Would the Cathaoirleach let us know the position regarding the introduction of a motion for the annulment of the Regulations? Would it be in order to give notice now?
Messages from the Dáil. - Gárda Síochána Pensions Order, 1941.
Seeing that the notice of the sitting has been so short, I will take a motion without notice to annul the Regulations if the Senator so desires.
Is not the position that the Minister is really moving that we approve of the Order, and if that is defeated it will have the same effect?
There are two Orders.
Mr. Hayes
Presumably we will only have one debate. On which motion will we have a division?
In the Dáil, I found it impossible to carry on the debate on one without the other. What we did was we discussed the two together. There was no division on the first. The division was on the Retirement Order.
Mr. Hayes
I would agree with that, Sir.
There is only one motion on this Order Paper.
We will have the other in a moment.
I move the motion standing in my name:—
That the Seanad hereby approves of the Gárda Síochána Pensions Order, 1941, made on the 13th day of June, 1941, by the Minister for Justice, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, under Section 13 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925, and laid before the Seanad on the 17th day of June, 1941.
The motion which has been proposed concerns a Pensions Order, and goes hand in hand with another order which is on the Table, and in respect of which I believe a motion has been handed in to annul it. We had a pretty lengthy debate on this matter in the Dáil yesterday, principally on the Retirement Order. As a result of that I was hoping to get unanimity, but, unfortunately, I did not succeed. The objection that was taken to the Retirement Order was to the part referring to the retirement of members of the Gárda, not officers, from inspector down. It is proposed in the order as it stands that the Commissioner should have the power to retire a member of the Gárda not being an officer without consultation, or reference to anyone else.
The Labour Party in the Dáil were anxious to have a sort of appeal tribunal set up to which anyone who felt he had a grievance could appeal. I was not in a position to accept that, but I did agree to amend the Retirement Order by inserting in the last paragraph—sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the order—after the word "Commissioner,""with the consent of the Minister," so that he might retire a man not an officer in that way. In the case of officers, it is clearly pointed out that the Government must do the retiring, on the certificate of the Commissioner. I saw the force in the argument put up that it was rather drastic to allow one man to do all the dismissing or the retiring in the case of the men; but for all that, I still think that it was the better way. Only one Deputy —Deputy Cosgrave—said that in the other House and I agree, but the general opinion in our own Party and in the Opposition Party was that it was better to have the Minister's consent, rather than as the order set out. Unfortunately, that did not meet the Labour Party. They wanted some sort of tribunal, and I was not prepared to have that, nor am I prepared now.
I agreed also to another amendment. The opinion was expressed generally in the debate that these orders should only have temporary duration, say, a year, and that if necessary they could be renewed. I have agreed in an amending order to make provision that this would last only for a year. I have also agreed, as I have pointed out, that the Minister's consent will be necessary before a member of the Gárda, not being an officer, is retired.
I suppose I had better say what it is proposed to do first in the pensions order and then deal with the other. Any man or officer who has not got ten years' service—of course, all the officers have more than ten—who is being retired under this retirement order will be entitled to one-twelfth of his salary for each year's service. The maximum he will get is ten-twelfths, that is ten months' gratuity. Any member of the Gárda with over ten years' service will be entitled to a pension at the rate of one-sixtieth for each year up to 20 years, when they are entitled to a double year for each year after the twentieth. In the case of every member who is being retired, I think there will be only 19 years, as the force is only 19 years in existence. That means they will retire at one-third of the present salary.
I regret the necessity to bring in this motion. Unfortunately, there are some members of the Gárda—some senior officers—who undoubtedly, as was stated in the other House, are unfit for their positions. They have not been guilty of any offence that would be sufficient to occasion their dismissal, but they have become generally inefficient and incompetent, and unsuitable to hold high positions of responsibility. Whatever excuse there may have been to overlook a thing of that kind in ordinary peace-time, in times like these it is simply impossible to overlook it. Everyone knows the responsibility these men have. We all know the great work they are doing and have been doing since the emergency arose. Their conduct has been splendid all round, and was all that was to be expected of them. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the Gárda or repeat it too often.
Unfortunately, an idea has arisen that there was some question of disloyalty in the ranks of the Gárda generally. There never was any suggestion from any side that that was the position, but when the papers published the remarks in the Dáil I suppose they found it more newsy and I dare say that gave rise to the idea. I do not think the words spoken by Deputy Mulcahy or myself justified the interpretation put on them. I did say that the safety of the State was really affected, and I did not exaggerate when I said that. If you go down the country you find a chief superintendent has a large area under his control and is responsible for the new Defence Force which we have got, and which the people have raised themselves as a voluntary force for the defence of the nation. As we all know, everything hinges on the chief superintendent, and if he is not a man who can be respected and treated with confidence the whole organisation of local defence will suffer as a result. In that way I was justified in saying that the safety of the State was involved to a large extent in this matter.
I would not be prepared to carry on —and I do not think any responsible Minister would—with a number— though not a great number—of chief superintendents as they are at present. I was asked to give numbers yesterday, and did give them in the end, in winding up the debate. I mentioned that there are 27 chief superintendents and 132 superintendents, and that the number likely to be affected by this retirement order would not be more than 12. Unfortunately, some of them are in such key positions of responsibility that even one unfit would be too many to have at the present time. Therefore, it was necessary to bring in this order.
Some of the Deputies yesterday spoke as if what we are proposing to do in this order was to give Commissioners some drastic powers they have not got already. I admit that, without the amendment which I am proposing to make, that may be so, as he could act entirely on his own. At the present time, if a Gárda or officer does something wrong, there is a disciplinary court to which he is entitled to go to have his case heard. That is the case of an ordinary Gárda—non-officer— under the existing regulations. I do not know whether that was sufficiently clear. It was only at the end of the debate yesterday that I said that, in the present regulations—the Gárda Síochána Discipline Regulations, 1926, Regulation No. 24—a Commissioner, with the consent of the Minister, may dismiss a Gárda without having recourse to this disciplinary court. The power we are asking for now, with the amendment I propose, will enable him to award that man a pension. That, I say, is less drastic than the power he has already.
He will be better off.
I have got to answer the case made. These have been the regulations since 1926, and nobody has seen fit to object to them. All I am saying now is that we are not asking for more power than the Commissioner has already. I wish to stress again that there is no question of disloyalty. It is a question of men who have given good service in the past but who, through laxity, have become inefficient and whose continuance in office would not be in the best interests of the country or of the Gárda. Unfortunately, for that reason they have to be retired.
Am I right in understanding that in future a man who retires for genuine reasons of health will get no better pension than a man dismissed for laxity or drunkenness or something of that kind?
If a man is dismissed he gets no pension. That is the trouble about this. I am fairly satisfied, from the discussions I have had with the Commissioner, that you would find it practically impossible, under the present code, to dismiss a man because the case might not be sufficiently proved. A man simply becomes inefficient and it is not easy to prove that before a court. A man who has done something outrageous, something that would satisfy a disciplinary court that he ought to be dismissed, if he is dismissed gets no pension. But a person retired—I make the distinction between dismissed and retired—under this order will get the same pension as if he were retired through physical incapacity.
