Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 26 - 01 November, 1928

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 32—GARDA SIOCHANA.

[1347] Mr. BLYTHE: I beg to move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £482,373 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íochta an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí an Ghárda Síochána (Uimh. 7 de 1925).

That a sum not exceeding £483,373 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Gárda Síchána (No. 7 of 1925).

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney): The total sum which is required for this Estimate this year is £1,588,373. That shows a net increase of £18,508 over last year's Estimate. The main reason for that increase is the automatic increase under Sub-head A due to the payment of annual increments to members of the force. Members enter at a certain rate of wages, and, according as they have years of service, their rate of pay increases. Indeed, the increase under this sub-head would be much larger than what it is were it not that we found it possible this year to diminish the authorised number of sergeants by sixty-two and to substitute guards in their places. That total strength of the Civic Guard force is 7,210. That includes the Guards who are stationed in the Dublin Metropolitan area and who are the successors of the old Dublin Metropolitan Division. It also includes all the Guards who are stationed elsewhere in the Saorstát. The figures are these: there are 1,210 in the Dublin Metropolitan area, and 6,000 Guards in the rest of the country. It might be useful if I compared the present force of the Guards with the force of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the year 1914. On the 1st January, 1914, there were actually serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary, exclusive of the six countries —the figures I am giving are only concerned, of course, with the Saorstát— [1348] 7,859, and in the Dublin Metropolitan police 1,211, making the total number 9,070. It will be seen from those figures that the number of Guards stationed in Dublin is practically the same as the number in the old Dublin Metropolitan Police, but the Guards have much harder work to do because there are a greater number of them on traffic duty than there used to be in the old days. It has not been found possible, together with the adequate performance of police duties in Dublin, to reduce the force further than what the strength of the old Dublin Metropolitan Police was. In the rest of the country, however, a very large reduction has been made. We are estimating for this year to have 1,860 less Guards in the country than there were members of the old Royal Irish Constabulary. In the towns the work of the Guards has grown heavier than was the work of the old Royal Irish Constabulary. In the towns especially the work has increased enormously, and if I exclude Dublin, Cork and Limerick I find that the reduction for the remainder of the country works out at twenty-five per cent. That is to say, for policing the Saorstát outside Dublin, Cork and Limerick twenty-five per cent. less men are required than were deemed necessary in the days in which the country was policed by the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Mr. FRENCH: Did the Minister say “loyal” or “royal”?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: I said “royal.” The number of stations has also been very considerably reduced. Excluding the Dublin Metropolitan area, the figure now is 840 as against 1,129 Royal Irish Constabulary stations on the 1st January, 1914. When we consider the number of the Guards, not only must we take into account what a very substantial reduction in numbers there has been as compared with that other force, but also that very much heavier work is put upon their shoulders.

Mr. ANTHONY: I desire to draw attention to the fact that there are now only four members of the Government Party in the House while a responsible [1349] Minister is speaking. There is only one Minister and only four members of the Government Party present while the Minister is moving a vote which, I may say, has my entire sympathy.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. FRENCH: I think it is only fair to say that there is more than one member from the County Cork present.

Mr. DAVIN: On a point of order, are there twenty members present?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: Is the Deputy asking for a count of the House?

Mr. ANTHONY: I ask for a count of the House.

Mr. AIRD: How many constitute a quorum?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: There are more than twenty Deputies present, and the Minister may proceed.

Mr. ANTHONY: Are you including some of those outside the barrier?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: The Minister for Justice.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: In addition to what is the real duty of a police force, the members of the Guards are required to perform a great number of other duties. They have to collect census returns and agricultural statistics. They have to act as ex officio inspectors of weights and measures, inspectors under the Foods and Drugs Act. They have to look after customs duties in regard to the prevention of smuggling, and excise duties in regard to the prevention and detection of illicit distillation.

Mr. DAVIN: On a point of order, are you satisfied that there are twenty members within the House?

Mr. ANTHONY: That is my point, inside the House and not outside the barrier.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: I am satisfied that there were twenty-one members in the House when I was asked a moment ago if there was a House. There is not a House now.

[1350] House counted and twenty members being present,

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: The Minister may proceed. There is a quorum now.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: The School Attendance Act, which is a new Act, has thrown a very great burden on the Guards.

Mr. FRENCH: I am very sorry, but I do not think there are 20 members in the House.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: There are 20 members, and I will not hear any more of these interruptions. The Minister.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: As I was saying, they have to enforce the School Attendance Act. They have duties in respect of foot and mouth disease, and in their work in looking after agricultural produce, etc., they are doing the work of agricultural inspectors rather than that of constabulary officers. In addition they have duties to perform in connection with traffic, and as every Deputy knows, traffic has become very much heavier than it used to be.

Mr. FRENCH: I am sorry to interrupt, but there are not 20 members in the House at present. It is really a serious point. The House is being addressed by a Minister of the Government, and there are not seven members of his own Party who will come in to the House to listen to his speech.

Mr. B. O'CONNOR: On a point of order, Deputy Anthony turned around, and I heard him ask Deputies to leave their seats so that there would not be a quorum present.

Mr. FRENCH: I have no responsibility for Deputy Anthony, but in compliment to the Minister there should be a sufficient number of members of his own Party present to form a quorum.

Mr. ANTHONY: The reason I asked Deputies to leave the House was because of the absence of Ministers and members of the Government Party.

Mr. DAVIN: On a point of order, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, did you hear Deputy Anthony make any suggestion, or did you not?

[1351] AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: No; but that is not a point of order.

