Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Jul 1933

Vol. 49 No. 3

Supplementary and Additional Estimates. - Gárda Siochána (Pensions) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

I move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill to provide pensions for commissioners of the Gárda Síochána in circumstances not provided for hitherto. Pensions for members of the Gárda Síochána, including the commissioner, are regulated at present by a pensions order made in October, 1925, by the Minister for Justice with sanction of the Minister for Finance under statutory powers which enabled these Ministers to make such order. The terms of that order are to provide for the case of a commissioner who retires owing to age or because he has become incapacitated for the performance of his duties, in which case he would be eligible for pension. No provision, as Deputies will see, was made in that order for the case of a commissioner who is removed for misconduct, and it is not suggested in this Bill that such provision should be made. I think it will be agreed that there is no need to make such provision as it is the invariable rule of the public service that dismissal for misconduct deprives the offender of any claim to pension. It would be contrary to the regulations of the Civil Service. No provision, however, was made in the order for the case of a commissioner who is removed on grounds of public policy, without being charged with misconduct or for incapacity. It is to meet such a situation that this Bill is being introduced.

The sense of the Bill is that when a commissioner is removed for reasons other than incapacity or misconduct, a certificate is issued by the President of the Executive Council to that effect and, thereupon, the Minister for Finance is enabled to grant such commissioner a life-pension on the terms set out in the Bill. As regards these terms, I may perhaps explain that the ordinary pension of a police officer is ascertained by taking a fraction of his salary, the denominator of the fraction being the figure 60 and the numerator being the number of years of his completed service. If, however, his completed service is more than 21 years then every year over 20 years counts as two, so that 22 years' service counts as 24, 23 years' service as 26, and so on. In the ordinary course, therefore, a police officer with 22 years' service would have for a pension twenty-four sixtieths of his salary at date of retirement. In the case of a commissioner who fails to be pensioned under this Bill we have provided, however, by way of additional compensation, that a certain number of years may be added to his actual service for the purpose of calculating a pension. The precise provisions in that respect will be seen in sub-section (3) of Section 1. Then, at the end of the Bill, there are certain provisions and safeguards to ensure that pensions may not be obtained by fraud and that they may be forfeited or reduced in certain events, and so on. These are the usual provisions which are provided, I think, under the Pensions Act of 1924.

I take it that this is the Bill which the President, some time ago, promised to introduce here; in other words, that it is a Bill intended to provide a pension for the Commissioner of the Gárda, General O'Duffy, who was removed for reasons other than incapacity or misconduct.

It provides for other commissioners also.

Yes, but I take it that it would be extraordinary if such a thing should happen again. I should like to know from the Minister what pension will the late Commissioner actually receive under this Bill.

The maximum that he can receive would be £520. The actual number of completed years' service in the case of the former Commissioner was ten. The Bill authorises the addition of 12 more years as a maximum, making a total, if the maximum is given, of 22, and as the two years over 20 count double, as I have already explained, the result would be that the Commissioner would be entitled to twenty-four sixtieths of his salary by way of pension. Therefore, on the salary he had, the maximum which can be granted to him under this Bill would be £520 per annum.

Is that what he will receive?

That is the maximum to which he would be entitled.

Has it been decided what will be allowed to him?

It must be remembered that this provides for pensions in the future also.

When they are removed for incapacity or misconduct?

Oh, no! not misconduct.

Well, when they are removed for reasons other than incapacity or misconduct?

I might remind the Deputy that this matter was brought to the notice of the previous Government, and that it is not merely because of this case that this situation has cropped up.

I think the Minister might let us know if there are any precedents for paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1, where it says that, "Where the said number of completed years amounts to or exceeds ten, the addition of such number of years not exceeding 12, as the Minister for Finance shall direct." I cannot call to mind any precedent whereby a discretion of that kind is left in the hands of a Minister. It would seem that if we are going to introduce pension proposals here we ought to make statutory provision for what the pensioned person would be entitled to and to withdraw from the hands of any Minister any discretion of this kind. As it stands, it means that it devolves, by implication, on the Minister to express approval or disapproval of the person concerned, and we all know what that means. We know that if the Government which may succeed Fianna Fáil deemed it expedient to remove a commissioner and that their followers had a strong bias against the commissioner who was about to be removed, heavy pressure would be brought to bear on the Minister for Finance to be as niggardly as possible with regard to the pension and to withhold as many years from his service as he possibly could. The Minister can do that under that paragraph. We all know of the case of General O'Duffy, who was removed by the Government for reasons other than misconduct or incapacity, and we are all aware that certain persons, who sometimes say they are supporting the Government and at other times describe Mr. de Valera as an honest republican, and again as a trafficker in virtue and as a person who is seducing the republic, have made scurrilous attacks on General O'Duffy and have threatened the Government with dire results for doing what they are doing. I think it is undesirable to leave the things provided in that paragraph in the hands of a Minister and I think it would be advisable, instead of that paragraph, that there should be an addition of such number of years as would bring the figure to 22 years for the purpose of calculating the figure. I should be glad to hear that the Minister for Justice, on the Committee Stage, would be prepared to accept an amendment removing that matter from the discretion of any individual Minister and putting in a paragraph which would place a statutory duty on the Minister for Finance to pay a pension on the basis of 22 years' service when there were ten or more years actually served.