Is that fair to the taxpayer?
Perhaps, if we had a perfect world it would not be. So far as the Commissioner is concerned, we have a very good Commissioner, in spite of what some people think, and the fact that he was drawn from the Civil Service. I am quite satisfied that he is as good a Commissioner as we could possibly get. But, at the same time, he is a human being, and when he finds that a man has not committed himself to such an extent that he should be fired out without any consideration whatever, he naturally wants to give him some credit for the years of service he has given.
In that connection I would like to point out that, strictly speaking, a pension is really a deferred payment. It is taken into consideration when one of these officers joins the force. When his salary is being fixed the pension is regarded as a deferred payment, and he is punished by removing that from him. When he is dismissed, in addition to losing his job he is losing what is a deferred payment. That is the justification I find for this. He is not being deprived of something that he has earned, but he has been found unfit and unsuitable for his position, and, unfortunately for himself, he has to be retired. A man retired through illness gets the same. He has earned the pension. Similarly, with a man who has become, in the opinion of the Commissioner, but perhaps not in the opinion of a court, inefficient and ineffective.
I do not know why we were summoned to meet in such haste. We have not had an opportunity of reading the Dáil debates, but I gather from the morning newspapers that the Minister promised in the Dáil that this order would be an annual one, expiring at the end of 12 months, and that it would probably be reintroduced.
That is correct.
I understand the difference between dismissal and retirement under this order. In the case of people retired under this order, has any arrangement been made or any procedure suggested for acquainting persons of the charges made against them and allowing them to defend themselves in any way? Under the other code there was a procedure, but this is a new idea.
There is no definite procedure laid down yet. What I am sure will happen is that the Commissioner will inform the officers that he intends to operate this retirement order. When he is going to retire them under this order he will ask them to make a statement. That will be forwarded to the Government. They will naturally insist on knowing the reasons and they will not take anyone's word for it. There will have to be a case made. In the other case the Minister will be in the same position as regards the men, but there will not be a court.
The two sides of the case will be placed before the final authority?
Senator Foran's motion reads:
That the Gárda Síochána (Retirement) Regulations, 1941, made by the Minister for Justice on June 13, 1941, be and are hereby annulled.
I take it we have approved the Order?
The Seanad will discuss both motions together.
I formally move my motion, which has been read by the Cathaoirleach. I may have something to say on it later on.
Is that not impossible?
The mover has a right to reply.
Will he tell us why we ought to vote for it?
I formally second the motion.
Surely, we are not going to have a motion put to us without giving us a single syllable in support of it? The whole procedure is astonishing.
Have I not the right to give my reasons later?
Perhaps the Senator may wish to say something in moving the motion?
I have nothing to say at this stage.
The Order and the Regulations are before the House for discussion and the Senator will have the right to reply on his motion. The procedure of taking two related motions together is somewhat unusual and perhaps rather involved. But there have been some similar instances.
The Seanad has had a good many things said about it, but we are now making a precedent that a Senator moves a motion and has nothing to say in support of it until he hears what has to be said against it. I know Senator Quirke does it, but for quite a different reason.
That may be a consideration for the Senator who moves the motion, not for the Chair.
It is a novelty, Sir. Let us discuss Senator Foran's motion.
We have agreed to discuss both.
Senator Foran and I looked upon this order as being too drastic and despotic. We all recognise that certain abuses have existed in this very valuable body of men, but we believe that that matter could have been dealt with in the same way by this Government as other abuses were dealt with by the last Government. I understand that from 1925 to 1928 there were 16 or 17 dismissals of officers of high standing and there was not a word about it. The public took it that it was quite in order. I think it is very unfortunate that this mass attack on the Gárda Síochána should have been made, first by the Opposition and then by the Government.
A mass attack?
Practically a mass attack.
What was the mass attack like?
The Senator knows as well as I do.
Do not exaggerate.
The matter was raised by the Opposition and heartily and enthusiastically supported by the Government. It was a strange procedure.
It was a miracle.
This must have been going on for quite a time, and yet no action was taken. What was the Government doing all that time? We believe the Minister when he says that technically they could not be dismissed. It is extraordinary if inefficiency does not permit of dismissal. Going on a "batter," as some one in the Opposition said, at an unsuitable time, might involve dismissal.
Will the Senator explain what would be a suitable time?
Just as we are going through a crisis would not be a suitable time, I would say. Then there was indecent publicity given to the whole affair. Why should it be given such indecent publicity? That indecent publicity has had an effect among the rank and file of a very valued and highly honoured force. For 19 years the Gárdaí in this country have been looked upon as a very forceful instrument of the State and they have succeeded in restraining, not alone ordinary citizens, but even members of the Government on occasions. They are there to do very valuable duty, and it is too bad that they should be held up to ridicule. I think the Government and the Opposition have treated these men badly and that they should be given the option of resigning. It must be remembered that some of these men have been in action since 1914, and very markedly in 1916, when they gave valuable services to the State. They have now heavy family commitments, some of them having children at schools and at colleges, for whom they are trying to do the best they can. I venture to say that if the parents of these children have to leave their employment at their time of life they will find it hard to get other employment, so that the future of the children may also be destroyed. I am glad that the order is to be in operation only for 12 months. I hope it will not be renewed then and that there will be no occasion to renew it.
I was glad to hear what the Minister mentioned regarding remuneration. In another service to which I belonged we did not get such terms, as pensions were not looked on as part of deferred pay, which should be the rule in all cases. I hope the Minister will exercise great discretion when reports are furnished to him, so that no member of the force would be victimised. There is uneasiness about the power to retire any member of the force not included in the unfortunate dozen that were mentioned. Members of the force should be given the option of retiring on full pension when they reach the age of retirement, and for that reason I hope the Minister will exercise greater discretion under these orders.
I am going to put Senator Foran's motion to the House.
That will leave the other motion open for discussion?
Yes.
Question put and declared lost.
The discussion on the second motion will be resumed now.
On the main motion, which is for approval of this order, the first thing I do not understand is why the Seanad had to meet to-day, and why we could not have met next Wednesday for this purpose. I do not know what the urgency is. I do not suppose the Minister intends to take any precipitate action between now and Wednesday next. I am sure he does not. The situation which this order aims to remedy has been in existence for a long period, and I do not think there was any great urgency in remedying it as between Friday and Wednesday. The Minister under a particular Act of Parliament makes an order which requires the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Dáil approved of the order yesterday and we are asked to approve of it to-day. Under the order the Minister makes regulations and these have been laid on the Table. We have discussed a motion to annul the regulations. The only effect of annulling the regulations, as I understand, would be to prevent certain people, if dismissed, getting pensions. People should take some interest in these matters to discover what is happening before they rush into motions and speeches on the subject.
On a point of order. It was the Regulations that I moved to annul.
That is not a point of order.
I am simply giving Senator Foran information.
Which I will not take from the Senator. I will take it from the Chair. The Senator could not give me the information.