Mr. DAVIN: It is a very pertinent question.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: It is really very kind of Deputies to interfere in this fashion. They appear to take a most paternal interest in me. They are paying me a very high compliment if they think the remarks I am making are so extremely valuable that it is a total loss to anybody to miss them.

Mr. ANTHONY: I have great respect for the Minister for Justice——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: Deputy Anthony must sit down.

Mr. ANTHONY: Yes. I think his own Party should be the first to pay the respect of listening to his statement.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: I want to make it clear that neither Deputy Anthony nor any other Deputy should go against the Chair, interrupting in this way.

Mr. ANTHONY: I accept that, but if the Government Party have no respect for their own Minister I want to emphasise it, and the only way I can emphasise it is by bringing members into the House to listen to the Minister's statement.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE: Is Deputy Anthony responsible for the conduct of the Government Party?

Mr. ANTHONY: Thank God I am not responsible for your conduct at any rate.

Mr. FRENCH: The question was asked of you, sir, if you would call the House to see if there were 20 members present. I do not think you did really call the House to know whether there were 20 members present at that moment. I admit there are 20 members present now, but there were not when the point of order was raised.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: I did not allow the business of this House to be carried on any time when there was not a quorum present.

[1352] Mr. FRENCH: This is a serious point of order. The people must know there was no quorum when the Minister for Justice was speaking.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: As I explained, the increase in sub-head A, that is salaries, wages and pay, is due to the annual increment which members of the force get upon their service. I do not think there is very much more I need refer to in that particular sub-head. As Deputies might not understand what the pension deduction is, I should explain that 2½ per. cent. is taken from the pay of the Guards—that is to say, it never reaches the Guard's pocket at all. It is deducted before payment, and is not, in fact, voted by this House. When they retire the Guards are paid their pension out of quite a separate fund, which is voted separately, together with other pensions.

Mr. FRENCH: On a point of information, if there is at present a person serving in the Guards who has also served, say, in the National Army, and who is getting a pension for that service and is still a member of the Gárda Síochána, can he capitalise that pension in the same manner as a pension in the National Army can be capitalised?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: As far as I understand no National Army pensioner can capitalise his pension.

Mr. FRENCH: Without exception?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: There are no exceptions. There is a substantial increase in the allowance under sub-head B., but it will be noticed that it is under the head of rent allowance for sergeants and guards that the increase has principally taken place. There is an increase of £8,000 under that sub-head. The reason for that is that the Guards were recruited from very young men and more and more of them are getting married, with the result that more of them are becoming entitled to marriage allowance. Where there are not married quarters in a barracks, allowance is made to the guards, sergeants, inspectors and superintendents who live outside. The allowance [1353] for a station-sergeant is £36. The allowance for a sergeant or a guard varies very much according to the locality. In some places it is as low as £13 and in others rises as high as £30. There is a small sum of £12 for an allowance to two sergeants for acting as ex officio inspectors of weights and measures in the Dublin Metropolitan Division. That arises owing to the fact that there were some ex officio inspectors working a small part of the Dublin area in Terenure and Crumlin. Under a recent Weights and Measures Act these districts have been brought in and are treated like the ordinary metropolitan area and that sum will not again appear in the Estimates. Sub-head C. is the subsistence allowance made to officers and men when they have been a certain number of hours absent on duty from barracks. It shows a substantial reduction this year.

Locomotion expenses have increased. There has been an alteration in the payment of locomotion expenses this year. A flat rate was paid until March, 1926, to superintendents and chief superintendents to cover all expenses of locomotion in their respective areas. That was found not to be working out very satisfactorily and, instead of a flat rate, a mileage rate was allowed for the use of their own cars, the rate being 5d. per mile for motors from seven to under ten horse power and 6d. per mile for ten horse power and upwards. While these rates are not at all excessive, they show an increase over the previous rate, the flat rate having obviously worked out very unfairly to the owners of the cars. There is a large decrease of £22,000 in the estimate for clothing and equipment, due to the fact that the clothing issue this year has been extremely light. There is a decrease of £2,531 in the item for furniture, bedding and bedsteads. A good number less barracks had to be furnished than in other years. Barrack maintenance shows a slight increase due to the fact that sweeping brushes were not issued to barracks until this year.

Dr. TUBRIDY: It would not be due to the fact of the white-wash brushes they were using during the election?

[1354] Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: It would take very long thinking over on my part before I could grasp the humour of that remark.

Dr. TUBRIDY: Probably.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: I am afraid the Deputy's humour is lost on a dull person like me. There is an increase in the item for transport, due to the fact that a great number of cars got worn out this year and had to be replaced. The replacement value of cars comes to £3,500. There was no similar item last year. There is an item of £3,000 which I probably ought to explain. That is for the payment of advances to officers to enable them to purchase cars for the purpose of their duties. When a superintendent requires a car he is advanced a sum of £130, and a chief superintendent a sum of £200, to assist towards the purchase of a car. That money is repayable by the officer in monthly instalments spread over varying periods, and no interest is charged. In the Appropriations-in-Aid, the repayments under that head appear, so that that £3,000 is not lost or spent at all. I do not think there is anything to be said about the items of fuel, light and water, or law or medical expenses.

Mr. FRENCH: I should like to ask——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: When the Minister has concluded the Deputy can ask his question.

Mr. FRENCH: As a rule we on these benches never get an explanation unless we ask for it during the Minister's speech.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: The Deputy will get his opportunity to make his point. The Minister ought to be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. FRENCH: There is a question of £17,000——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: The Deputy can ask that question at the proper time.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: The Appropriations-in-Aid show a falling off this year owing to the fact that the police rate in the D.M.P. area this year [1355] is fivepence in the £, as against sixpence last year, sevenpence in 1926-7, and eightpence in the preceding year. A great deal of the burden of paying for the police was taken off the City of Dublin, and the aid which is being given by the city is falling off.

