asked the Minister for Justice the strength of the Garda Síochána for the years 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969 as at 30th September; and if, in fact, the strength of the Garda force has been maintained.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Garda Strength.
85.
The approved strength in each of these years was 6,560. Every effort is made to keep actual strength at the currently approved strength but small variations from time to time are unavoidable because of deaths, resignations and so on.
The actual strength of the Garda Síochána on the 30th September for the years mentioned was:—
|
1966 |
6,541. |
|
1967 |
6,543. |
|
1968 |
6,540. |
|
1969 |
6,533. |
The strength at the moment is 6,550 which, as will be seen, is a little higher than the figures given in respect of the preceding four years.
86.
asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that the Representative Body for senior Garda officers has made representations to the Garda Commissioner protesting against the inadequacy of the numbers of gardaí policing country towns and rural areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Communications between the Representative Bodies and the Commissioner in relation to the internal administration of the force are, of necessity, confidential. A restructuring of the force is in progress, following the recommendations of the Conroy Report, and I am only stating the obvious when I say that practically every officer in the force sees need for change except where it affects police strength in his own division or district.
I am wholeheartedly behind the Commissioner and his research and planning unit in their efforts to streamline the force and to police the country economically without loss of efficiency. The reduction in hours of duty from 48 to 42 in each week has given rise to manpower problems which cannot be resolved overnight. Every effort is being made to find solutions.
I think the Minister will agree that they must not be too confidential or else I would not have heard it.
As it happens, the Deputy got the wrong one because what is suggested in his question is not what was in the representations.
I cannot prove to the Minister that I know that what I have given him is correct, but would he not agree that in industry when the working week was reduced there was a big problem to cover the period represented by reduced working hours? The only way this was done was by increasing staff. Would the Minister not agree that the same thing must be done where the gardaí are concerned and that in fact the reduction of four or five hours does mean a reduction in strength which will have to be filled by recruitment, apart entirely from the crime position?
We went into this at some considerable length last week and I do not know if I have anything new to add. However, there are a couple of observations that I should make to the House in the light of what the Deputy says. One of these is that it is assumed that all gardaí prior to 1st April last were absolutely fully employed in the jobs they were then doing. I am not satisfied that they were. Many of them were employed in non-police work which I regard as an unnecessary imposition on the gardaí and on the taxpayers. As a result of that I have made arrangements and pressed the Commissioner to go ahead as best he can with arrangements to get gardaí off non-police duties and get them on to police duties. The effect of this will be that in the reasonably foreseeable future several hundred gardaí, who are doing office work or non-police duties of one kind or another, will become available for ordinary police duties.
In that way, I want to put off—I shall be quite frank with the House about this—an increase in the numbers of the Garda Síochána as long as I can because I am quite satisfied, having given the cost of the average garda as far as pay and pensionability alone is concerned at £31 per week, that the imposition on the taxpayer that would be caused by my increasing, or asking the Government to increase the number of gardaí, would be so appalling that there would be an outcry. I do not say this in any sense of recrimination but I have no doubt that the very Deputies who now complain about the allegedly small number of gardaí will be the first to get up here on the next or some subsequent Budget and complain at the increases in taxation that would be necessitated by an increase in the gardaí.
Of course, that is not true.
Would the Minister not agree that through no fault of his the gardaí have been reduced in strength over the period from 1940 to 1970 by 959?
It was, but we went into details of that figure on the last occasion and we found that most of it was during the Coalition's time.
We admit that a lot of this was done during the time of the inter-Party Government when crime was at a very much lower level than it is at present and when the gun was taken out of politics——
And the population was at a very low level.
(Cavan): The population increased for the first time in 100 years.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister not agree that even the increase in traffic, which was 11 per cent last year, for a number of years past requires additional gardaí and does he not realise that it is ridiculous to suggest that the extra 100 or so gardaí that he will take off indoor duties and put on the beat will no more solve the problem than Deputy Lenehan's suggestion that doing away with the Garda band would solve the problem? Would he not face up to the situation and arrange for a sufficient number of recruits to be trained before the crime position, particularly in this city, gets completely out of hand?
Nothing would suit me better than to go to the Government and ask them to allow me to recruit several hundred more gardaí. If they agreed I should be very happy to go ahead and do it, but I feel my duty to the taxpayer is such that I must try to utilise the existing strength of the gardaí fully before I take that step. I pointed out to Deputies last week, and again today, that the cost in pay and pensionability alone, apart from various overheads, equipment and everything else of each garda we recruit, is £31 per week——
What is the cost of the damage done?
A few hundred gardaí would immediately cost the taxpayer £1 million a year.
I consider the Minister's reply as totally unsatisfactory. Would he not agree, in view of the fact that even in the last few weeks nearly £1 million worth of damage was caused by property being burned in Dublin and that 12 banks were robbed in the last two years——
As far as burnings are concerned if you had——
(Interruptions.)
Deputies
Order! Chair!
In view of the fact that people have not been apprehended for these robberies and, further, that there has been a reduction of 1,000 in the Garda strength in the last 30 years, would the Minister not consider it imperative to recruit sufficient numbers of gardaí?
And he would save money by doing it.
It is the same thing all over again. First of all, Garda strength is not 1,000 less; it is 500 less.
It is 959 on the Minister's own figures.
The Deputy must allow the Minister to answer.
I am quoting from my reply here today. "The actual strength figure, however, was on average 7,026 in 1940 and at the moment it is 6,550". The difference is less than 500.
No, it is not.
If you subtract 6,550 from 7,026——
7,519 to 6,560, the Minister's own figures.
Deputy Enright referred to fires in the city of Dublin in the past few weeks. Several people have been aprehended in respect of many of these matters. The Garda are satisfied that several fires were accidental. However, I want to make it perfectly clear that if you had 20,000 gardaí in the city of Dublin you could not prevent people from setting premises on fire if they so desire.
(Cavan): Arising out of the Minister's reference to taxation——
This question has been discussed at length.
(Cavan): It is a very important question.
We do not want to widen the scope of Question Time.
(Cavan): I have just one more question to put to the Minister. The Minister seems to think that his principal duty is to keep down taxation. Would the Minister not agree that his principal function as Minister for Justice is to see that crime is detected and prevented? In view of the enormous increase in the crime rate over the past 12 months, would he not also agree that an increase in Garda strength is justified?
And the taxpayers will pay for them.
Question No. 87.
87.
asked the Minister for Justice why the approved strength of the Garda Síochána has been reduced from 7,519 in 1940 to 6,560 in 1970; and if it is intended to increase the approved strength.
The figure for approved strength in 1940 was 7,514 and the corresponding figure for 1970 is 6,560. The actual strength figure, however, was on average 7,026 in 1940 and at the moment is 6,550.
The decrease over the years has taken place mainly because of the development of more efficient police methods. I need only mention by way of example the greatly increased use of cars, and motor cycles and the development of more advanced communications systems.
As I said in answer to a Parliamentary question on 23rd July, a fairly significant increase in numbers would be required to have any noticeable effect on the crime situation so that the substantial cost to the taxpayer must be borne in mind when considering an increase. If at any stage it becomes evident that an increase in strength is the only method by which police work can best be performed then, of course, the strength situation will be re-examined.
Does the Minister agree that a substantial increase in strength would have an effect on the crime rate?
A substantial increase in strength would be necessary to have even a marginal effect on the crime rate.
That is not what the Minister said.