedings and to their general conduct of the matter in hand. He requested them to state their case in writing, which they did. They had heard the Minister's view, and in making their case in writing, of course, they adverted to the statements made by the Minister on the occasion of the meeting.

I want to draw attention to the gravity of the expressions used by this representative body composed of picked men from the various grades to show how they feel in regard to this succession of cuts, and what they deem to be a breach of faith, or at least a departure from what they thought was a stable position. They say:

We respectfully request the Minister for the following reasons to withdraw the order in its entirety, as we anticipate that the meagre economics effected will be outweighed by the discontent which will follow its enactment.

Further on they say:

The basis of efficiency is contentment and co-operation among the various ranks. All other methods to reach efficiency fail when discontent is allowed to remain. We are certain that the draft proposals, if given effect to, will create discontent in the force, and we fear that a fertile ground is being prepared for encouraging those elements that could thrive on disloyalty and corruption in the police force of the country.... This feeling of insecurity has already developed as a result of the draft proposals to such an extent that a large number of our force would resign while their youth and energy is still left them if they were offered the compensation on the lines offered to Army officers.

I draw special attention to this which follows:

For the past six years the average number of voluntary resignations (excluding those caused by illness, etc.) is 180, representing a dead loss of about £50,000 to the State per annum, or something more than the present draft Order proposes to save. We feel that the wastage will continue in increasing proportion according as our conditions of service are made less attractive, and we consider that it is not in the public interest to create a situation where the police force will be discontented and inefficient while no real economy is effected.

Later on it is stated:

The abolition of boot allowance affects 7,000 members, the entire force below the officer rank, and we feel it our duty to warn the Government at this stage of the amount of discontent which even this proposal has already created. It will be a dearly bought economy, and we calculate that irredeemable harm will have been done to the public interest if given effect to. Discontent in the public services quickly spreads to the public with whom they come in contact, whereas a contented service can do much to convince the public of the stability of the State. A situation of mistrust and insecurity is being created among the force, and loyalty and co-operation are being undermined by the sacrifice which the individual member is called upon to shoulder.

Many details follow. This memorandum that was submitted was signed on behalf of the representative body by G. Brennan, chief superintendent, chairman—mark the rank—and P.J. Gallagher, sergeant, secretary. The memorandum was submitted to the Minister, and later on he met the body again and explained that he was prepared to leave the rent allowance as it was without making any reduction but that the rest of the proposed reductions would have to be enforced. The feeling in general amongst the Gárdaí was given expression to by Chief Superintendent Brennan and by Sergeant Gallagher. The latter said:—

"As a representative body we could not in face of your blank refusal of our representations justify any longer our existence as a representative body."

Then Chief Superintendent Brennan—again mark the rank—said:—

"As far as the officers' representative body is concerned here we are in entire agreement with the N.C.O.'s and Guards. We would willingly suffer the suggested cut in our rent allowance if the men's boot allowance were not touched. As it is, we again consider it our duty to impress on the Government the possible result of this drastic cut, and we ask you, sir, to use your influence with the Executive Council for further modification of the Order."

The Chief Commissioner met the representative body and persuaded them that for the time being they should reconsider their decision about resigning as the representative body and should continue to act. The decision to continue in office as the representative body was the result, no doubt, of having in contemplation the possibility that either the Dáil or the Seanad would annul this Order, and the opportunity is now offered to the Seanad to do what, in my opinion, is a desirable thing, to have this Order annulled, and to give a new opportunity to the Minister to consider the position with regard to emoluments of the Gárdaí.

I quote again from the late Minister to show how justly entitled the force were to consider their position as stable, and that there is no reason for this considerable change in their position and the sense of insecurity that has been created:—

"I think that the discrepancy that exists between our rates and the rates of pay in our neighbouring forces is just about as much as you can afford without risking discontent, discontent that will react on the efficiency, alertness and general morale of your forces, which ought not to be lightly jeopardised."

It is said that the position with regard to the cycle allowance is justified because there has been a reduction in the price of cycles, and that the amount of £5 per year was too high. Assuming for the moment that it was too high and that there was a balance over and above the cost of the cycles and the expense of upkeep in favour of the Gárdaí, the abolition of that excess must undoubtedly be treated as a reduction of income. But if it is justifiable to reduce the cycle allowance because of an alleged reduction in the cost of cycles for the last few years it is contended that there should be, therefore, no reduction in the boot allowance, because they contend there has been an increase in the price of boots in the last few years.