Mr. LITTLE: Might I ask what happened to the police court fines, which have disappeared from the Estimate this year?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: They do not go into the Police Vote; they go into the Exchequer direct.

Mr. LITTLE: That is a change of arrangement?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: Yes.

Mr. DAVIN: Will the Minister explain item Q in the Appropriations-in-Aid—Payment for Services rendered by the Police, £2,000?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: If the police do what one might call semi-police duties, such as keeping order at, say, a racecourse, they are acting, so to speak, as stewards, and payment is required from the persons who ask them so to act.

Mr. FRENCH: Can the Minister separate the items on this Vote for £17,675 between the cost of fuel, lighting and water? It seems to me to be abnormal, if you subtract the ordinary cost of water, then light and fuel should cost so much.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: I shall give the Deputy figures of the allowance made for fuel. During the ordinary summer months, from May to October, in the day-room of a barrack of a small station, 11/- per month is allowed.

Mr. FRENCH: I should like the total.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: In large stations 12/- per month for the day-room is allowed. There is no other fire allowed for in the barrack. In the winter months 33/- per month is allowed for the day-room, and 35/- for the larger stations. In the sergeant's office 20/- is allowed, and in the superintendent's office 24/- per month is allowed.

[1356] Mr. FRENCH: Could we get the annual cost of these items? Is there any way in which we could get that check?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: It practically all goes to fuel and lighting. Water would be only a very trivial item in comparison with fuel and light.

Mr. ANTHONY: I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the officers and men of the Gárda Síochána, and I speak from experience gained not alone in Cork but in other counties in the Free State. In anything I have to say I do not want to appear as casting any strictures upon the Gárda Síochána, because I recognise that for a young force, having regard to the fact that they were brought into being at a time when there was a good deal of political trouble and heat in the country, they have justified themselves before the public. I may add that the Gárda Síochána have earned for themselves the encomiums of many people, and of the police chiefs in other countries, who are entitled to speak with authority.

Knowing what I do about the personnel of the Gárda, knowing that they comprise a body of young men of very high educational qualifications as compared with other men and apart altogether from the question of their physical fitness, I want to say that at some future date I may indicate a way in which their efficiency may be exercised to the fuller benefit of the State. I know that does not arise on the present Vote. I am not going to deal at any length with this Vote. I have attempted to be practical when dealing with many of the Estimates that have come before the House, and I would direct the Minister's attention to some facts brought before me in the last twelve months relating to supplies under Sub-head F —“Furniture, Barrack Bedding and Bedsteads.” The sum expended on these matters may be very small when we take into consideration that the total Vote for 1928-1929 is £1,588,373. But it has come to my knowledge that in many Gárda Síochána barracks throughout the country the bedding, bedsteads and most of the furniture are of foreign manufacture. That is a state of affairs the Minister should [1357] direct his attention to, and see to it, that even though there may be a slight difference in cost of a pound or two, the furniture and bedding should be of Irish manufacture. That is a matter to which I direct the Minister's attention, and I think if he goes into it he will find I have not exaggerated but rather under-estimated the extent to which this obtains in Gárda Síochána barracks.

While on that subject, and having paid the tribute that I have paid to the Gárda and their discipline, I do know there are foreign agents in this country touting for orders from the Gárda for civilian attire. It has also come to my knowledge that while these orders have been placed in Dublin these civilian suits have been made in London. I want the Minister to take particular notice of this, not that I believe it is within the knowledge of the Gárda when ordering these suits, but the fact remains that these suits have been imported into this country. It may be that the Gárda should have gone further, seeing that they are a national force, drawing public money, and see that these suits of clothes were made in this country.

Now there are one or two matters in connection with the Vote on which I should like to comment. I suggest that in the allocation of barracks there are districts in this country in which a sergeant with four or five men would suffice for a very large area. On the other hand, you may have certain areas throughout the country in which you would require four or five barracks distributed over a particular area. But my experience of Cork, City and County, is that some of the barracks might be termed redundant, and it would be in the best interests of the State, whilst not for a moment advocating an increase in the Gárda Síochána, that there should be better distribution of barracks.

I am not going to give my opinion against the experience of police superintendents, against that of the Chief Superintendent, or that of the Minister, but it frequently happens in the case of the Vote we are discussing, and, indeed, of other Votes which have come [1358] under discussion during the session, that the Minister can very often get some useful information from Deputies representing various constituencies. I think if the Minister submits the suggestion which I have made to the superintendents or the Chief Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, he will find that it is a useful one. It is just as well while we are on this Vote that, having paid a tribute to the Gárda Síochána for their efficiency, courtesy and all-round capabilities as a police force, I should say in support of this Vote that I, personally, am very glad to know that the Gárda Síochána are to-day attracting to their force a large number of young men physically and mentally fit, and that the waiting list is something like 5,000. To me, at any rate, that appears to be a big tribute, not alone to the administration of the Gárda Síochána, but, as I have frequently stated here, to the people of the Saorstát who have made it possible for that force to function. I am not one of those people who like to throw bouquets at any government department, but I feel constrained to say, so far as the Minister's administration of this and, indeed, all branches of his Department are concerned, and in so far as he has control and connection with the Gárda Síochána, I have not heard, so far as I am personally concerned, and I represent a very big constituency, even one justifiable complaint against the administration of the force in the city of Cork. I have, therefore, great pleasure in supporting the Vote.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: I am not concerned at this stage in joining in a tribute or otherwise to the Civic Guards as Deputy Anthony has done. What we are concerned with is the question of the amount to be voted, and to consider it in the light of what has been voted in previous years. We are being asked by the Minister to vote a sum of £1,588,373. Some comparisons have been made by the Minister between the strength of the police force in the pre-truce or old R.I.C. days and its strength to-day. He may think that the comparisons are favourable to his outlook. He may satisfy [1359] himself that the position now compares very favourably with the position as it existed then, but it is only necessary to go into these matters in some little detail to show how unfavourably they do compare. If you take the period 1918 you find that the R.I.C., outside the D.M.P., numbered 9,867 for the whole thirty-two counties, and the cost of the entire force was £1,443,432. If he compares those figures with the figures which he has presented to the House I do not think that the comparison would be as favourable as he would lead us to believe. If we go outside the country and try to get comparisons with other countries we find how unfavourably these figures compare as regards this little country known as the Free State. In France there is one policeman to every 352 civilians, whereas in the Free State the proportion is 1 to 428.

