This Bill is a Bill to make provision, where a Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána is removed for reasons other than misconduct or incapacity, that a pension will be provided for him. The position at present is that unless a commissioner attained the age of 50 years or had 25 years' service and, in the case of subsequent commissioners, 30 years if they were removed on grounds of public policy no provision had been made for a pension. The sense of the Bill is, as I have stated that when a commissioner is removed for reasons other than misconduct or incapacity the President of the Executive Council will certify to that effect and the Minister for Finance is enabled to grant a life pension on the terms set out in the Bill. The ordinary pension of a police officer is ascertained by taking a fraction of his salary, the denominator of the fraction being the figure 60 and the numerator being the number of years of his completed service. If this service is over 21 years then every year over 20 years counts as two, so that 22 years' service counts as 24, 23 years' service as 26 and so on. In this Bill, it is provided that additional years' service may be added and the number of years that may be added shall not exceed 12. There is also the provision in the Bill with regard to the revocation of the pension and forfeiture. I think the Bill itself is clear enough. It provides for such a case as that in which the commissioner is removed.
Gárda Síochána (Pensions) Bill, 1933—Second Stage
I have no intention of impeding the passage of this Bill. I have a sort of lurking suspicion that this is one of the Bills which the Government would be glad this House held up. I do not intend to gratify that hope, if such a hope exists. I would not have intervened to say anything were it not for an alteration that was made in the Bill during the Committee Stage in the Dáil when the Government inserted an amendment to it. I do not want to introduce any note of acrimony into the proceedings this evening but I do regret that the Bill contains a provision which makes a reference to it, without very severe criticism of this provision, almost impossible. The provision I refer to is sub-section (2) and, as I have stated, it was inserted during the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil.
This House cannot alter this Bill. It has been certified as a Money Bill, but I think the House would fail in its duty if some word of protest was not uttered in connection with the insertion of that particular sub-section. It looks very like a piece of legislation introduced for the definite purpose of singling out and victimising a man who has given great service to this State, but who, because he has taken action since his removal from the force, action which has in no way infringed any constitutional authority —his action has been perfectly constitutional—would seem to have excited in the minds of the members of the Executive Council the apprehension that his activities are going to jeopardise their political existence. I say that is a bad precedent to create in this State. I do not intend to go into the circumstances surrounding the removal of General O'Duffy from the Civic Guards. I think they are certainly open to very severe criticism, and that the members of the Executive Council might very well have contented themselves with his removal. To follow that up with this specific provision, which is obviously put there for a definite purpose, is, to my mind, pursuing in our legislation a vendetta which one must extremely regret to observe. I cannot see what purpose this sub-section is intended for unless it be the one I have indicated. The sub-section that I refer to provides: "The Executive Council may at any time by order revoke or suspend for such time as they think proper any pension granted under this Act." What is the reason for that? This Bill was introduced to meet the position created by General O'Duffy's removal from office. It was intended to enable, so far as I can judge, the Executive Council to fulfil the undertaking that he would be provided with a pension. It looks as though, having come to that decision, and having given their decision practical shape in the form of a Bill, that after that stage had been reached the appearance of menaces and threats, as one may almost describe it, of a certain section within the State—the denunciation and the outcry against the giving of such a pension to General O'Duffy—had been effective with the Executive Council. While the Government introduce this Bill for the purpose of giving a pension, they, at the same time, take power within the Bill itself, which will enable them at once to placate the element to which I have referred. The Government placate that element by making, in advance, provision to annul the original intention. I desire to make this formal protest against this kind of legislative vendetta. It would be possible to enlarge upon the many things that one might surmise were behind this particular provision, but little purpose would be served by a lengthy discussion. As I have said, we cannot alter the Bill, but I think it is the duty of this House to protest against this form of legislation, and the whole circumstances attending this particular provision. I think it is the duty of some member of the House to raise a voice of protest against it, and for that reason I make the criticism that I have made.