It has been stated on behalf of the Minister that the reason for this reduction is the economic position of the country and the need for retrenchment, but is anybody going to contend, does the Minister contend, that the country is in a worse position in 1929 than it was in 1926? Are we unable now to fulfil the promise implied in the assurance given by the late Minister for Justice in 1926? Is the state of the country so much worse in 1929 that you must make a reduction now? All the assurances we have had are to the contrary.

I ask the House to believe that there is no justification for bringing this provision to bear upon the Gárdaí, and that if economy has to be effected it has to be effected in some other way. I decline to use the word "economy" in the loose sense, but if a reduction in the Estimate has to be effected it ought to be done in some other way than by a reduction in the income of the Gárdaí. The Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Justice, have made statements which were intended, no doubt, to give renewed assurance that there would be no further reductions, and that this was, in fact, a stabilisation, but concurrently with those statements there has been repeated the promise that was made first in 1924 and later in 1926 in regard to the variations that may come. This is the promise that was put in writing in a circular to the Gárdaí and repeated in the Dáil more than once:—

"It is not intended that the rates of pay in the force should be subject to variations to meet trifling or temporary fluctuations in the cost of living, and it has been accordingly decided that the revised rates should be based on the cost of living figure of 85, and payable while the cost of living figure varies from 70 to 100 over pre-war."

I do not know whether the new promise is a promise that there will be no reduction if and when the cost of living figure recedes to 69 over pre-war. On the face of the statements that have been made, any Minister responding to new pressure from the Minister for Finance, or from an Opposition which sought to reduce the pay of the police and others, could say: "Well, we are no longer bound by our promise. We are now below 70, and we can make a new cut." There is no assurance whatever that the new promise of stabilisation would prevent a further cut if the cost of living index came down to 69 over the pre-war level. I want to emphasise that there was a cut of 10/- per week in 1924, which brought the pay of the Gárdaí considerably below that which prevails either in Northern Ireland or Great Britain. It is said on behalf of the force that the pay of the Gárda Síochána is the lowest in any English-speaking country to-day. I can only give that for what it is worth, but a body of this kind, I think, is not likely to have given voice to that statement without some attempt at confirming it. This is a body which has been selected, as the late Minister for Justice assured us, after very careful examination and sifting had taken place. There had been an assurance given that their position was to be secured, that they were not to be subject to the temptations of an easy transfer to other forces, or an easy transfer to other occupations, which the prestige of the Gárdaí would enable them to take over, that they should be a contented and satisfied force, and that all that could be done would be done to secure that contentment and satisfaction would be maintained.

The view of the Gárdaí through their representative body is quite clearly and very definitely that that attempt to cut their emoluments will have an unsteadying effect on the force, and the value to be got out of it will be more than eaten up by the loss which will follow from the numerous resignations and changes to other occupations. It will appear to the Gárdaí that parties in the two Houses are against them, and notwithstanding the encomiums and high testimonies to their qualities that there is an unholy combination to reduce their pay, beginning in 1926, and refuted then by the Minister for Justice with eloquence and persistence and unanswerable arguments, but now brought again into operation with the support of all the parties, whether friendly to the Gárdaí or not.

That is the way it will appear from the decision in the Dáil yesterday. Listening to the discussions I could not help feeling that it would be a relief to the administration if they could see a reasonable way of revising their decision and withdrawing this Order, and making a new Order if necessary with much smaller reductions and changes, and which will not strike so definitely at the pay of the lower-paid ranks. It seems to me that if the House availed of the opportunity which is given to it to annul this Order, it would relieve the administration of a difficulty and would do good for the service at a price which would be very small in money, and in fact would mean a great saving ultimately.

I second the motion with the greatest possible pleasure, and I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision on this matter. The Gárdaí are an admirable body, and they discharge their many public duties with satisfaction and in the very best interests of public peace. I would be very sorry to see anything like a spirit of discontent among the Gárdaí. I recognise that the salaries of the Gárdaí of this country must be less than they are in England. In an Irish establishment one cannot afford to pay such big salaries as in an English establishment, but quite apart from that, I think that some of those economies which have been made are really trifling with the question. I do not know what these boot allowances really are, but I imagine they are part of the mess contribution. The principle involved is this, that whatever promises were made to the members of the Gárdaí should be carried out and the country should regard these promises really in the nature of a debt of honour. I hope the Minister can see his way to reconsider this whole question with a view to meeting the legitimate demands of the men. Senator Johnson mentioned the very significant fact that the representative body in connection with the Gárdaí are considering sending in their resignations. That points to an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I think that the Government, in the public interest, would be wise to see whether the necessity for such an act can be obviated. In my opinion the Government should reconsider their decision on this question. The Minister for Finance should not look upon it as a closed question. I hope that a satisfactory conclusion may be reached with regard to it.