Mr. ANTHONY: How long is it since they had a revolution in France, and how long is it since we had a revolution here? How far do these figures carry us?

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: I am not concerned with the Deputy's revolutions or evolutions at the moment, but I am concerned with facts. If we want to go back to evolutions and revolutions the Deputy can have them. In New South Wales the proportion is one policeman to 784 persons.

Mr. ANTHONY: There has never been a revolution there.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE: Let the Deputy proceed.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: In New Zealand the figures are 1 to 1,312.

Mr. ANTHONY: No revolution there.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: In Scotland the proportion is one to 754, and in England, a country that was involved in some little trouble with this country, if it was not involved in a great war, the figures are 1 to 831. These are comparisons to which we might take our minds back. I think they will show how unfavourably the Free State compares with other countries which may, perhaps, be in better circumstances [1360] than this country. The cost per head of the police in this country is, roughly, 10/-. It is a few pence over that amount, but we will give that to the benefit of the other side. In New South Wales it is 5/8½—similarly with other countries. I think there is no country that the Minister can refer to for the purpose of comparison that would compare unfavourably with the Free State. If there is, I would like to hear it. I think it is clear to anybody who takes the trouble to run and read that the Free State is paying more for its police force than practically any other country. Under such conditions, it would be expected that an effort would be made from time to time to try and cut down the force. We had it disclosed in this House in the last few days that the Army is merely an armed police force. I think the Minister for Agriculture was mainly responsible for that, and if you have an army, regarded and recognised as an armed police force, what is the necessity for having this alleged unarmed police force? The question occurs to us, what is the reason for such a large police force? The Minister for Justice treats the House so casually as not to give any particulars whatever as to the necessity for the force. In asking the House to vote away this large sum of over £1,000,000, one would expect that the raison d'etre would be given for keeping the force at its present strength. One would imagine that some particulars would be given of the crime existing in the country compared with the crime of previous years, that some effort would be made to compare these statistics to see how they stand and to see whether any reduction could be made in this redundant police force. That force is not as necessary—or perhaps it may be more necessary, but we should like to hear the Minister's views on it—for being used for political purposes as it was in days past.

Those who were present in this House in 1926 were told that the limit which the Executive authorised for this force was 7,222. The Minister told us to-night that the force, as it at present exists, numbers 7,210. That is within twelve men of the limit which was fixed in 1926. One would have imagined that [1361] there would have been some reduction in the police force, or at any rate that some hope would be held out of a possible future substantial reduction of the force. I am sorry Deputy Heffernan is not here. He stated at that time, backed up by Deputy Gorey, that this country was wholly over-policed. I do not know whether Deputy Gorey and Deputy Heffernan, now finding themselves in another part of the House, have not entirely seen through different glasses. Deputy Heffernan, at that time stated: “We are crystallising and perpetuating a system which differs very little in general policy from that which existed in the time of the old R.I.C.” He urged the Executive Council to consider seriously how we might effect considerable reductions in the police force of the country. Deputy Heffernan followed that up by definitely suggesting and urging the Executive Council of that time to reduce the police force. He said that it should be reduced by thirty per cent. He stated that out of every one of the 871 barracks in the country, two to three men could be dispensed with. I cordially endorse the views that Deputy Heffernan expressed two years ago. I hope he has not changed so completely, on falling into the lap of the gods or the lap of the Government, whichever it is, and that the views he put forward then and which struck the Government so forcibly have not been forgotten by him to-night.

Deputy Gorey, I will admit, went on a different basis. He followed up the amendment, which was put forward by Deputy Heffernan at the time, not on the lines that there should be a substantial reduction in the number of the police forces, but that there should be a substantial reduction in the remuneration of the members of the force. Deputy Gorey said that the policing per head is five or six times greater in this country than in Great Britain. I assume he was telling the truth, and I assume the Minister and himself will not have any difference about it. If they have, it is a matter between themselves, and I hope I will not be involved in it. He also stated that a substantial reduction could be effected. From that time to this, so far as we can see from this Estimate put before us to-night, no [1362] effect has been given to the urgings and appeals made by Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Gorey. I am sure they are still as insistent, within the Government ranks, on their Executive that they are trying to make the Executive hear reason and to follow the advice which they put forward at that time owing to the economic conditions and financial distress which existed in the country. The conditions are equally bad to-day. They show that there has been very little economic improvement, and that from that point of view alone if any economies can be effected the country urgently needs them.