I do not know if I can get an exact precedent. As far as I know, this was based by the Department of Finance on the terms under which the forces were disbanded in the year 1921-22 and where men resigned from the forces for political reasons during the Anglo-Irish trouble. I understand that Finance has always exercised a discretion as to adding a certain number of years. I know it had been added on from time to time in certain cases. Where people retired a certain number of years had been added but I do not think there has been any hard and fast rule governing that.

There is in the National Health Insurance Department.

Yes, but in the ordinary way of a person retiring there is no hard and fast rule. There is a certain discretion. In this Bill, it is provided that where a commissioner has not had ten years' service there is a certain discretion. Take a man who has eight years' service. It is open to give him a pension based on ten years' service or 16 years' service. I could not accept the amendment Deputy Dillon has in mind to move on the Committee Stage. The terms offered in this Bill are reasonable. They are generous and very equitable. I see Deputy Dillon's point. He wants something fixed and definite but I cannot give any undertaking in that direction.

Might I put it to the Minister that this is not a Bill which provides a pension for commissioners of the Gárda Síochána? It is a Bill really that provides a pension for a commissioner of the Gárda only when he has been removed from office for purposes other than incapacity or misconduct. This is only dealing with one case. Therefore this Bill is standing on a special footing. It is not a Bill dealing generally with a commissioner retiring from the Gárda and retiring for ill-health or length of service or anything of that kind. This only applies to a case where the commissioner is retiring without being incapacitated, where the commissioner has done his duty well and has conducted himself well in his office. It is only providing a pension for a case of that kind—where a man is removed not through any fault and where he has done his work well. I think quite a new principle does come in here and you should not be tied down by any precedent. This is not a case where a man is retiring because of anything personal to himself or through the expiration of time or owing to ill-health.

I suggest to the Minister that this is a Bill which is brought in to deal with a special case. It is a Bill the provisions of which may never again in the history of this State be called into use. There may never again be a case in the history of this State where the circumstances will be similar to this. I suggest to the Minister to let it not be said that at any rate a commissioner with a salary of £1,300 a year after 12 years service should be cut down to £520 a year through no fault of the particular individual. We are told now that the Minister is not in a position to state what the salary will be. I admit that is carrying out the letter of the promise made to the House but it is hardly carrying out the spirit of that promise. If the Minister is in a position to tell us what is actually to be done in this particular case the House would be in a better position to judge. The Minister has said he is not in a position to tell us.

I should like to point out to the Deputy that unless the officer had been 50 years of age or had 25 years' service he would not be entitled to any pension on removal or dismissal, that is removal for incapacity or ill-health or anything else. That was the position up to now. What I feel in regard to this Bill is this: there will be a drop from £1,300 to £520, but if we do refer to that case we have to bear in mind that the party concerned was offered two positions in either of which he would be in possession of equal emoluments to those he had in the position from which he was removed. Let us bear that fact in mind. Let us also bear in mind that he is a comparatively young man and you are giving him this pension for doing nothing. He is a young man who is not retiring through incapacity. He is in good health and I might say really he is in the best part of his life. When you take into consideration that that particular party was offered two positions in the Government service at a salary equal to what he had and that he refused these two offers, I do not know what attitude he would take up in regard to it.

I do not know what attitude he would take up in regard to it either, but I am looking at it from the point of view of the principle.

I am also looking at it from the point of view of principle and I think, in all the circumstances, the provisions made there are very reasonable. As the Deputy knows, amongst public bodies there is a rather loose method of adding years. There has not been anything tied or definite in the matter. Public bodies in dealing with servants whom they retire have a certain discretion in adding on a certain number of years, for the purpose of calculating the pension— subject to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. That has been the practice and there has been nothing very strict about it. It has been the usual practice. In cases similar to this case where officials retire in similar circumstances there is this discretion. There is nothing tied down about it or definite. I would not undertake to accept the amendment referred to.

But this case is different. Wherever you have compulsory retirement as a result of policy such as in the case of the National Health Insurance Act or in the Electricity Supply Act which provided compensation, you have a certain number of years to be added. And there was a proviso that where persons felt aggrieved they might go before a tribunal in order to establish that they were entitled to so many years to be added to their terms of service. I want to put it to the Minister that we might as well be frank. I will ask him a question now. Will he not agree with me that in this particular case there has been a certain warmth of feeling displayed by certain elements in the country? It is eminently desirable from the point of view of everybody to remove this whole question from that atmosphere of heat and dispose of it in a calm and just way, and the only way in which that can be done effectively is to compel the Minister responsible for the payment to make a payment in regard to the terms of the statute, and not leave him in a position where he would stand alone against a whole barrage of criticism and where a whole band of people may get at him. That is the only reason why I want to make it mandatory on the Minister.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Thursday, 27th July.
Barr
Roinn