The principles involved in this motion are well known. There is likely to be as a result of the reduction of these allowances a deterioration in the type of recruit likely to enter the force, and in addition to creating discontent it will lead to inefficiency. Both of these results would be very strongly against the public interests. Discontent readily comes about when individuals have their emoluments reduced. I hope the Minister will give us some information bearing on these points. This Order took effect only about two months ago, so it is not possible to give any information as to what the result has been in such a short period. It is alleged there has been so much discontent at the reduction of the pay of the force that it has led to resignations at such a rate as to altogether outweigh the economies. That is a very serious allegation, and I hope the Minister will give us whatever information he can bearing on the rate of resignations since these reductions began.

In regard to the question of discontent, as Senator Bagwell has remarked, any interference with the emoluments which anybody has been receiving will create some discontent. Very serious discontent would be created in a force like the Civic Guards if there were going to be frequent changes downwards in the emoluments, but I am entirely satisfied that no serious discontent has been caused in the force, and that no serious discontent will arise provided the Guards are satisfied that further cuts are not likely to take place. I have not heard of there being any resignations whatever since the new Order was made. If there have been resignations there have been no more resignations than usual since the Guards were established. There have been a number of resignations every year averaging from 180 to 200. These resignations arose from a variety of reasons. First, the men saw more of the world and began to think there were opportunities they did not know about before, and they were anxious to try their fortune in other spheres of life in consequence. Perhaps, too, there is something irksome in the discipline of the force, and in consequence there has always been a number of resignations, but there has been no change in the average number of resignations as a result of this particular reduction in the allowances that has taken place.

There are some facts we ought to remember in connection with this whole matter. On the present scale of pay of the Civic Guards, a man having ten years' service would have two and a half times the pay of an R.I.C. constable of the same period of service in 1914. That is a very considerable increase. I do not say that the R.I.C. pay was not too low in 1914, but at any rate there has been a very substantial increase in the rate of pay. As I said last night in the Dáil, the present rate of pay of the Guards is not bad, considering the economic conditions of the country and the comparative lack of opportunities for getting lucrative employment in the country, and considering the enormous number of people anxious to get into the Guards. A man with no sort of special preliminary training enters the Depot and gets trained there. He goes out to his station at three pounds a week, minus 1/6 deduction for pension. He gets free lodging and free uniform, and if he is married, a rent allowance of from £13 to £30 a year according to the locality. He has medical attendance. If ill he gets six months full pay, and half-pay as long as there seems to be a reasonable chance of his recovery. If he dies after five years' service his widow gets a pension, which is not available in the case of civil servants, so taking it all in all I think the rates of pay for the Civic Guards are reasonable.

The pay and allowances of the Civic Guards have always been governed by separate orders. There is a Pay Order and an Allowance Order. In 1924 the Pay Order was altered and a reduction effected. The allowances were not then considered, and perhaps might not have been considered now but for the conditions of financial stringency with which the Government was confronted in the early part of the year. I am not saying that the country is worse off than in 1926, but we were faced with the position that we had to reduce the draft Estimates by some half a million pounds or impose half a million pounds extra taxation.

That half million pounds was not cut off the Estimates easily; it was not cut off without involving hardships and disappointments to a large number of people. We had to do the best we could, and we had to look at every direction in which we thought a reduction in expenditure could be effected without doing serious harm to public interests, and without inflicting undue hardships on individuals. In that frame of mind we examined the question of the Civic Guard allowances, which had not been examined when the pay question was gone into in 1924. It was obvious to us that some allowances certainly ought to come down. Subsistence allowances were reduced very little in comparison with the reduction that has already been carried out in the subsistence allowances of civil servants, and I think that Senator Johnson, when he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, was one of those people who were urging most strongly that those subsistence allowances should be reduced.

It was not the business of the Public Accounts Committee to make any representations of that kind.