The Minister should give some indication as to whether the necessities of the situation as it exists at present demand a full police force to the same extent as they did in 1926. I think it is an outrageous attitude to take that in coming forward with an Estimate such as this no particulars are given as to the needs and demands for a force of such strength based on the crimes statistics of the country. Deputy Gorey and Deputy Heffernan put forward the idea that since there has been such a big advance in mobility, it was very easy to have fewer stations, and to have these flying columns, or whatever they call them, in the police force of the time. The Minister has referred to the extra duties that were imposed under the census emuneration, shop inspections, and various other duties. I contend that, perhaps with the exception of the School Attendance Act and a few other Acts, there has not been a very substantial addition to the duties imposed on the Civic Guards as compared with those which existed formerly in the case of the R.I.C.

I have to refer in this Estimate to what I think, if the word is not unparliamentary, is the very mean method of dealing with the particular matter referred to in the Appropriation portion of the Estimate. We find there that the police rate for Dublin has been reduced by a penny in the £. That means that a sum of £6,000 roughly has to be provided by this Dáil. Of course, it is only a little time since we saw in the Press of the country references to the benefit and the wonderful economics that resulted from the Commissioners' [1363] control of the City of Dublin. It is no wonder that the Commissioners of the city can make progress, give benefit in the way of a lower police rate, and try to deceive the people if they can manoeuvre a position such as that— that they can strike a penny off a sixpenny rate and provide the balance through this Dáil or cut of this Estimate. That is what has been done.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: That has been done by statute, not by the Commissioners.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: It was sixpence last year and it is fivepence this year.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: That is done by statute.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: I do not know the particular statute the Minister refers to, or when it was passed.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: The statute to which I refer is the Police Amalgamation Act. by which the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Civic Guards were amalgamated into one force.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: When was that passed?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: That was passed in 1925.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: That was about the time the Commissioners were appointed for the City of Dublin.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE: Even so, it is under the Act and we cannot discuss it.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: I just want to make the point that as a result of this arrangement, the Dáil has to provide for a deficit which the City of Dublin should have met in the ordinary way.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: I would advise Deputy Ruttledge to get the Act and follow it.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: I do not know what the Minister invited me to do, but I am inviting the Minister to explain the loss of £6,000 there, whether by statute or otherwise, and why this Dáil is asked to provide a sum of £6,000 which formerly would be provided [1364] by the City of Dublin. These are the facts, at any rate.

We have been shown that, instead of having a reduction, as we might have expected, there is an increase this year of £18,000, that notwithstanding all that Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Gorey said in 1926, instead of going down the money has gone up by £18,000. Those are the facts and, as I stated, no indication has been given as to when there will be a reduction. The Minister stated at one time that it would soon be down to 25 per cent. below the figure for the R.I.C.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: Well, it is.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: That there would be 1,860 less Gárdai than there were of the old R.I.C. He did not say how that was to take place, whether it was to be by a sliding method——

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: I do not think that the Deputy quite heard me. I stated that, if you exclude the three cities, we are 25 per cent. below the old R.I.C. number.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: The notes, of course, will make the matter right. I understood the Minister to state that in a very short time there would be 1,800 less.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: I stated that at the present moment we were 1,860 less.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: The Minister might state—and I am sure the House would welcome it very much—that in six months' time we will be 3,000 less than we were under the old R.I.C. So far as we can see from the figures before us in the Estimate, the force is the same to-day as it was in 1926. There has been no reduction in the number of Gárdai and there has been no reduction in the expenditure of the Gárdai. You have 126 superintendents. Does the Minister not think that that is more than the number that should be required for a force like this?

Perhaps the Minister will give us some idea, when he is concluding the debate, as to the reasons for keeping this force at its present strength. We [1365] know that there is, from the Government point of view, a very useful adjunct of the force known as the C.I.D. Apparently all the promises that have been made in this House, all the alleged efforts that are being made to try to get them under some sort of control, so far as we can judge have not been very effective. Only in the last two or three days a man going along O'Connell Street was set upon by one of these—I will not call them men— individuals, dragged along the street, without a warrant or anything else and brought into Pearse Street Station. After he was there about three hours he was released, and in the meantime it was discovered that this was done by a member of the C.I.D. That happened on the 29th October, and the name of the man who was seized was Michael Noonan.

I would also like to know if the Minister takes any notice of cases where, when a sergeant or a gárda has given evidence, the District Justice states he does not believe a word he is swearing and dismisses the case. Does the Ministry take any notice of that? I have a particular case in mind where a sergeant, prosecuting a man, swore in the most definite terms that a certain crime had been committed and was backed up in the most definite terms by a local gárda but where the District Justice said he did not believe what the sergeant and gárda swore. His words are on record. The sergeant is still there, very useful, I assume, to the local Cumann na nGaedheal organisation, but from every other point of view, even the Minister's, a most undesirable member of the Civic Guard. Is there any notice whatever taken by the Department of the fact that a District Justice holds that a police officer is telling an untruth, that he is giving evidence that cannot be relied on? I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter when he is replying, and also the other matter to which I have referred. I do not want to go into a whole litany of details of things that happened all over the country. The Minister is conversant with the Newport affair in Tipperary, where some Civic Guards went out, attacked their own barracks, then got into trouble with some people in the town, and [1366] decrees were given against them. That sort of thing was very usual some time ago, but I admit it is becoming a good deal less usual. Still there is a great deal of it going on in the country, and perhaps we might be told what the Minister's attitude with regard to it is.