I think the Chair is wise enough not to interpret Acts of Parliament for Senator Foran. In any event what was stated in the Dáil, and particularly the statement made by the Minister in its own setting by itself, gave rise to considerable discussion and considerable canvassing, and to some very foolish statements, some of which were made by responsible people. There has been an idea abroad that the whole top of the Gárda Síochána is wrong or that, as the Minister pointed out, it has been disloyal. That is entirely contrary to facts. I do not think the statement made by Deputy Mulcahy in the Dáil was capable of any such interpretation. It was a very temperate and moderate statement, and by no stretching of the English language could be regarded as a mass attack on the Gárda Síochána. When dealing with the police force in an emergency like the present, or at any other time, Senators when speaking should be clear as to what exactly they mean. I do not think what Deputy Mulcahy said in the Dáil could be in any way interpreted as an attack on the Gárda Síochána, or that the whole top of the Gárda Síochána was bad. The Minister's statement, which was published by itself on a particular day, was, as he said, given in a rather unfortunate context. It gave the belief, after the lapse of a week, that something terrible was wrong, particularly when the Minister for Justice and a leading member of the Opposition seemed to be in the most perfect agreement on the subject.
I think we should begin, as the Minister pointed out, by remembering that this deals with a very small number of people. Instead of criticising the Gárda Síochána as a force, or the existence of some incompetency or some irresponsibility in the higher ranks, we should regard the efficiency of the Guards, both officers and men, as something in the nature of a modern miracle. It is surely nothing short of a miracle that the police in all the circumstances which beset them for the last 18 or 19 years should be as good as they are, and as obliging as everyone who has occasion to have recourse to them, finds them. With the change of Government from the British to the Irish, which took place in 1922, even had there been no split, no bitterness and no civil war, the establishment of a police force would have been a matter of great difficulty. We should have some advertence to the instructions given to this unarmed police force when, with the civil war still smouldering, they were sent out and told to enforce the law and be friendly with the people, two very difficult things for ordinary human beings to do. They were told to do that with batons and courtesy, in a country which had a plentiful supply of revolvers and bombs, and which had a particular tradition about the police. The policing here had been done with revolvers for a couple of years before that, and with carbines for a very much longer period previously. That was a difficulty in itself, but there was a further difficulty, and I merely mention it to chronicle it.
You had a substantial party in the State against the police and constantly abusing them. When I was in the chair in the Dáil night after night I heard abuse of the police in very unmeasured terms. In all these circumstances, the fact that the police force has survived, and that we are now, without exception of party, paying a tribute to a competent and courteous police force is a wonderful achievement for the people and the police. They survived a change of Government which introduced political matters into a great many departments of State, and particularly into a police force where politics should have no place. They survived a change of Commissioners, and survived a short period when the local Fianna Fáil club was more potent than the superintendents, or even the Commissioner. That period of unrest and uncertainty was very hard on the Gárda Síochána, and it is a great tribute to them, to their first Commissioner, to the training they got, and the material in them that they should have survived it as well as they did. It was not long I think until it was realised that that was a wrong policy. The present Minister was the first to realise that it was a wrong policy, but a realisation that things are going wrong is far from finding a remedy for what is wrong.
One of our great difficulties here, no matter how democratic we may be and no matter what amount of theories we profess, when we get into authority one finds, I think, in the case of a police force that the great difficulty is the creation of an officer class. I do not mean now an officer class in the sense that he should be different by birth, that he should be different by race and different by speech which was the position in the case of the R.I.C. What you do need to get is a distinction between officers and men. That distinction was well on the way when it was bedevilled to a certain extent. A great many things happened over many years—some have certainly happened over the last nine years—to bedevil the process of the creation of a good officer class in the Guards. I use the word "class" from the point of view of competency and direction and not in the way the word is so frequently used.
The Minister took occasion to-day to say that they had confidence in the Commissioner. So have I confidence in the Commissioner. I do not think that what was said yesterday in the Dáil, as far as I read it, with regard to the Commissioner being taken from the ranks of the Civil Service, was intended to be a reflection on the Commissioner any more than the Minister's statement was a reflection on the Civil Service when, I think, he said to-day the Commissioner was a civil servant, but a human being.
Now.
I know the Minister did not mean that. I know the Commissioner is a human being. I have known him for a great many years. But I think the Minister will agree, and I think we must all agree, that when you look at the police force, look at all the senior officers and make up your mind seriously after due consideration and weighing all the facts, you find the Government saying here that not a single officer in the Guards is competent to be a Commissioner. They take a Commissioner out of the Civil Service and put him over all those senior officers. That must necessarily have a certain jarring effect. To say that is by no means to say that the civil servant who is put in that position is incompetent. It is no reflection whatever upon him. I think it was not of his own seeking, or by his own wish, that he went into the post. But the fact that you take a civil servant and put him in that position is a great reflection on the Gárda officers.
We should regard this matter as a serious one, and treat the Minister's proposal with every possible consideration. I think we should try to put ourselves in his position and endeavour to give him all the assistance we can. I think that if what Deputy Mulcahy said, and what the Minister said, is carefully read, it will be found that there is no suggestion that this order is meant to deal with anything more than a small number of persons, and that the trouble is such that it can be easily located. I hope the Minister will correct me if he disagrees with that statement and that he will emphasise it if he agrees with it. There has been considerable canvassing of the position outside, as Senator Cummins has said. I have even heard it suggested that the Minister had discovered the existence of a fifth column in the Guards. This is a great country for rumours, but no such thing as disloyalty to the State is at all suggested, I understand. I might say, too, that I accept what the Minister himself has said, that he is acting entirely in good faith and wants to have a non-political police force which will do its job by all the citizens on a fair basis without any regard to politics.
I, therefore, am prepared to consider the amendment suggested by the Minister yesterday evening in the Dáil, and to support approval for the order for a period of 12 months. I take it that the effect of the amendment will be that the order will be in force for 12 months, and that at the end of that period, if the Minister desires to renew it, he must again table a motion of this kind before the two Houses. After a period of 12 months we will have seen what has happened. As far as I am concerned, if I should happen to have anything to do with it, I should be prepared again to give the most careful consideration to what the Minister may have to say, based on his experience of the working of this order, and give him another 12 months' order if he wants it. I think that the order should not be in existence, with no limitation on the period, because if it were it might suggest to the members of the Gárda Síochána, officers and men, that there was a constant sword hanging over their heads.
That brings me to the other matter. The position now is that an officer can only be dismissed, as a civil servant can be dismissed, as a result of action taken by the Government as a whole, but that a Guard can be dismissed by the Minister for Justice after investigation. Apart from politics, and apart from political dismissals—I take it we have seen the end of them—I do not think anybody can complain of the treatment given to the members of the police force or members of the Civil Service with regard to dismissals. Drastic action is very rarely taken against incompetency, and particularly incompetency on the part of what are very often called "decent people." A decent man in this country is allowed to be incompetent for a long time before any Government of any political complexion takes action against him. I do not think there is very much danger, with the slowness of the process of dismissal as we have known it, that any great injustice will be done, but at the same time I am quite clear that those who are charged under this order and whose retirement is contemplated, should be given details of the charges which are being preferred against them, and should be allowed to make a statement in writing to the authority concerned, so that the final authority will have before it not only a statement against but also a statement for the person whose retirement is recommended and contemplated. If the Minister's statement on that matter this evening is correct, and I am sure it is, then I think that point has been met.