I think Senator Johnson took it on himself, if it was not their business.

I am clearly of opinion that the matter was the subject of discussion at the Public Accounts Committee.

It was discussed, but there was never any recommendation made. That was a matter of policy, and it was not the business of the Public Accounts Committee. The duty of the Public Accounts Committee was confined to seeing that the orders were carried out strictly.

I am quite well aware of that. I have not the records before me, but I think I have no need to alter my view about the matter. In the subsistence allowances there was a small reduction, but the really big things were the boot and the cycling allowances. Having regard to the present price of bicycles, the cycling allowance was undoubtedly too high at £5. Most of the Civic Guards who have bicycles use them for their own purposes as well as for official purposes. It is very convenient for a Guard to have a bicycle, and even if they were to get no allowances at all, I think that in a great many cases they would have them. It is quite clear that for the official use of a bicycle the allowance of £5 was much too high. I think the allowance of £2 10s., which it is proposed to give, is reasonable, and will really cover the extra expense which falls on the Guards in consequence of having bicycles. In my opinion the boot allowance was clearly far too high. Even if we were going to continue the principle of having a boot allowance, an allowance of 1s. 6d. a week, or £3 18s. a year, which was supposed to represent the extra cost that fell on a Civic Guard for walking on his official duties——

Will the Minister say why "extra cost?" Is it not part of the uniform?

I think it is not more part of the uniform than the socks and shirt. The tunic and the cap are part of the uniform, but I do not think boots are any more part of the uniform than the socks and the shirt, which were never provided. So that I think 1/6 a week was much too high and should have been very considerably reduced. But we looked into the question, when we came to that point, as to whether the boot allowance should be continued at all or not. We were perfectly well aware that it would be inadvisable, from the point of view of the public interest, to interfere with the pay or allowances of the Civic Guard again. We considered, having regard to the need for reductions in expenditure, whether it would be desirable, possible and reasonable to abolish the boot allowance altogether, and we came to the conclusion that it would be. The boot allowance appears to have started at some time when police pay was very low, when they were not willing to increase the pensionable remuneration of the police, and the boot allowance was thrown in. It seemed to us that there was no logical justification for having a boot allowance at all, and we thought that, seeing the level at which the police emoluments would remain, that it would be reasonable to abolish the boot allowance altogether.

The police were recruited on the basis that the pay and allowances might be altered up or down by orders made in the proper way, so that there was no recruiting promise to the police that their remuneration would not be interfered with. The amount involved, if you take it from one point of view, is not large, but if you take it from another it is certainly considerable, and as I have already indicated, there was very considerable difficulty in bringing our expenditure figures within the limits that would enable them to be met without increased taxation. I would suggest to the Seanad that any action taken by them which, if no way could be found out of it, would involve the finding of an extra sum of money should not be lightly done. I do believe that, from the point of view of dissatisfaction in the police, it would be better to have the matter done with than to have it open, because the position is that in the Dáil the motion to annul the order was defeated by a large majority. If, on the other hand, the motion to annul it were carried here to-day it might mean that this question of the allowances would remain open in some form or other for a considerable time, and I think that that would create a situation where there would be every invitation for discontent and agitation in the ranks of the police force. I have stated in the Dáil, and so has the Minister for Justice, that we as a Government, and all the members of the Government individually, are of opinion that we have reached rock-bottom in the matter of cutting the remuneration of the police, and none of us would agree to any further reduction in the rates of pay, any alteration in the scale of increments or any further reduction in the scale of allowances.

If, as I said last night, the cost of living fell by 30 per cent., or by some big figure like that, a new situation would presumably arise, because the value of all these things the police are getting would then have risen substantially. But apart from some big thing like that, the police may take it that they have the assurance of the present Government, individually and collectively, that they do not stand for and will not propose any further changes in the emoluments in any form to the disadvantage of the police. I think, therefore, that the best course that the Seanad could take would be to reject the motion. We all recognise the work that the Civic Guard has done, and we all regret that it has been necessary to revise their allowances downwards. If it could have been avoided, I think we would not have done it. But though the rates of pay in neighbouring countries that were fixed in 1918 or 1919 prevail, there is no doubt at all that those rates of pay, under all the circumstances, are higher rates than could be justified here. I think the years 1918 and 1919 were rather specious days in the matter of fixing remunerations. The value of money was very different then from what it is now, and I do not think that rates that were fixed then, while they are continued in other countries, could be justified here. We have now gone over the whole pay and allowances. I think that no injustice has been done to the Guards, and that the rates are reasonable.