I think, in the words of Deputy Heffernan, that a case has been made for the Government to consider seriously how they might effect considerable reduction in the police force. Deputy Heffernan moved a reduction of £400,000 on a similar Vote to this. Whether he is exactly inside the inner councils of the Government, or is knocking at the door I do not know, but in either position I am sure that he is using his influence to try to get some reasoned outlook into the Minister's mind with regard to this reduction of £400,000 which he thought could be effected in the Civic Guard estimate, and which can be effected. Might I join with him in urging that the Civic Guard force can be reduced, as he urged, by 30 per cent.? That was his view then, and I am sure it is his view to-day. Perhaps I might also urge, at any rate with regard to the more highly paid officials, that the Government might consider Deputy Gorey's view that there could be a substantial reduction in remuneration. I say that with regard to the higher members of the force at any rate. I do not know whether, having changed their positions in the House, the views of these Deputies have changed with that. That very often happens. But in any case their views are there on record. The Minister was asked to consider the matter then, and I urge that he should consider it now in dealing with this estimate.

Mr. DAVIN: I was rather surprised to hear Deputy Ruttledge, with his knowledge of conditions in the country —a knowledge that all legal men must have—describe the police force known as the Gárda Síochána as a redundant or an unnecessary force. He went further and did worse, in my opinion, when he suggested that the force is either a political or semi-political body. I seriously suggest to Deputy Ruttledge, that that is a very dangerous doctrine to preach, and if he ever becomes Minister [1367] for Justice he may realise the seriousness of making such a statement against the force. So far as I am concerned I think that the Minister, the Chief Commissioner and the heads of the Gárda Síochána are, generally speaking, entitled to be complimented upon the general conduct of the Gárdaí and the fair and impartial manner in which its members do their duty. One can, as Deputy, Ruttledge has done, cite a particular case—I am not in the least disputing the accuracy of his statement—to show that a sergeant or a member of the Guards in some isolated place has done something unusual or something that would merit the condemnation of the Police Commissioner or the Minister, but there is no use in attempting to condemn the whole force simply because of one particular case.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: I would like to ask the Deputy how many cases he would like us to produce to convince him that there was something wrong with the force?

Mr. DAVIN: I would much prefer for the safety and well-being of the State that cases of that kind would be given privately to the Minister beforehand, so that the Minister would be given an opportunity of saying what he proposed to do rather than to bring it out in the House, because Deputy Ruttledge, if and when he becomes Minister for Justice, if things are done then as they are done now, will have to face criticism of the same kind.

However, he is entitled to do it, but I think it is a bad policy. Everybody knows that the police force is certainly not a redundant force. In our generation, and under the peculiar circumstances under which this State and Government were established, there will have to be a force of some kind—I cannot say at present what the number should be—in order that people who, otherwise, would abuse the law, would be made respect the law. That position will be just the same when Deputy Ruttledge and his Party come into office as it is to-day. We cannot ignore the fact that public men in this country have been for fifty, sixty or [1368] one hundred years, going around encouraging the ordinary man and woman in the street to believe that real patriotism depended on the extent to which the individual could challenge the authority of the day. We have to outlive that, and we can only do it gradually. We cannot all become saints in a year or so. I am sure there will be as much lawlessness when the Fianna Fáil Party comes into power as there is at the present time. I cannot quote figures, but it is natural with the political education we have received that that will go on for a considerable time, and I am sure that Deputy Lemass will agree with me. He will never be able to convert all the sinners into saints when he comes into office. The figures quoted by the Minister, as I took them down, were that the total strength, including the Dublin Metropolitan Division, was 7,210, whereas in pre-Truce days the R.I.C. consisted of 9,070, which shows the difference, as stated by the Minister, to be 1,860.

I want to raise a few points concerning the work of the Guards. I would like to see them a little more active in regard to the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts. I am not quite certain if they are as active in that way in some ways as they are in some areas. Perhaps we will have a word from the Minister when he is replying as to the activity of the Gárda Síochána in the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts. Another matter that I want to draw attention to is this: I want to know whether the Deputy or Assistant-Commissioner Murphy when giving evidence before the Inter-Departmental Committee dealing with traffic regulations expressed the views of the Ministry, or his own personal views, when he recommended the abolition of the speed limit for motor cars. That is one of the most ridiculous suggestions I ever heard, and it really amounts to this, that in this new force every policeman should be a judge of what is dangerous driving, and what should be regarded as a dangerous speed, for a motor car, a bus, or a lorry. I want to know if there was previous consultation between Commissioner Murphy and the [1369] Chief Commissioner, or whether he consulted the Department of Justice before giving that evidence, or whether the evidence he gave represented his own particular views. I notice that he has succeeded in persuading the majority of the Inter-Departmental Committee to accept that suggestion and, as a result, I suggest that in a few years we will be experiencing the same kind of traffic regulations, and break-neck speed, as one sees in the city of Paris. I am afraid Commissioner Murphy has seen too much of the city of Paris, and that what he saw in Paris led him into the foolish suggestion of recommending the abolition of the speed limit for motor cars.

It has been rumoured, and I think it is in order to refer to it now, that there is some Committee sitting, considering a further reduction in the pay of the Guards. I am not making this statement with any great authority behind it, but I have been asked if it is true. If it is untrue I would like the Minister to contradict the rumour, and make it definite and clear that there is no further intention of making any attempt at present at a further reduction in the pay of the ordinary Guards. If it was true it might lead to further resignations of some of the older members of the Dublin Metropolitan Guards. Personally I would not like to be a party to any recommendation or suggestion which would force out of the Metropolitan Guards the three or four hundred old members who are still serving in that area.