A police force is increasingly important in modern life. Modern methods of government have made it clear that a police force is becoming more and more important every day. The police and the Government, and the Governmental machine, are coming closer to our ordinary lives every day. Even apart from the present emergency, that has been the tendency all over the world. For that reason it is very necessary that the police force should be competent and courteous. At the same time it should have the feeling that it enjoys the confidence of the people and that it enjoys reasonable security. I think it would have more security if whatever wrong influences are now upon it were removed. For that reason, I think we should all support the order if it is going to give us a force of which we can be justifiably proud.
As I said in the beginning, it has been a miracle to me how the Gárda Síochána survived all the hard knocks which the history of this country in the last 20 years has compelled it to take. It is a credit to the force itself and perhaps a credit to our people generally that the members of it should be as good as they are. I know people, apart from Ministers, ex-Ministers and others, who from time to time have to approach the Guards on various matters. I find that the opinion is practically universally held in the country that the Guards are not only competent but courteous and most anxious and willing to help. I should like to indicate to Senators that courtesy and a willingness to help is a very difficult thing to combine with an unflinching administration of the law. One thing that the Guards should be guaranteed against— I think the present Minister, as far as he is concerned, means to guarantee them against it—is that they should not be interfered with for political reasons or by political Parties, but should be allowed to do their own job in their own way in connection with the administration of the law. I am prepared to vote for the motion.
I agree almost entirely with what Senator Hayes has said, though there are a couple of matters on which I slightly disagree with him. I shall refer to them later. My principal reason for rising is to say that I am not sorry that Senator Cummins made the statement he did because there is a danger that the calling of this House on a Friday by telegram with, I think, three announcements from Radio Eireann, might give the impression that something of a very serious and urgent nature had to be dealt with. There is a danger that that might be construed by the people as indicating that there was a serious position in the Gárda. That would be, in effect, an attack on the Gárda itself. I have a good deal of sympathy with the position in which the Minister finds himself. I am perfectly certain that we express the opinion of the public in testifying our satisfaction with the work of the Gárda Síochána, not only now but over a long period.
I disagree with Senator Hayes in his suggestion that this is the kind of case in which a statement of charge could properly be sent to the person concerned. It may be that I have misunderstood the position, but I understand that, if there is a specific charge for a serious breach of discipline, a Guard may be dismissed. He has, however, the right of appeal to a committee or tribunal. Where a Guard is dismissed for specific cause, he gets no pension. In that case, it is absolutely essential that he should be fully aware of the charge, and should be given every opportunity to state what he can against it. My experience in business is that, unfortunately, the man or woman who over a long period has given good service, and has then become incompetent, is quite unconscious of the fact. To charge such people with incompetency, and to ask them to prove the contrary would mean that they would try to produce persons who thought they were not incompetent. The question of competency for a particular job is, very largely, a matter of opinion. The opinion which counts, ultimately, is that of the persons responsible for seeing that the job is done properly. It does not follow that because a man has become incompetent in one job he is generally incompetent.
From experience, I know that one of the problems of an employer arises not infrequently in this way. He has a staff who, either through changed circumstances or because they have got older or have not kept up with the times, are not really suitable for the positions they hold. The proper course would be to retire such persons but, in many businesses, there is no pension fund and no possibility of providing a fair or adequate pension. The employer is in the difficulty that he has either to make a charge against the person concerned and tell him why he is being dismissed, turning him out, quite possibly, with no opportunity of earning a livelihood, or he has to keep him on as a square peg in a round hole. That is, to my mind, rather like what the Minister has suggested occurred in some of the cases with which he proposes to deal. Probably, it was not desired to make a severe disciplinary charge against these men such as would lead to their dismissal without pension and there was no other course but to leave them in the positions in which they were.
The point made by Senator MacDermot is one which, in theory, is probably correct but in practice is not. It is not possible to work out pension schemes in varying degrees. There is no doubt whatever that, if you are to have abstract justice, it would be very rare that, in two cases, the pension would be exactly the same, having regard to the circumstances. You must work out a set of rules. When persons have become incompetent and there is no specific disciplinary charge against them, the only thing to do is what the Government have done—that is, to treat them as if their incapacity were due directly to ill-health. For that reason, I think the decision taken by the Minister is a wise one.
I was hoping that somebody would clear up a point that has occurred to me: why are these regulations necessary at all? Is there no system of pensioning off or retiring an officer at present without having regulations coming before both Houses? I am sure that civil servants have been retired or resigned before their time on one-eightieth of their salary. The employees of local authorities have also been retired before their time for disciplinary reasons.
That is not so at all. A civil servant can be retired with pension, before his pension is due, only by reason of ill-health.
I could not understand why these regulations had to come before both Houses. I take it now that there is no system of retiring a Gárda officer other than the system with which we are now dealing. I had thought that it would be possible to retire him, before his full period of service, with pension based on one-sixtieth or one-eightieth of his salary, as the case might be. However, that point is now clear. Another point that occurs to me is: whether the order is before us in its amended or its original form.
There will have to be an amending order.
Then it will have to come up again.
One order will not require any amendment. I propose to bring in an amending order in the other case providing for the consent of the Minister to dismissal in these cases and, also, limiting the duration of the order. That amending order will be laid on the Table and, unless somebody challenges it within 21 days, it will take effect.
Unless somebody moves to annul it.
In connection with the addition providing for the consent of the Minister, members of the Seanad or of the other House can hardly claim to be consistent. If the Minister were mentioned solely in the order members would not be satisfied. When the Commissioner is mentioned solely, we do not seem to like it either. I hope that the combination of the two will give satisfaction.
What strikes me in connection with these regulations is that, apparently, a man can be incompetent for a position and still retain it. Surely the incompetency of the men whom it is proposed to retire now did not begin last week or last month. They must have been incompetent two or three years ago and how was it that no steps were taken up to the present time to deal with them? In ordinary business life, the employee who is found to be incompetent and unsuitable for his work gets no pension at all. He is simply dismissed right away. Here we have men fulfilling very important function in the State and doing work of a very responsible character and we find now that they are absolutely incompetent. I do not see why anybody should object to some change being made that will give the Minister and his authorities power to deal with incompetent members of the force. I, too, must admit that the force as a whole has been really excellent. Of course, in times of political disturbance in the country, one cannot expect anything but occasional complaints to the powers that be. I was a member of a Fianna Fáil club and I do not know that I or my fellow-members were more powerful in the district, as Senator Hayes seemed to suggest, than the Guards because the only people who approached us to get them out of a fix were members of the Guards themselves when they got word that they were about to be changed from a district, and when they wished us to approach a superintendent or the Minister to get the transfer cancelled. I do not think there ever was any great interference with their work.
We, Irish, however, are a very easygoing people, and we have a sort of "grádh" for a man who is fond of an occasional drink, shall we say.
Mr. Hayes
He is a decent man.