The Guards have an annual increment of 2/- a week. In the case of the sergeants it is 2/6. The sergeants number 1,245, and the Guards number 5,700. The position is, therefore, that there is practically no actual drop in the case of the sergeants. They will get as much this year as they were getting last year, even with the cuts. The constable is dropping a little, but that is not a thing that imposes a hardship. I am entirely satisfied that when there will be no further cuts there will be little dissatisfaction.

I find it difficult to make up my mind on the subject of this motion. The Civic Guard is undoubtedly the most important force in the country. The peace and the safety of the country depend on the Civic Guard, and I think we all recognise that the peace and the safety of the country are secure in their hands. They are a wonderfully fine body of young men, and they are wonderfully well organised. If I was satisfied that the two cuts that are complained of by Senator Johnson would really produce a state of discontent in the force, I would certainly vote for the motion, but the evidence on that point, to my mind, is not clear. I do not think we have sufficient evidence either way to make up our minds definitely on that. We have had a statement on one hand, and we have had a statement on the other. But coming to the two proposed reductions, I agree with the Minister that the bicycle allowance was probably too high. We know that the price of bicycles has gone down, and £2 10s. a year is probably quite a sufficient allowance for a bicycle. But I have very much more difficulty in making up my mind on the subject of the boots. If a certain class of boot is to be worn, then the boots are part of the uniform. If they are not part of the uniform, and if the Guard has to buy a certain class of boot to wear with his uniform, then beyond all doubt the cutting off of this boot allowance is a reduction of 18d. a week in his pay, and I think we ought to face that. If we do not agree with Senator Johnson that this order should be annulled, we must come to the conclusion that it is a right and a proper thing for us to reduce the pay of the Civic Guard by 18d. a week. That is what it will amount to. I think that that is a very serious thing, and I would suggest to the Minister, on this question of the boot allowance, that he might reconsider it, because there is a grievance. They have got to wear boots. I know the price of my boots has gone up in the last two or three years, and I do not suppose that the price of boots for the Civic Guards has gone down. I cannot, therefore, see any reasonable grounds for cutting off the boot allowance.

I cannot support Senator Johnson's motion. We hear a great deal about the salaries and the allowances of civil servants and Civic Guards, but we hear nothing about the heavy taxation of the people, and so long as the taxes amount to more than £10 per annum for every man, woman, and child in this country—the halt, the lame, the beggar and the cripple——

They do not.

The public and local taxation costs £10 per annum per head of the people. So long as that state of affairs continues, I, for one, will be in favour of reductions, not merely in the allowances of members of the Civic Guard but in every other branch of the public service. I think that the Minister has very fairly explained the position to us. There is no such thing as a breach of faith with the Civic Guard. There was never any promise that this bicycle allowance would be continued at the rate of £5, and there was never any promise in regard to the boot allowance. As far as I can understand from the Minister, there is some sort of understanding that if the cost of living index figure does not fall below seventy there shall be no reduction in the pay. Now, the pay is very good—£3 a week for a young fellow entering the Civic Guards. I am not surprised to hear that there is tremendous competition for that employment. In addition to the £3 a week and various emoluments, facilities and advantages such as a pension to a man's widow if he dies after five years service, he had £5 a year for a bicycle, a ridiculously high figure. I think that £2 10s. a year is more than sufficient to keep him in bicycles, not merely for the public duties that he has to perform but also for his private perambulations. In regard to the boots, civil servants have to wear boots, and they do not get a boot allowance.

What I do object to, however, in the little cuts which the Minister has been making is this, that he seems to have gone against the weak man. We had a proposal to discontinue the employment of a number of Post Office people. We had also proposals

I hope they are discontinued—to dismiss a number of temporary clerks, clerks who had been temporarily in their employment for the last thirty or forty years. Now this little saving is being made, and I think rightly made, but still it is a saving on the emoluments of people, if I may say so, on one of the lowest rungs of the public service. I hope that the Minister will take his courage in his hands, and that when he next makes cuts that he will go a little higher.

