Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1924

Vol. 7 No. 19

DUBLIN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL, 1924, and EAST LEINSTER ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL, 1924. - DUBLIN POLICE BILL, 1924.—SECOND STAGE.

This Bill purports to make provision for the future appointments of officers of the Metropolitan Police. The appointments of Chief Commissioners and Assistant-Commissioners were formerly made under the Dublin Metropolitan Police Act of 1836, an Act which empowered the Lord Lieutenant to appoint two persons for the police district of the Dublin metropolis to act as justices of the peace so far only as related to the preservation of peace, the prevention of crime, the arrest of offenders, and the carrying into execution of the purposes of that Act. Subsequent Acts applied the term of "Commissioner of Police" to designate the holders of the office established by the Act of 1836. The offices were subsequently divided into those of Chief Commissioner and Assistant-Commissioner. It accordingly becomes necessary to make provision for appointments to these offices, and the Bill proposes to vest in the Executive Council power to make any such appointments. It proposes that in future the Commissioner shall be styled and known just as in the case of the Commissioner for the Gárda Síochána.

The general control and direction of the Dublin Metropolitan Police will be vested in the Commissioner, who will be assisted by the Assistant-Commissioner, who will exercise such functions as the Commissioner may, subject to regulations, assign to him. In the absence of the Commissioner, or during a vacancy in the office of Commissioner, the Minister for Justice will be empowered to authorise the Assistant-Commissioner to perform all or any of the duties of the Commissioner. The Bill proposes to vest in the Minister for Justice, with the consent of the Executive Council, the power to make regulations relative to the internal management of the force. Formerly the power to make such regulations was vested in the Chief Commissioner, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant. In the case of the Gárda Síochána, such powers are vested in the Minister for Justice, with the consent of the Executive Council, and it is proposed that the practice in this matter should be the same for each force. The oaths of office prescribed by the Act of 1836 are included for repeal, and it is proposed to substitute therefor a declaration in terms similar to that adopted for the Gárda Síochána.

A provision is included in the Bill to enable the Minister for Justice to authorise the employment of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police outside the Dublin Metropolitan Police District. The existing statutes confer on all members of the force the same powers in the counties of Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare and Meath, as in the Dublin Metropolitan Police District. As emergencies may arise which might render necessary the temporary employment of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police outside these counties, it is desirable that statutory authority should exist to enable this course to be taken.

The reinstatement of ex-members of the force who resigned or were dismissed for political reasons prior to the 11th July, 1921, was authorised by the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923, on the terms that the previous service and the period of absence should be reckoned for purposes of pension and of increment of pay. In order that those terms might be awarded the Act required that reinstatement should take place before the 8th November, 1923. A few cases have come to light of ex-members who retired or were dismissed for political reasons, and were not reinstated before the date mentioned, as they were on that date serving in the National Forces. A section is included to cover these cases.

The development of the office of Accounting Officer has rendered unnecessary the continuance of the statutory office of Accountant, which it is accordingly proposed to abolish. All lands, buildings, fixtures, fittings, furniture, and chattels now vested in the Accountant will be transferred to the Commissioners of Public Works. All other property (i.e., moneys, funds, debts, etc.) vested in the Accountant it is proposed to transfer to the Accounting Officer for the Dublin Metropolitan Police Vote. The only funds affected are two accounts in the Bank of Ireland—(1) An account used for the purpose of paying pensions, and fed by drawing on the Vote Account with the Paymaster-General, which, of course, can only be operated on by the Accounting Officer and the other members of the panel nominated for that purpose by the Ministry of Finance. (2) A "Forfeited and Unclaimed Monies Account." These two accounts are, in fact, at present operated on by the Accounting Officer, and the proposal in the Bill is merely intended to give statutory authority to existing practice. A section is included to authorise the holding of sworn inquiries to examine on oath into the truth of charges or complaints of neglect or violation of duty preferred against members of the force. The section is in terms similar to one included in the Gárda Síochána Act.