That is the sort of thing that unfortunately leads to the toleration of a lot of incompetence in this country. In business life that very seldom holds, because an employer who has a man in his employment who, he thinks, is not competent will simply take no excuse. He will get rid of him. Here is the case of men who hold very responsible positions in the country, and when they are somewhat foolish we are reluctant to do anything about it. That attitude will have to be changed in dealing with men holding positions such as these. Senator Cummins referred to the families of these men. Surely, these men are the persons who should be most careful of their families, and who should have the greatest consideration for them. Now, when as a result of their own incompetence, of their own extravagance shall I say, they are in danger of reducing the circumstances of their families, we are appealed to to save their families from them. I think the sooner it is brought home to men in this country that their responsibilities to their families should exceed those to anybody else, the better. On the whole, I do not see why the order should not be accepted.
After listening to the speeches made, I find my mind in a state of considerable confusion as to what really is the problem with which these orders are meant to deal. The Minister spoke of giving men an opportunity to answer charges that would be made against them under this order. Senator Douglas and some others have spoken as if the problem were merely one of competence for a particular job, that it was a problem of having square pegs in round holes.
I think that was what the Minister said.
Is that really the problem? Is it merely a question of having square pegs in round holes because, if that is so, it brings a charge of a different kind against the administration of the Gárda Síochána from what I had imagined to be the actual trouble in these cases? What excuse is there to be offered for having even a dozen people appointed to highly responsible positions if they were incompetent? After being tested throughout their careers in the Gárda, how did they come to be there if they are incompetent? Were they incompetent when they were put there? I do not know whether I am correctly informed—I have no more than rumour to go on—but, as I understood it, this problem is not really a problem of competence in any proper sense of the word. It is a problem of men having become either intolerably idle or intolerably intemperate. If that is the case, I think it would be much better to say so plainly instead of suggesting to the public that the Chief Commissioner and the Minister for Justice are exercising their powers to appoint people to responsible jobs who are inefficient.
If the faults of the individuals with which the Minister is concerned in formulating these orders, are the faults I have mentioned, I still submit it is open to grave doubt whether an injustice is not being done to the taxpayer and to the ordinary hard-working member of the Gárda Síochána, the man who conscientiously carries out his duties, in giving the same pension to a man who is retired because of genuine ill-health as you give to a man who is retired for misconduct, because misconduct it is, if I am correctly informed. It seems to me that if I were a member of the Gárda Síochána making my career in it I would resent that. Even considering it from the taxpayers' point of view, a pension which is given to a man who retires for ill-health is unfortunately likely to last for a shorter period than that given to a man who is retired on grounds other than ill-health, because ill-health leads to premature demise, whereas the man who is retired for idleness, or even for drunkenness, may live until he is 90, and the taxpayers may be paying him a full pension all that time.
I have not very much to say on this order. I think most of what can be said was very well said indeed by Senator Hayes. I feel much in the same position in regard to it as I felt when we were asked for the Emergency Powers Order some time ago. We were told then that the life of the State was in danger if certain powers were not given to the Ministry. There is nothing more essential to the life of the State than the preservation of law and order and neither law nor order can be maintained except by men who are prepared to discharge their duties efficiently. My feeling is that when the Minister comes to the House and says that there are a number of members in the Gárda Síochána in whom he has not confidence, the Minister ought to know and if the Minister cannot be trusted in that, and if we cannot accept what he says, he is not worthy of our trust in the position of Minister at all. The Minister must have a very unpleasant task in this matter. A number of these men have obviously served the State for a very long time. I am certain that some of them gave service in the earlier days of the national movement that was responsible for the establishment of the State. It must be a very invidious position for the Minister to have to call on such men to relinquish their posts because they are no longer regarded as being worthy of the trust placed in their keeping, but, in the interest of the State, very dreadful things have to be done at times.
I feel that the great body of officers and men in our police force are a credit to the country, and I am convinced, too, that there will be none better pleased to see those who are not doing their duty as efficiently as they might being asked to leave than they, because the officers and men who want to maintain law and order, and to have justice administered equitably between all citizens, can only do so by the example being set by the men at the head. For that reason, the fact that the Minister has taken this action will be a demonstration to the police force as a whole that good service is being recognised and rewarded and, on the other hand, it will be obvious to the public, too, because if there are officers in the Gárda who are not serving the State as well as they might, that position is under the gaze of the public, who, indeed, are a very discriminating public to-day, and whatever may be said about our sympathy for the poor devil, and while there is a good deal of sympathy for him in this country, back of it all, we are thinking that the poor devil might do much better and give much better service for the money he is receiving.
While the task of the Oireachtas as a whole in passing over to the Minister such powers as these is anything but pleasant, if you want to govern and to preserve what is regarded as a very cherished thing, democracy, democracy must not be afraid to maintain government, and the instrument of the law must be maintained efficiently and with vigour. It must be in the hands of men who will do their duty in an effective fashion and it must be obvious to the public and the lower ranks of the Gárda Síochána that the men in charge are not only competent, but are doing their duty in a competent manner.
Like Senator Hayes, I feel it would have been better if, in moving the motion, which was rejected, Senator Cummins had been more careful. There is no such thing, so far as I know, as a massed attack by the members of any party, or of the different parties, against the Guards, and it would be unfair to represent any attitude which we may take in this matter as being anything like a massed attack upon them. It would be a very unworthy effort on the part of the legislators for the services which the Gardaí have rendered to the State, and equally unfair, both to the Guards and the legislators, to attempt to suggest that any such attack is being made upon them. It is necessary, in the interests of the State, that the Gárda and those who make the laws should work together. When the legislators make the laws, the responsibility is on the Gárda to see that these laws are carried out, obeyed and respected, and whatever may be said in this debate, nothing ought to be said which would indicate a desire to be unfair or unjust to the men who have served in the police force for a number of years, but if there are men—and the Minister has obviously made up his mind that there are—who can no longer serve with efficiency, it is better for the force and for these men themselves that they should cease to be members of it. If this order terminates in a year's time, it is quite possible that the disciplinary action taken now will have such an effect that no such order will have to be passed by the Oireachtas again.
Quite a number of wise administrators think that the cause or necessity for this order lies, perhaps, in the fact that many officers of the Gárda Síochána, both high and low, are left in the same area for long periods, that they become dug in and too much associated with local amenities and local associations. If there was something like a systematic rotation of the areas in which they serve, they would always be so much fresher in an area and would not become so much associated with their surroundings. Officers in particular areas get into a certain groove and a certain society, and although it may not be their desire, they find it very difficult to get out of that association, even though it is not at all for their benefit. I suggest to the Minister that, if there is no objection to it, the transfers of officers and men should be more regular and systematic, so that instead of becoming more or less a stagnant pool in one area, they will be fresh running streams and new to their surroundings, and will not know who is with them or against them, with the result that they will have only one object, that is, to do their duty on every occasion.