I wish just to raise the point that the principle of revoking a pension by order of the Minister is a dangerous one, because it, more or less, holds a whip over the pensioner, quite irrespective of his conduct. He may be politically disagreeable to the Government, and there may be just the kind of fear that the Government would not approve of his ordinary political activities. I am not now thinking particularly of the ex-Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, but rather of the principle of revoking pensions by the will of the Executive Council without the assurance that the Oireachtas would have the opportunity of discussing the order. This is to be revoked by order. I wonder whether it would not be practicable, in such a Bill as this, to put in the normal—at least very general and common—provision that any order of the kind would be laid on the Table. If within 21 days it were disapproved of, without making invalid anything that had been done in the meantime, such a procedure would, I think, be commendable.
That gives an opportunity to either House to raise, as an issue, the conduct of the Ministry. Perhaps, on second thoughts, once the order is made and published, the Oireachtas will have an opportunity to raise it as an issue. I feel that, as a matter of principle, the Oireachtas should have an opportunity to discuss an order of this kind revoking a pension before the matter goes too far. There are precedents go leor. There is the celebrated and notorious 17th amendment. All these pensions are revocable at the will of the Ministry and there are other precedents of a general kind, but I think that it is desirable to make provision whereby the revocation order will be laid on the Table so that the public will have intimation that a particular pension has been revoked and the Oireachtas will have an opportunity to discuss the reasons for the revocation. That is an important principle which, I think, ought to be considered favourably by the Minister.
I am quite prepared to support the suggestion made by Senator Johnson, if it is the view of the House but, personally, I should go further than that. I have no special knowledge of the conditions affecting Government pensions and, therefore, I may be said to speak out of my ignorance. But I have a feeling that when a man has been given a pension in consideration of service rendered, he ought to be allowed to lead his own life and regulate his own conduct. I think it is wrong to grant pensions subject to provisions as to conduct or to allow them to be withdrawn if a man adopts a certain line. I do not like that principle. When a man is given a pension on account of services rendered there ought to be no conditions attached to it.
Senator Milroy suggested that this clause with regard to revocation was brought in for the purpose of victimisation. There is no such idea in mind. The previous Executive Council—the Cumann na nGaedheal Ministry—when enacting their Bills dealing with the police forces, persistently and consistently in all their measures provided that the Commissioner should be removable at any time and without cause shown. Under the Gárda Síochána (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, Section 23, he could be removed without cause being shown. The same provision is embodied in the Gárda Síochána Act, 1924, Section 2. Under the Police Forces (Amalgamation) Act, 1925, Section 6, it is definitely provided that the Commissioner can be removed without any cause being shown. That is a peculiar position taken in relation to other servants of the State.
This question of a pension, as I explained in the Dáil, was raised by the late Commissioner with the Cumann na nGaedheal Ministry in 1931. He pointed out at that time the peculiar position he was in and he asked them to secure him pension rights. The Ministry ignored that request and took no action. We have come along in this Bill to provide that there shall be pension rights for a commissioner removed in circumstances such as have been set out. When one talks about victimisation, one should remember that far from any victimisation being shown, the particular gentleman referred to was offered positions at salary and emoluments equal to that which he held. To say that this provision is put in for the purpose of securing victimisation is not true. We have followed as nearly as we could the precedent established by the Cumann na nGaedheal Ministry. I have read up the debates and I did not see any criticism or any suggestion of victimisation when the Army Pensions Act of 1925 was being passed through the Oireachtas. The Army Pensions Act of 1925 provides that a pension can be revoked at any time on stated reasons and on explanation being given by the person whose pension is sought to be removed. That Bill was passed through this House.
That is different from this provision.
It refers to all these army pensioners dealt with at that time. What is the difference with regard to this Bill? We are making similar provision.
No. This is different.
The Senator suggests that perhaps this goes farther. It does nothing of the kind. Unless you assume something very different from what I imagine, you will assume that an Executive Council will act upon the considerations before it at the time. I am sure the Executive Council will give an opportunity to any person affected in this way to explain his actions or attitude in a particular case. That is all that was provided in the Army Pensions Act of 1925.
It is very different.
There is no difference. We have followed precedent in doing this. I do not want to go into any contentious matters but we have followed the precedent established by our predecessors. I do not think that Senator Milroy would say that they could do wrong.
What about Senator Johnson's suggestion?
Cathaoirleach
That can be considered on the next stage of the Bill.