There are two or three points I want to raise on the Second Reading. The first is a very small matter, just to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there has been an Act passed which alters the title of the Minister for Home Affairs. His title in the Bill that he is now giving second reading to is Minister for Home Affairs, whereas as a matter of fact a new Act altered that title. A much more important matter is raised by section 8, sub-paragraph (b): "A Minister may make regulations subject to the approval of the Executive Council in relation to the promotion, reduction, degradation, dismissal and punishment of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police." I suggest to the Minister that he is not entitled to, and ought not be given power, to punish in any way which he may make regulations about, for that might well mean imprisonment, or any sentence which the ordinary criminal courts are empowered to make. If we are to give the Minister power to make regulations subject only to the approval of the Executive Council regarding the punishment of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police it is putting the Minister, subject only to the Executive Council, in the position of a criminal court. That certainly should not be agreed to. It is a violation of what was intended to be a Constitution; unless we are prepared to say that this Bill is an amendment of the Constitution, we may find ourselves in a difficulty, inasmuch as the Minister is allowed the powers of a court and of a judge, subject only to the Executive Council. I think probably it is only necessary to call the attention of the Minister to this, and that he will make it quite clear by an alteration of the section that he is not taking upon himself, or that he is not asking to be granted these powers. I want to raise again a question I raised on another Bill with regard to the value of these declarations or oaths. To begin with, I think they are of very little value from a disciplinary point of view, and I doubt whether any person who wanted to evade the obligation he entered into by making this declaration might not find it quite easy to do so. The promise that a member is asked to make, that he will not join, or subscribe to, or belong to any political society or to any secret society whatsoever, is a kind of promise that I think we ought not to put into legislation. It would be quite enough, and much more effective in my opinion, for the Commissioner to make regulations in which he could define what he meant by a political society, a thing which you cannot do in a declaration of this kind. A man signs this declaration, and then the question arises as to whether he should join, let us say, the Gaelic Athletic Association, or the A.O.H. Friendly Society, and when asked the question are these political societies he would say: "By no means; one is an athletic association and the other is a friendly society." But we know as a matter of common knowledge that both of them have been in the past active political agents or societies.

It would be quite in conformity with such a declaration for people to join societies under the guise of friendly societies, athletic associations or gymnasiums, whose primary and obvious purpose was athletics or friendly or social activities of one kind or another, and yet be fully aware that the chief activities of societies of that kind were political; and I say that a declaration of this kind is not going to prevent membership of either political associations or membership of secret societies. Ten men can come together and say: "We will form ourselves into the Blue Funk Club," and it may mean nothing or it may mean anything. You could not put in a legislative measure as a declaration of this kind a form of words which could not be easily evaded by any person who wanted to evade them; and I suggest to the Minister that he is not serving the case that he wants to serve by asking persons joining a police force or any other State organisation of the kind, to bind themselves in this manner. Unfortunately most people use the term "political" in the narrowest sense, but I think we ought not to do so. I think we ought to set an example of a different kind; we ought not to assume that a political society is a society which only has to do with putting one Government into office, or keeping another Government out of office. A political society may have for its purpose the good government of a locality, may have as its object good government, whether in the form of legislation or administration, or even might have as its object education in the principles of government. And a political society might be a most admirable organisation for a policeman to belong to. It depends upon the interpretation of the word "political." And I suggest to the Minister that it is not wise to put this form of words into a declaration, if a declaration is desirable at all.

Now, I should like to have from the Minister, if he can give it, some justification for continuing the practice of having two police forces. I have no very definite opinions on the subject, and I am open to any argument. But I fail to see the necessity, in the present circumstances, of having the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Gárda Síochána, which may be interchangeable, as they appear to be by the provisions of this Bill, and both of which are to be centralised. If you could argue that the Dublin Metropolitan Police was a local force in its inception and in its membership and locally governed and managed, then you might make a very good case in favour of a separate force. But in this case, where you have the members drawn from all parts of the country, trained in the same manner as the Gárda Síochána are, governed by the Executive or by an Executive officer, and not by a local authority, where the force is merely a counterpart of the larger force, in these circumstances it sems to me that a case ought to be made for having the second force. I do not know whether there will be any economy. I am not urging it on that ground. But I do urge that there should be some consideration as to the necessity for having the second force more or less parallel with the first and larger force and yet under different administration and both subject to the same Minister. It seems to me that a case has to be made why the continuation of the old practice should be embodied in this Bill, which is not a temporary Bill, not a temporary measure at all. As I say, I am not urging that the force should be abolished. I do not know but that there may be good arguments in favour of maintaining a separate force. But I have not yet heard them; and as far as I can understand the position, I think that there is a strong argument in favour of a single force so long as they are to be centrally directed. And therefore, until we are in the position, as I hope we shall be before many years are over, of localising the force, I submit that we ought to be convinced by argument that a separate force is necessary.