I will not delay the House in indulging in paying tributes to the Gárda because I think it is recognised by people of every political opinion that we have a very efficient Gárda force, and I should not like the House to get the impression that we had any criticisms to offer in respect of the Gárda as an efficient force, or as loyal servants of the State. The Minister, I think, must assume a certain share of responsibility for any disturbance caused in the minds of the people in this connection. The matter was first raised by Deputy Mulcahy, and, when I say that, I do not for a moment want to suggest that Deputy Mulcahy, when he made his statement, intended any attack, massed or otherwise, on the Gárda; but the matter having been raised by Deputy Mulcahy, I think the people of the State received a profound shock as a whole. Personally, I received a profound shock.
I was not aware that there were any of these abuses in the ranks of the Gárda at the time and, as I say, I received a profound shock. Immediately, as always happens in these cases, rumours started to spread rapidly through this city. I remember being stopped by people next day and asked if it were a fact that some of these superintendents had handed out the arms of the Defence Force to the I.R.A. There were all sorts of wild rumours spread, and I think that what Senator Cummins meant when he made his reference to a massed attack was to the massed attack on the feelings of the people. They were all pretty well perturbed when they heard these statements without any details from the Minister, and I think it unfortunate that the Minister did not give some indication of the extent of these abuses in the force.
I personally feel that he has dealt with them fairly in this order, particularly as he has inserted a provision that a retirement can become effective only when the Minister consents to the Commissioner's report. I have absolute confidence in the present Minister. I believe he will deal with these disorders in an effective, but in a very fair way, and I think the whole House can pay a tribute to the Minister's attitude in that respect. I do not think he wishes to deal unfairly or harshly with any police officer, but I do think that these abuses were allowed to continue too long, and it would have relieved the people if these abuses had been dealt with before the present emergency arose, because they did cause trouble in the minds of people, and naturally rumours spread and increased as they passed from mouth to mouth. There is no question of disloyalty on the part of the police, and I think it only right to reiterate now that I, for one, do not believe that there is disloyalty to any great extent in the police. I believe that the Minister is going to deal with the matter in a fair and effective way, more fairly, as Senator MacDermot suggests, than people in ordinary civil life would be dealt with. I say that in case there is any misconception in the minds of Senators as to our having any intention of depriving the Minister of these powers to deal with the situation which has arisen. I say again that we believe that, in the Gárda Síochána, we have an efficient, effective and loyal force.
Lest there be any misinterpretation of what I said, may I add to my remarks that, personally, I have no knowledge of any stagnation in my own area? I can say at once that we are extremely happy in both the officers and men whom we have in the county from which I come.
I want to say a word or two in support of this motion. As I understand it, the Minister proposes to make provision for people who, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the authorities, have become either incompetent or unsuitable for their positions and whom he feels he cannot retain in the force. This order proposes to make certain provision for these people in regard to a pension. Senator MacDermot asked were these people incompetent when they were put in their positions, and he seemed to hold that, as it were, against the administration for having put them there. That does not necessarily follow at all. Men who were efficient and suitable and who could do their work well and satisfactorily for a number of years may, for various reasons and as a result of various circumstances, become incompetent and unsuitable for their work. That may be due to their own fault in some cases, but they may even become incompetent through no fault of their own. I think Senator Douglas drew a better picture of the position before us when he spoke of people that he has come across on his own staff who, while quite suitable and efficient at the time of their appointment, have become, for one reason or another, incompetent, and then the question arises, what is to be done with them?
Now, I think we must agree that a person who is incompetent or unsuitable, and who is proved to be so, cannot and should not be retained in any public service. I know that there will be cases of hardship. There is bound to be hardship in practically all such cases, but when it comes down to brass tacks, you must choose between the interests of the community as a whole and the interests of the individual, and, when it comes to that, I think the interests of the community are paramount. Now, it is no discredit to the members of the Gárda Síochána or to any similar large service to say that among them will be found a percentage —a very small percentage—of people who are unsuitable, incompetent or inefficient. So long as human nature is what it is, when you take a large body of people such as we have in our public services, it would be nothing short of a miracle if there were not to be found among that large body a small number who would be unfitted for their jobs, or who become unfitted for their jobs in the course of time. I do not care how high the profession or calling is, that would still be true of it and, as I say, it is no discredit, and it should not be regarded as an attack on the particular body concerned to point out that that is so. I think that there is no body of people who would more quickly agree that unsuitable, incompetent or inefficient people should be weeded out, than the body to which these people belong, always provided, of course, that that body is satisfied that the inefficiency, incompetency or unsuitability has been clearly and definitely proved.
I regard the provision that is being made in this Pension Order, in the circumstances, as being generous. When I think of the provision that is made in other services—Senator Cummins referred to this a few moments ago— I cannot help thinking that the provisions are generous. Take the case of a national teacher, for instance. If he is found to be inefficient, perhaps through no fault of his own—maybe, because he fails to please the powers that be as to his methods, or because he has not kept in touch with the times, or was unable to acquire the new knowledge required from him—his services are dispensed with, and if he happens to be removed from his position before reaching the age of 50, he gets no pension or gratuity whatsoever. If he has reached the age of 50, and if it is proved that the inefficiency has not arisen through his own fault, then he may get a pension equal to one-eightieth of his salary for each year of service. That is much less than is given in this case. If, on the other hand, it is proved that his incompetency is due to his own wilful action or neglect, then he may get no pension, even though he may have reached the age of 50. Accordingly, when it is understood that in this case the Minister will only remove a man when inefficiency or incompetency is proved, I think the treatment of these people is generous in comparison with other services.
There is another remark I should like to make—it was referred to, I think, by one of the previous speakers—and that is the question of political interference or political influence. I, personally, should like to see the position brought about that a Minister for Justice, or whoever is in control of the Guards, would not listen to, or entertain, any representations whatsoever from a public representative, whether he be a T.D., a Senator, or anybody else, in regard to the administration of the Gárda force. If a T.D. or a Senator has any representations to make in that regard, there is a place to make them, and that is either in this House or in the Dáil, and it is only there that they should be made. Now, there is a belief, whether it is justifiable or not, that if you have a good pull with the Minister you can get transferred to a nicer district or, perhaps, be left in the district where you are and not be transferred. The fact that that belief is there does a good deal, in my opinion, to undermine the confidence of the members of the Gárda Síochána that everybody is going to get a fair crack of the whip.
If a man feels that if you are able to use influence and able to get people to speak for you or pull wires for you on your behalf, then you have a better chance than the man who is not able to do that, then the man who is not able to do that, or who would not stoop to do it, feels that there is no use in his being efficient or in his doing his work energetically and satisfactorily, if some other man, who is not doing his work satisfactorily, is going to get on as well as or even better than he, just because he can pull wires that the other man cannot. As I say, I should like to have some arrangement like what the Civil Service Commission has, to deal with such things, and that representations of the kind should not be entertained by any Minister on behalf of any member of the Gárda Síochána. If that were done you would have better, more satisfactory, and more efficient service in the Gárda.
Ba mhaith lioin cúpla focail a rá. I regret that I was late in coming here. I was attending a board meeting and, therefore, could not be here in time, but since coming in here I have heard some remarks that I thought were rather curious. The members of the Gárda Síochána, presumably, are human beings like the rest of us, and you do not find perfection in any section of the community. As I understand this order, it would appear that there may be some weakness in connection with a few individuals here and there, and the purpose of this order is to deal with such individuals. That is my understanding of the order before us.