I think that there is one gratifying feature of this debate, and that is that the Civic Guard have received recognition from every part of the House. Everybody seems to realise the good work that they have done, everybody seems to realise how indispensable they are, and even when every other class of the community has to suffer some reduction in salary everybody would like to see an exception made in their case. I feel the same myself, but I do not think that a case has been made for accepting the motion. I can see, in the event of every other class in the community being compelled to submit to reductions that if the Civic Guards were left out some gentleman would get up and find fault with the fact that they were not included. No men have done more, no men have proved themselves more useful than have the Civic Guards. But when we come to examine the small reductions that have been explained to us by Senator Johnson, I agree with Senator Brown with regard to the two cases that the reductions seem to be of a very infinitesimal character. Even with the reduction of 1/6 on boots the Civic Guards receive in wages two and a half times as much as the R.I.C. received. Surely, having regard to the cost of living, they are still fairly well paid. Taking into account all the circumstances, much as I would like to see them made an exception, personally I do not feel that the case has been made, and I shall vote against the motion.

When Senators speak of a reduction of 1/6 per week in regard to the boot allowance, they pay no attention whatever to the fact that each member of the Civic Guards get an annual increment of 2/- a week, so that there is no reduction whatever.

Oh, indeed there is.

Cathaoirleach

That is a matter of opinion, Senator.

These men get £3 a week in the first year, plus 1/6. In the second year they get £3 2s., a rise of a sixpence. There is an automatic rise of 2/- a week.

They will get a sixpence instead of 2/-.

This matter was debated in the Dáil two or three years ago, and I believe I was the forerunner of the criticism of these allowances. In Northern Ireland and in England the boot allowance was never as much as it has been here. We were wondering why the Civic Guards were allowed 1/6, while other police were allowed a shilling. Taking into consideration our circumstances, these Civic Guards are well paid in getting £3 a week when coming out of the Depot, with a rise of 2/- a week, remembering that one in four becomes a sergeant at £4 a week, rising to £4 10s., and that one in ten becomes an officer, because all the officers come from the ranks, I think they are better paid than clerical servants, better paid than railway clerks, better paid than bank clerks, and better paid than farmers. The best paid people in the community are the Civic Guards, and I admit that they are worth it, but at the same time I cannot see that anything wrong is done by the reduction in this case.

Like Senator Brown, I have a little difficulty in making up my mind on this motion. It turns on this comparatively small question of boots. I would like the Minister to help me in the matter. The Guard is an officer of the State; he wears the State uniform, which is provided for him. There is another form of State servant—the soldier— and also another—the postman. I would like to know from the Minister, because it will help me to make up my mind in the matter, whether in the case of the soldier and in the case of the postman we also provide the uniforms, and if they are cut in the matter of their boots?

I cannot say in the case of postman, but, of course, the soldier is in a different position. The soldier is fully clad by the State. He gets no allowances. So far as the Civic Guard is concerned, certainly the boots were in a distinct category from the uniform. His uniform is supplied. The cloth is bought, and it is made up at the expense of the State. As far as boots were concerned, he got £3 18s. in the year, and he could do with it what he liked, but he did not need to spend most of it on boots. It was in a different category altogether from the uniform.

What about the postman?

I do not know.

It seems to me from the last statement of the Minister that the reduction of 1/6 is a reduction in remuneration, and it should be considered simply whether it is or is not. The question of the boots is really a secondary consideration. If we were voting purely on the question that this particular reduction should take place I should be inclined to support the motion, but I am not satisfied that, having regard to the vote in the Dáil, and having regard to the fact that we have no course but to accept or reject the whole order, that a case has been made and that the House would be acting wisely in rejecting the order. For that reason, taking the whole rather than the part, I could not vote for the motion, though I doubt the wisdom of the complete abolition of the boot allowance on the case that has been made here. However, I do not think that we should take that alone and decide that the House should hold up the order. I agree entirely with the Minister when he says that for the House to hold up the order when we know that there is a holy, or an unholy, alliance of Farmers and Fianna Fáil with the Government in support of it, would not do any good whatever and would only lead to a certain amount of real dissatisfaction.

I think the wonderful compensation that has been made to the Civic Guards by the bouquets that have been presented from all sections of the House will reconcile them to the fate that is in store for them, a fate I do not agree with at all. This force was established under very difficult circumstances, and attracted to its ranks some of the very best elements in the country, at a time when they did not know what was in store for them, or what were their prospects for the future. A number of them were trained in immediate proximity to my home, and I have watched their work with interest. Those who had the civic spirit, those who had a reliance on the stability and promise of the State, adhered to the force. Many retired by choice, or for some other reasons.