One of the arguments advanced by Deputy Johnson was that we should begin to localise the police force. But, if Deputy Johnson desires to see the whole police force localised, he should not recommend the sweeping away of the one local police force that exists, but he should rather desire to preserve it. The Dublin Metropolitan Police Force is local in name, and local also in its functions. It may be in an emergency transferred to Meath, Kildare or Wicklow, but the occasions on which it has been transferred, except for the regulation of race meetings, have been singularly few.

With regard to Deputy Johnson's remarks as to the declaration, I agree with him that the formula in the Bill, which is the same as that in the Gárda Síochána Bill, is not an absolutely perfect watertight declaration. If people wish to evade it, they will be able to evade it, just as they can evade any form of words that the mind of man could imagine. It passes the wit of man to draw up a formula that a man who is guilty of bad faith, who takes the declaration as merely a matter of form, will not be able to evade, and to reason with his conscience to evade. But, in these matters, I think we are entitled to assume a certain amount of goodwill and a certain amount of good faith, and we are entitled to assume that the average man, confronted with an obligation of this kind, will either say that he will not take it, or else that he will take it in the spirit in which it is intended. And as to the general policy of such a declaration, I think that it is emphatically sound. A policeman, who is a servant of the State with regard to the enforcement of the law, should, as far as possible, free himself from all external associations whatever. He cannot free himself from those of relationship, but that difficulty is usually avoided by transferring him to some district in which his family do not reside. But all other relations—political, economic, trades union, if you like, tend to bias him, or tend, at any rate, to make people think that he may be biassed, and therefore they are undesirable. I think the reason at the back of this declaration is a sound one, though I agree that the words are not perfect; and if Deputy Johnson would devise a better formula, I should be delighted to fall in with him. Failing a better formula, I think we would be wise to accept this one.

I rose, however, for the sake of getting a little more light from the Minister on the position and status of the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner. For instance, up to now I believe, though I do not know, these positions were pensionable offices. Do they continue to be pensionable offices under this Bill? Both the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner are liable to be removed under this Bill. That may be a wise discretion to vest in the Minister and the Executive Council, but if they are removed, do they forfeit their rights to pension?

It seems desirable on the whole that men holding high and important positions, exercising responsible functions in the State, should have something of the same nature of security as judges. I am not suggesting that, like judges, they should be immune from criticism, and that their salaries should not be placed on the Estimates, but that they should have some reasonable security, that while they do their duty they will not be liable to be sent about their business at a moment's notice. I hope the Minister will enlighten us. I should like to know why the name of the present Chief Commissioner appears in the Bill, while the name of the Assistant Commissioner does not. Is it intended to differentiate between the two, or is the reason that the Assistant Commissioner enjoys certain rights under the Treaty that the present Commissioner does not, that therefore he is secure in his position, while the Chief Commissioner is not, or is it the intention of the Government to make a change in the position of Assistant Commissioner?

Might I answer that now. The only reason is that the present Chief Commissioner, or Commissioner as he will be when the Bill is law, was not appointed validly in the manner prescribed by the existing legislation, and for the thorough validation of the appointment it is necessary to insert it in the Bill.

I take it that the invalidity was that he should have been appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, but there was no Lord Lieutenant. Therefore, it is not the intention to make a change in status. The only reason the name appears is to validate previous action, and that, I think, in the main covers my objection. I think it would be wise, as I have thought in more than one instance before, that somebody somewhere, either in the Executive Council or elsewhere in the Government, should read the Bills so that you would not have on the outside "introduced by the Minister for Justice," and on the inside "the expression Minister means Minister for Home Affairs." A little conformity in these things is wise, but that is a detail.

Taking the first point first, a change will be necessary in Section 1 with regard to the title of Minister for Home Affairs. The fact is that up till yesterday I was Minister for Home Affairs.

Can the Minister say why the Bill was introduced by the Minister for Justice?