A lot of material has been referred to. I do not know whether Senator O'Connell has anything in his mind about some political intrigues operating in the Gárda Síochána. I do not know whether he has or not. He may have or he may not have, but this matter as I see it is meant to deal with some people who may have weaknesses in some direction or other and to deal only with them. Every one of us is possibly subject to some weakness and if weaknesses were allowed to continue they might have a disastrous effect upon others. I do not see the need for all the argument here. The order is dealing with a specific position and only with that position. There seems to be some little weaknesses and the order is meant to deal with those weaknesses and solely with those weaknesses.
The Minister's statement and the discussion have made it plain that what really is being done under this order is to provide machinery, very necessary machinery, for the compulsory retirement of officers and others in the Civic Guards who, for reasons other than ill-health, have become unsuitable for their position. I think when it is all boiled down, that is that, and it is a simple thing. It was really very unfortunate the circumstances in which the Government, I may say, was forced to take action. I think that is what made the whole bad impression. We saw a member of the Opposition raising the matter and the Minister's reply. That set all tongues wagging. It was very unfortunate because the impression it made was that there was something seriously wrong in the Civic Guards. That is a particularly unfortunate impression to go forth at this time when we are so dependent upon the loyalty and efficiency of the Civic Guards. I am glad the discussion has made it plain that there is nothing to be feared in this respect. Indeed, if there was to be any vote of censure on anybody I think it is on the Government. If the cases that have caused this order to be made were of some long existence—and they must have been—then the Government should not have had to be urged on to take action by the Opposition. It was their immediate responsibility and the still more immediate responsibility of the higher officers of the Guards to whom the discipline of the force is entrusted. The discipline of the force at this crisis in our history is of more than ordinary importance. The Gárda Síochána have justified themselves. We had for many years in Galway, under a particularly efficient Gárda officer, an example of how they may become a part of the people, and particularly the part they played in the Gaelicisation of the people was wonderful.
I think it is Senator Hayes who has pointed out that with the development of civic ideas, the Civic Guards will have to come more in contact with the people. Already we see that in all our social services we depend largely on their co-operation. That has been forthcoming in a very generous way. They have been recruited from the Gaeltacht and from other parts of the country where young men used to have to go away. They are the people's own Civic Guards, and we would like to take an opportunity of thanking those who have done so much for the peace of the country. I think that we all are very anxious to join in the tributes that have been paid to them, and we hope that such an occasion as this will never arise again, that the superior officers will realise that the whole discipline of the Guards goes from the top to the bottom, and as the top is so will the feet be. We trust they will all move together, and that such action as is about to come into operation under this motion may not have to be repeated next year.
I was very much impressed by a few remarks made by Senator O'Connell. The broadcast calling the Seanad created a kind of stampede of public opinion through the whole country. When I got out on the street the next morning I was asked by everybody I met what was wrong. All kinds of reasons were advanced, many of which were repeated here to-day. There is one question I would like to ask: What has interfered with the discipline of the force in the last couple of years? Apropos of what Senator O'Connell said, there is no doubt that there was interference, whether it was by Senators or Deputies or other influential politicians through the country. There was undue and improper interference, using their position with the Gárda. I can give a specific case to the Senator privately where a Guard was removed because of the strict administration on his part of justice, law and order because of the interference of people in high authority. Do you think that helped the independence, the morale and the discipline of the police force? If you can cite a specific case in one particular area, others can be found elsewhere.
Is it any wonder then that to-day and for the last couple of days, because of the impetuosity in calling the Seanad by wire and wireless, everybody was asking: what is the cause of it, what is wrong, what is rotten in the State of Denmark, what secrets have been disclosed, with what Government or with what belligerent has there been co-operation, what secrets have been disclosed? Do you think such an atmosphere is helping the protection of the people? Do you think that is helping the man on the street who has something of a private nature which, in the interest of law and order and for the protection of the people, should be kept secret, who wants to disclose that secret to the Gárda? Do you think he feels he has confidence in the force? I say the point raised by Senator O'Connell is of pre-eminent importance. If there is any interference, political or otherwise, it destroys the independence and discipline of the whole force.
Some of us will leave Dublin in the morning and travel back to our destination. I suppose the citizens have a perfect right to intercept us and ask us, their representatives, what has happened. They may say: "You are being paid an allowance by the people. You have been called to Dublin for a purpose. Is it fair for us to ask what was the reason of the whole thing? Are the beliefs unfounded, that the cause was so and so? You ought to be able to tell us and we feel it our duty to ask." I really do not know what to answer. In 20 minutes' time I may be asked to register a vote. On what? I am told by the Minister that the cause is incompetence. Under what head? There is a number of men occupying unique positions as chief superintendent over an area and there is a series of subordinate officers responsible to them down along through the Local Security Force and the Local Defence Force. These people are being given guns and all the rest of it. We are told all that. We are told 12 have got to go. For what?
We have not been told what are the various categories of crimes, or whether there was indiscipline or otherwise. Have we been told that here to-day? Has there been any real clarification? From what date anterior to the introduction of the motion in the other House were those serious delinquencies happening in such an important force? Was it drunkenness? Was it dishonesty? Was it some other criminal act? Was it the disclosure of secrets? Was it dereliction of duty? What am I to answer when people say to me: "Do you tell me seriously that you went to a meeting of the Seanad and were a party in helping the Minister to get this order so as to ensure that there would be greater discipline and coordination, but you do not know what is the reason for it? Those 12 men have held unique positions over 19 years, and have been paid high salaries by this State, but you cannot tell us anything beyond that they were incompetent. How long were they incompetent?" We do not want to know the names of the men or to what counties they belong, but I think we should at least know the nature of the specific charges against them. The public mind is an extraordinary machine.
You will all admit, those of you who are my age, that in the old days there was splendid discipline in the R.I.C. You could go with confidence to one of those men, and, like making a confession, you could tell him the secrets of your heart if it was in the interests of justice. That was there, and was gradually being developed under the present system, but this thing will not help it. I think the Minister should set out with clarity and in more detail the specific reasons why we were called together to give the Government those powers in order to create better discipline, better administration, and get better service from this force in the interest of law and order.
I think the worst day's work we could do here to-day is to assign to political reasons or political pull the present position which we are trying to rectify. We are called here by the Minister and the Government to give the Minister power to get rid of some people, people who in the past may have served this country well, people who, when they were appointed to the different positions, were quite capable of filling those positions. But we all know what human nature is; we know the pitfalls. In every walk of life we have seen people placed in positions which, at the start, they were quite capable of filling, but for one reason or another they slackened and had to be removed, or in some cases they removed themselves before any action was taken. That is the reason I say that if we here, through the statements made by Senators, give the impression either to the Gárda or to the people outside that this position is brought about by political influence or political pull being used in regard to promotion or otherwise, then I think we are doing a very bad day's work.