I would also like to ask the Minister whether there were any general instructions sent out to chief superintendents or to the superintendents regarding the attitude which they should take towards the abolition of redundant public houses. On reading the newspapers circulating in my constituency I find that superintendents going before District Justices in the different courts gave conflicting reasons in support of their demand for the abolition of public houses. It appears to me that it would be better if that was not done, if these superintendents were called together and given general instructions regarding the attitude they were to adopt in [1370] matters of that kind. I also want to know whether any general instruction was sent out by the Commissioner or by the Department of Justice, laying it down that motor drivers, omnibus drivers in particular, should not be prosecuted unless it could be proved that the speed exceeded twenty miles per hour. I read a report of one prosecution before a District Justice in my constituency where it appeared that the Superintendent had instructions, verbal or otherwise, of that kind. The Minister knows that the traffic law lays it down that the speed should not exceed twelve miles per hour. I see no reason for issuing any instruction to superintendents to ignore the law as it exists. If that has been done, certainly I think it should not have been done, at any rate until the existing traffic laws have been altered or the speed limit extended. Instructions of that kind should not be issued, if they have been issued. I hope the Minister will deal with that matter in his reply.

Taking the position generally, I am quite satisfied that the police force as it exists to-day is a well-conducted force. Certainly their work as far as I can get any knowledge of it, is generally approved of by all law-abiding persons. I have heard people in my area saying that Sergeant So-and-so or Guard So-and-so is a busybody and is prejudiced. I do not say it is political prejudice, but prejudice towards one publican in favour of another publican. When inquiries are made into complaints of that kind it is generally found that the person who gave rise to the complaint is trying to sell beer after the legal hours, so that to that extent the complaint is groundless. I believe it is the duty of every Deputy to encourage the police force of the time and certainly it is the duty of public representatives, especially members of this House, now or in the future, to do so and enable the force to carry out its duties fairly and impartially. That is what I believe the present Guards are making an honest attempt to do.

Mr. LITTLE: Some of the statements of the Minister for Justice were very interesting indeed. He made a comparison with the numbers of the R.I.C. [1371] in the twenty-six counties in 1914 and the number of police at the present time. He did not make any reference to the cost. The cost of the Constabulary alone in the year 1918 was £1,443,422, and that was for the thirty-two counties. The cost now for the twenty-six counties, and I take it this is the net estimate, is £1,588,373. Really it is misleading the House and the country to concentrate upon the matter of numbers and to avoid the question of the cost. Comparisons have already been made by Deputy Ruttledge of the number of people to one policeman in other countries. Ireland is not in the condition which apparently Deputy Davin seems to think it is in. He seems to think it is in a state of unrest of such a kind as to justify a greater expenditure to-day on police than was expended during the time of the R.I.C. If one were to examine the conditions closely I do not suppose that there is as much justification for a police force in Ireland as there is in countries like New Zealand or New South Wales. They have problems of mixed populations there which we have not got. Ireland is one of the most crimeless countries in Europe.

That brings me to another point made by Deputy Davin. He charged Deputy Ruttledge with saying things which would be against what one might call general public policy—saying things against the Guards doing their duty. He did nothing of the sort. He made a case which must be made, that the police at present are being used for semi-political purposes. The police are not merely used for the keeping down of ordinary civil crime, but every police barrack is a centre of information as to the activities of a certain section of the community.

Mr. GOREY: Shame, shame! They ought not.

Mr. LITTLE: The collection of that information may be necessary in a country where there is a section of the people going to disturb the conditions of the State, but I submit it should not be in the hands of the civil police. There is another Vote upon which we do not get much information, and that [1372] is the Vote for Secret Service. The amount of that Vote is £10,000. I submit that in a normal country—say, suppose that Ireland were completely a Republic to-morrow—it would be necessary to have a secret service Vote, but I certainly hope that the work of secret service will not be thrown upon the civil police. It is degrading to them; it is forcing them to look for information not merely upon questions of disturbance but upon questions which are really political questions. They are now asked to gather information about the activities of Republicans in their areas. That is the position, and so long as the police are so engaged, they cannot expect to command respect from the general public. They would have that respect if they were merely there to keep the peace and to prevent civil crime. An analogy, to my mind, is the difference between the metropolitan police before the Sinn Fein movement forced them to be unarmed and the time previous to that when they were armed. As soon as they became an unarmed force they gained enormously in the respect of the people, but so long as they were armed, and so long as they were a semi-political force used for crushing Sinn Fein meetings in Dublin City, they had nothing but the hatred of the people. If the police force to-day were strictly limited in their functions to prevent civil crime, and if the other work which the Government might think it necessary to do were carried out specifically by a force for that purpose, it would at least place the police in the country on a higher level.

The contrast between the status of a policeman in Ireland and the status of the average country person is very great indeed. So far as I can make out the cost of each policeman is something over £200, whereas a soldier in the Army costs £130 or £133. The police, therefore, are maintained on a more expensive scale than the soldiers in the Army. Anyone going through the country where the police are stationed is bound to notice the unnecessary number of small police barracks. A second point is the extremely comfortable type of men they are, and how very well dressed they are as compared with the ordinary people. Of [1373] course the police should be kept in a proper condition, but there should be some relation between the money expended on them and the surrounding real poverty of the people of Ireland. It brings home to one again that the recruitment of the police is in itself a political manæuvre. Young, strong, healthy men are drawn into the police force who otherwise would emigrate, take up farming or go in for some other line of activity. Their admission to the force may be counted as an asset from the point of view of the Government, as every policeman who gets in means a certain amount of bias in favour of the Party then in power.

The police are used here as they have been used in other countries. It is the same system that has been developed in Germany, the system of developing bureaucracy and developing the police so as to keep the people from wishing for a change in the conditions of Government. The police in their present position cannot be regarded as purely for the putting down of civil crime, and so long as they are in that position they cannot be regarded with the same respect as if they were used merely on the merits of the amount of crime in the country. I believe the force could be reduced enormously if it was to be strictly in proportion to the amount of crime. In England, Scotland and Wales you have one policeman to every thousand inhabitants. There is as much crime in one town in England in a week as would occur in the whole of Ireland in a year and yet the police force there is quite adequate.