That is an intelligent anticipation on the part of the Clerk of the Dáil. The Ministries and Secretaries Bill came into effective operation yesterday, or the day before yesterday. Deputy Johnson touched on Section 8, sub-section (b). The section empowers the Minister, subject to the approval of the Executive Council, to make regulations inter alia for the promotion, retirement, degradation, dismissal and punishment of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. There is an identical section in the Gárda Síochána Bill which has passed through this Dáil and which is now in the Seanad. The Deputy queried whether that would not have the effect of empowering me to prescribe imprisonment as a punishment under the regulation. That, of course, would be to constitute myself a court. It would be contrary to the Constitution.

The point is that according to a recent judgement any amendment to the law or any new law may be taken to be an amendment to the Constitution.

Rather drastic.

Does the Deputy suggest that any new regulation may be equally taken?

No. If a Minister makes a regulation under this Act, and if the judgment of the courts is consistent, nobody can plead that it is a violation of the Constitution, because then itself becomes a Constitutional Amendment Act.

The form of declaration prescribed by the Bill is just the best that we could devise. If the Deputy will put down amendments in the Committee Stage, I will guarantee to give them every consideration. The alternative is to have none. I am not prepared to take it that men should be enrolled in a disciplined organisation like the police with no undertaking to the State which means to their fellow - citizens simply that it is a casual employer and employee relationship with absolute freedom on both sides, and no particular undertaking beyond that they will direct the traffic and try to put down crime. The Deputy suggests that they should have just the same freedom as anyone else to indulge in partisan politics, and so on.

The Minister is misrepresenting me. I said the object would be achieved by regulations rather than by asking men to make a declaration.

It is a matter of opinion largely. If the Deputy thinks that he would like to convince the Dáil on the matter he can put down his amendment on the Committee Stage.

Personally, I agree with Deputy Cooper that the declaration can be evaded by anyone who wants to do it. I query whether it is a case for its elimination or whether it is right that people entering an organisation in the State service like the police force or an army should enter it without some formal declaration of this kind; if not in these actual words I am prepared to consider alternative words. But I do believe there should be some solemn, formal declaration to mark off service of this kind in a disciplined State force from the ordinary casual employer-employee relationship that exists outside.

Deputy Cooper questioned whether the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner are pensionable. They are, of course, pensionable officers and their rights in that respect are not in any way altered by the provisions of this Bill. He pointed out that they were removable and asked whether in the event of their removal their pensions would be payable. They are removable in the same sense and for the same reason as other officers of their force. It is only in case of very grave misconduct that a pensionable officer is so removed that his pension rights would be forfeited thereby. I think that as between that position and the alternative of saying that under no circumstances could the officer be removed, there is a good deal to be said in favour of just leaving the thing alone, because public opinion would, I think, endorse the position that whereas an offence should be very grave to warrant dismissal and loss of pension, public opinion would equally object to the position that particular men should be so placed that no matter what their offence, or no matter how inconsistent the offence with the responsibilities of their office and the implications of their tenure of that office, they should not forfeit their pension—in other words, that they could indulge in any activities however treasonable, however destructive of stability, and still having done that, be absolutely entitled, without possibility of question, to a pension from the State. There are two sides of the picture. My own view would be that the existing position is the right one. Subject to representations Deputy Johnson may have to make on particular points in Committee Stage I have, I think, covered the ground and I ask the Dáil to give the Bill a Second Reading.

The Minister has not touched upon the question as to the necessity for having a separate force.

I am sorry I overlooked it. It is rather an important question. The Deputy invited me to make a case for the existence of two forces. I should not really be asked to do that, because the two forces exist, and we simply recognise that fact now. The Deputy should rather make a case for immediate unification, and I think it would not be easy to do that just at the moment. The tendency of the Bill, as the Deputy will note, is towards ultimate unification. Personally, from administrative experience, I would favour ultimate unification without being prepared to put forward proposals to that effect here and now. Unification would be administratively much more convenient. I believe that a better service, a more efficient service, could be given in that way to the citizens. But difficulties exist at the moment that will tend to disappear, and I would hope and expect that someone occupying my position in the future, and perhaps in the rather near future, would introduce a Bill for the unification of these forces.

Question—"That the Bill be read a second time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday.
Barr
Roinn