The position is brought about not by that, but by the pitfalls into which those men fell. There is one suggestion I want to make to the Minister in that regard, and that is the only reason why I rose to speak at all. I would ask the Minister, if it is possible, to have a careful investigation of each and every one of those cases, to find out and examine the causes which brought about those men's downfall, as it certainly is a downfall to have to be removed from such a noble service. The information collected during that investigation would be very useful in the training at the Depot. It would ensure that, in future, before those young men are sent out into the State to carry out their duties, they would be trained and educated to guard against the pitfalls into which, unfortunately, the men whom we are at present discussing have fallen.
On a point of personal explanation, I should like to make clear that I never suggested that the present trouble was due in any way to political influence or political pull. My statement was one of general application to the whole force.
I think I will start off by repeating what I said before—that in this order we are asking for powers less drastic than the Commissioner has already. I am repeating that because it has been lost sight of. Already, a Gárda could be dismissed without any pension at all, with the consent of the Minister. We are asking here for power to do something less. Some Senators think that if those men are incompetent they should be dismissed without any consideration. I think I dealt with that in my opening statement. I said that in the case of the Guards there is something in the nature of a deferred payment, because a certain portion of their pay is set aside for pension purposes. I do not know what the exact figure is, but I think it is something like 2½ per cent. This actually is a deferred payment.
Senator MacDermot is anxious to know whether those men were tested before they were appointed, and all the rest of it. I cannot say what test they got, but I do know that in most cases they have been a long time in their particular posts. They were not promoted by this Government; they have been there a long time. They gave good service, but I do not suppose they were the very best possible men that could have been got. In the circumstances, they probably were, but if there had been a cadet system or something like that it might have been possible to get better men. I do not know about that. They were taken very largely, I think, because of their services during the Anglo-Irish trouble. I believe that was the reason why most of those men were appointed, and they showed particular qualifications which it was believed would fit them for their rank. Most of them were entirely suitable, but unfortunately some of them, over quite a long period, have not been suitable. For that, blame has to be attached to the Government, and we have got to take it, but it goes back to the last Government in some cases. I do not want to make any point about that, but some of them have been unsatisfactory as long as that.
I should like to have one matter made clear and that is the point referred to by Senator Mrs. Concannon. It certainly was unfortunate that it should appear as if the Government were forced by the Opposition to do this. It is very hard to get over that, because undoubtedly it was not until it was mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy in the Dáil that it became known that this problem was there at all. I suppose I had better say what happened, in order to clear up that point. I had been considering this matter for quite a long time. I have been Minister for Justice practically since the emergency started, and I discovered at a rather early stage that there were certain senior officers who were unsuited for their positions. There was more expected of them in the crisis in which we now find ourselves than there ordinarily would be. Some of them were entirely unfit to fill the high office they occupy, and I was considering means of dealing with that problem.
Deputy Mulcahy came to me with a specific complaint about one particular officer. That point about interference by public representatives was raised in the Dáil about a year ago—I think it was by Deputy Cosgrave—and I said I would always be prepared, as I thought it was my duty, to listen to any representations which Deputies have to make about the Gárdaí. If they have any genuine complaints I think that public representatives are entitled to come to the Minister and say that in their opinion things are not as they ought to be in their areas. What I would do would be to communicate that to the Commissioner. Deputy Mulcahy came to me about one particular officer. Several Deputies and Senators have come to me from time to time, and my invariable practice has been to inform the Commissioner that I have heard such a complaint about a particular Gárda officer or member of the Gárda. He then investigated the thing and saw there was nothing in it. That has always been my practice. I think Senator O'Connell would agree with that.
I was not referring to complaints, but to the asking of favours.
I agree about the other thing, that that should not be done. It is done. People come to me and I refer them to the Commissioner, and say it is his function. Any Senator who has listened to me and turned up a reply I sent him will find that is so. That has been my invariable practice. Deputy Mulcahy came about this particular officer, and said there was a very serious complaint in a letter from a responsible person. I told him that I was sorry to have to say that I believed that was correct. He asked if I intended to do anything about it, and I said I did. Even if one chief superintendent were unfit for the position, it would not do at the present time. The Deputy told me then that he intended to put down a motion to refer back my Estimate, but that he would not do it if I thought it would be awkward. I said that, on the contrary, it would help, but now it has been given the appearance that he was driving me.
I am afraid that if I attempted to deal with this matter I may have been charged with political victimisation, trying to get after people who were opposed to my Party in the past. Deputy Mulcahy said he would raise this matter in the Dáil and I replied that that would indicate there was no such thing as political background to it, that it was purely and solely in the interests of the Gárda. Unless I could have got support from the main Opposition I am afraid I would have been reluctant to take the matter up and might have been guilty even of dereliction of duty by not proceeding in the matter. Still, it might not be dereliction of duty as I would have to weigh up whether it might do more harm than good on account of the possible charges of political victimisation. Deputy Mulcahy has done a very useful public service by making it clear that this matter required attention in the interests of the Guards themselves. To that extent, I may have been driven.
Regarding this urgent meeting of the Seanad. I wish to explain that I inquired when the Seanad was likely to meet and was informed that it was not likely to meet for a fortnight. I said I had been urged by members of the Dáil to finish this matter as quickly as possible, as rumours would be spreading. Unfortunately, I must say I am to blame for the manner in which the Seanad was summoned. I did not realise at the time that it would cause any excitement. I am sorry if it has— I did not know it would be broadcast. I suppose the broadcast was given merely as a news item.
On the question of details of charges, it is not possible to give cases as a man may simply have deteriorated and become incompetent in the course of time. Senator Douglas gave an illustration of that on which, I think, I could not improve. In a number of cases it will not be possible to form definite charges, but in respect of officers the Government will require to be satisfied and in the case of the men. I will require to be satisfied. It is a disciplined force and incompetency is nearly always a matter of opinion and I will have to depend a lot on the Commissioner, who makes the complaint. I have no intention of acting other than on the certificate of the Commissioner—I cannot—and the full responsibility for the control of the Guards is placed on him. If he is not satisfied that a man is fit for his position, it will take a lot to convince me that he is. I am sure he will have a good case without giving details, days and dates. If he were in a position to prove the case before a court it would be a different matter, as the man could be dismissed. These men were picked—and I believe rightly—because of the way they acted in the Anglo-Irish struggle. They have been very successful senior Gárda officers, and for a number of years some of them were very efficient, but in the course of time a number have become lax. In these times anything like that in the high ranks of the Gárda, the Army or the Civil Service could not be tolerated.
If an affected officer volunteers to retire when he feels he will be compulsorily retired, will he get an opportunity to send in his resignation?
That is an awkward point which we have not covered. If a man retires voluntarily, no provision is made. Some of them who were quite competent might want to retire, and we would not be prepared to let them. This is a sort of half-way house between retirement and dismissal. It is a form of punishment. I am afraid we cannot change it, and the Senator can realise the difficulty. There may be others who would wish to retire, and we would have to make it of general application, and I do not see how that can be done.
Could they retire by permission?
Not under this order. If it is desired to have another order, that might be possible, but certainly not under this order. A man must be retired compulsorily under this order if he is to get a pension. If he were to be dismissed, he would not.
Question put, and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 5 p.m.sine die.