We have now a permanent and, I believe, a picked body of men that could scarcely be excelled by any force in the world. If, as a result of these small reductions, these little pinpricks that have come from time to time, this force becomes discontented with its lot and feels that its future is insecure, I believe that will be bad for the country. I hope that will not be the result, and I hope, whatever decision is come to, the Civic Guard will take it in that spirit of self-abnegation with which many other sections of the public service had to take cuts. But if there is such a remote possibility of that feeling of discontent and insecurity, in view of all the promises made to them in the past, I think the Government is making a mistake in persisting with this cut. After all, is it worth while for the sake of a mere £40,000 yearly? The force, I understand, is being reduced at the rate of 180 or more yearly, and will be reduced to a considerably smaller proportion than at present. Therefore, the saving that it is proposed to make by this cut would in time materialise by the automatic reduction of the force.

The question of boots has been raised. It is well known that a Civic Guard who carries out the duties pertaining to his position has much walking to do at times when the ordinary inhabitant is under his own roof, and when the civil servant is at rest. His duty calls him forth in the night to strange places, and along difficult roads, which he has to negotiate, so that the wear and tear in that way is much greater than it is with any other section of the community. A pair of home-made boots that will withstand the ravages of twelve months' wear may easily cost £3, and I believe there was nothing to stand hard wear like home-made boots. I think the allowance is not a considerable one if the man is to keep dry pedal extremities, and that £3 a year is not too much to pay him. I think it might be possible to meet the situation if the Minister for Finance could see his way to give us some modification of the rule, and not oppose the strong manifestations of dissent that we have read out here to-day from the representatives of the force. They have given loyal service, and it is quite possible that in the future they may be the only force we will have to safeguard the rights of the citizens. They went forth unarmed at a time when it required courage to do so. The duties of the force may be extended very much. I think we should attract to it the very best elements in the country, and leave no cause for complaint on their part, and give no occasion to them to augment their resources by means that would not be beneficial to the State. I think it is possible that this House might reconsider the position, and that in view of that the Minister ought to modify the order to some extent, in order to meet the suggestions made by the representatives of this very efficient force.

I think if this House was merely considering the question of the boot and cycle allowances and that if the Minister had not made the statements he has made, most of us would vote against the reduction and for the annulment of the order. But two things which the Minister drew attention to seemed to outweigh that. The first thing that weighed most with me was that the Minister definitely stated that, as far as the Government and the members of it individually are concerned, there will be no further reduction in the allowances of the force. Of course, the Minister can only bind himself. As Senator Johnson pointed out, the late Minister for Justice said practically the same thing in 1926. That shows that even the same Government changes its mind. But, at any rate, the Minister has bound the present Government, as far as anyone could bind it, that it is not going to make any further reductions in the allowances. The other matter to which the Minister has drawn our attention is that if we passed the motion annulling this order there would be a difference between the two Houses. There would be every inducement to anyone in the force who is inclined to spread disaffection, or to talk too much, to make use of the opportunity, and a great deal of probably useless discussion would take place which might accentuate the trouble. As far as the Seanad is concerned, we are bound to be defeated in the end, no matter what happens, as the Dáil has the power of the purse. I have a great belief in the quality of the force. I do not believe that these men will carry this matter to such an extent as to injure the discipline of the force. I cannot believe that. Although they may be discontented, I do not think this is a matter that is likely to cause any serious trouble, and, in view of the Minister's definite promise, in view of the fact that we are powerless in the situation, and that it would probably lead to a great deal more trouble than otherwise if we passed it, I am afraid I will have to vote against the motion.

I am surprised that the House is taking the view that it has taken. I should have thought, in view of what I might call the judicial attitude of the House on many questions, that it would have looked upon this problem, not from the point of view of the Government, not even from the point of view of possible dissension between the two Houses, but from the point of view of the attitude the Gárdaí have rightly taken, in view of the assurances that were applied and implicit in the statement of the late Minister for Justice, only three years ago. The quotations that I read from the statement made by very responsible men in the Gárda Síochána give their views as to the effect of this Order. I have no hesitation in saying that the whole question impinges on the boot allowance. If it had been in order to put down a motion to delete the provision with regard to the boot allowance from the Order, I would have done so. But there is only one proposition capable of being voted on, and that is to annul the order. The order being annulled it can go forth to the Minister that we would be quite willing to approve of any order which left the boot allowance in effect. This boot allowance was part of their pay. Hundreds of anomalies of a similar kind have grown up in the past and can be found in the book of Estimates even yet, although many of them have been deleted. But the boot allowance is simply one heading under which the man received his pay—£3 a week in pay, and 1/6 a week boot allowance—but it is all pay, and he is expected to provide boots out of it.

