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.