I can quite understand Senator Wilson. He is perfectly consistent in this. He made the case with much more detail three years ago than he made it to-day. He argued then, as he argued now, that there is an increment due to these men, that they have entered the force in the expectation of receiving the increment, that it is a simple matter not to allow the increment to take place, and that they would not miss it. That is the effect of the case made by the Minister for Finance. He also justified it by the statement that there would be increment and that therefore they would be nothing out of pocket. It is that kind of statement that creates dissatisfaction in the force. They have been led to believe that there will be an automatic increase, and it is now suggested by Senator Wilson, and by the Minister, that that automatic increase can be removed in another way. That is going to create dissatisfaction. I do not think you are going to have active agitation. I believe the Gárdaí, notwithstanding this, will be a loyal, honest force, but ought you to tempt them? Ought you to give any occasion for dissatisfaction in view of the implicit promise that was made?

I am really not surprised at the attitude of Senator Comyn. I would not be surprised at any line Senator Comyn would take, at any time, on any subject. He is prepared to justify reductions in pay of the Civil Service of all grades and all kinds. I cannot say whether he was speaking for his Party in that, but I am quite sure if he thought it convenient at the moment to justify any reduction in any rate of pay of any grade, he would be quite prepared to say it to-day and to say another thing tomorrow. The statement made by Senator Wilson, as I say, was made with much more detail, and was very well argued by the late Minister for Justice three years ago. He said:—

"I dissent from the point of view that now that there is a normal situation in the country, that the moment you have attained that, the thing to do is to turn around and cut the pay of your police, which, as Deputies know, has already been cut within the lifetime of the present Government, and reduced to a figure substantially below that of the neighbouring police forces."

A few days afterwards he said, when there was a further proposition to delete the allowances we are dealing with now:—

"If we felt that the pay was too high, or taking it generally, the remuneration, in one form or another, received by the Gárdaí for the period of a year, was too high. I would prefer we faced a reduction in pay rather than approach it along the lines of reducing this allowance."

That was the boot allowance.

"It is something we have allowed to stand in view of the substantial cut in pay that has been carried out."

If that is not a basis upon which the Gárda could feel content I do not know what it is. These two statements on behalf of the Ministry were made by the most responsible Minister, who had built up the Gárda, whom the Gárda had come to look upon as their father and friend. These statements were made by him in an eloquent, definite and explicit fashion, and three years afterwards we come along and say: "The state of the country is so much worse that we must break our promise." That is in fact what has happened. What I ask the House to do is to annul this order on the understanding that we cannot put it into the motion, but that it should be understood that if that order comes before us again in a new form, with the pay and boot allowance consolidated as pay, or if it abolished the boot allowance and added 1/6 weekly to the pay, we would be prepared to agree to it. But the cut in the boot allowance ought not to continue. If it is continued I am afraid it will do something to remove the sense of stability, of satisfaction, and to some little degree, of loyalty amongst many members of the force. I do not think there will be anything like the same effect if the allowances for such matters as subsistence are reduced, because there can be an obvious show of reductions in the prices of some things, but that does not affect the main body of the lower-paid men. The cycling allowance can also be justified much more readily, but I ask the House to agree to the annulment of the order, with the understanding that the boot allowance is the one cut we are opposing.

Question put.
The Seanad divided; Tá, 5; Níl, 31.

  • William Cummins.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Sir John Purser Griffith.
  • Thomas Johnson.

Níl

  • John Bagwell.
  • William Barrington.
  • Sir Edward Bellingham.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Caitlin Bean Ui Chléirigh.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • The Countess of Desart.
  • James Dillon.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • Sir Nugent Everard.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • P.J. Hooper.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • Thomas Linehan.
  • The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
  • James MacKean.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • James Moran.
  • Sir Walter Nugent.
  • Joseph O'Doherty.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • James J. Parkinson.
  • Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
  • Séumas Robinson.
  • Thomas Toal.
  • Richard Wilson.
Motion declared lost.
Top
Share