Mr. M. HENNESSY: The Deputy is forgetting that every man in England is ready to act as a policeman for the protection of the people and the State. That is not the case in Ireland.

Mr. LITTLE: As to the remark made by Deputy Hennessy, I think it will be quite possible to have that state of things brought about with every man in Ireland. I believe that if more onus were thrown upon the people in Ireland to protect the people from crime the people would do it. But we must always distinguish between political and other issues. It is quite true that so long as [1374] the police force in Ireland is regarded as a semi-political force, the police will not get the assistance of the people. But if the Gárda were there strictly for the purpose of dealing with ordinary crime, they would get the assistance of the Irish people. I really do not think that the Irish people are more attached to crime or wrong-doing than the English people. I think Deputy Hennessy will agree with me that that would be a slander on the character of the Irish people.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.

Mr. LITTLE: Then, again, the Minister repeated what he said on another occasion, that the Gárda are used for collecting census returns and statistics. But so far as statistics are concerned, they are not very reliable. To begin with, the Gárda have not got the information before them which is necessary. In other countries, in England and Scotland, the revenue officers very often were used for the purpose of collecting statistics, and they had before them figures by which they could check the statistics which would come in to them. The Gárda are not experts in these matters, and it is not fair to expect these absolutely accurate statistics from them. The very fact that they have been used for collecting statistics at present militates against their getting accurate statistics at all. Supposing you were to spend £200 a year per man on a certain number of people for collecting statistics, you would get far better value from them than you do from spending that £200 on getting that information through the Gárda.

Then, again, using the Gárda for school attendance purposes is resented in a great many places. They are the wrong kind of people to use. It is well to look back at the figures of other years in order to notice that there has been a continuous increase in the cost. The figures I have here are not nett figures, but gross figures, and there is an argument for stating gross figures, for after all the Appropriations-in-Aid ultimately come out of the pockets of the people and the full cost of the Gárda is the gross figure. The nett cost is the result of the balance sheet, but the full cost is the gross figure, for [1375] the reasons I have given. In 1926-27 the gross figure of the Estimate was £1,574,530; in 1927-28 the figure was £1,623,060. That was an increase of a sum of about £48,000. In the next year, that is, the year 1928-29, the Estimate is £1,631,693. That meant that there was a further increase, which has already been referred to. When is this increasing of the cost of the Garda to stop? The increases are not merely confined to the salaries, but even if they are, the largest figure is the increase in salaries. But surely the Department must have some scheme by which, according as time goes on and salaries increase, there should be some counterbalancing, whether by reducing expenses or in other ways. The Minister mentioned that by changing from sergeants to Gárdaí they reduced the number of sergeants and increased the number of Guards, and that they had reduced the Estimate. But that only accounted for sixty in all, a very small figure. Again, he told us that there were 840 stations now, whereas formerly, in the time of the R.I.C., the number was 1,100, I think.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: It was 1,129.

Mr. LITTLE: But he did not tell us the difference on the expenditure of the two. Again, however, the actual figures are misleading. They merely indicate the number, but they do not indicate the cost. The cost of the R.I.C. per head of the population—I am taking the figures for the force for the year 1918-19—was 6/4 per head of the population. Of course I must admit, however, that I have not included the figure for the Metropolitan Police, which could not have been more than £40,000. So that if we make a generous allowance we could make that figure as to the cost of the police for the year 1918-19, say, 7/- or a little more. We still have a margin, because the Gárda Síochána to-day are costing the population of the Saorstát something over 10/- per head.

We still have cases of abuses of the civilian population by the police and by the C.I.D. One hears from time to time stories as to how they carry out [1376] their duties, even when they are carrying out duty which may well come within their scope, that their methods are certainly not the methods which should be adopted. One case in point will be referred to later in the debate. I do not wish at the moment to refer to it, but it was a very glaring case as an example of what I say. Then there was the case of Seán O'Farrell, who was arrested and badly treated on the 18th October.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: If I am not mistaken, I think a question has been put down with reference to that. Does not the Deputy think it rather more usual to wait until the question has been answered? It is in the hands of Deputy Lemass, and probably he will handle it as well as Deputy Little.

Mr. LITTLE: As a matter of fact, I was quite aware of what the Minister has said and did not intend to go into the details of the case, but I feel that I was quite entitled to mention the case now because this was the proper opportunity on the Estimate. If the Minister has an adequate answer, he has ample time to give it to us, and has all the machinery in his hands. I think that is all I wish to say on the matter, except that I hope the Minister will take into consideration that point of view, that the police in their activities should be absolutely and strictly confined to dealing with matters of crime, and should not, under any circumstances, be used for political or semi-political purposes. They have ample methods, as I have already said. They have their secret service money. They have ample methods to do the other work which they, from their peculiar point of view, consider should be done, without degrading the police of this country into carrying out work which simply brings odium upon them.

Sir JAMES CRAIG: As a constant frequenter of the streets in a motor car, I wish to compliment the Minister for Justice on the efficiency and courtesy of the Metropolitan and other Gárda. Now that they have learned their work, they are most efficient. Some three years ago, before they learned their [1377] work, they were holding up traffic in a way that was most tiresome and annoying. Within the last year, at all events, they have seen that it is their place to encourage the traffic to go on, and therefore there is no holding up. The desire on the part of the Gárda now is to keep a constant stream of traffic moving. I have only one complaint that I want to mention. A gentleman who came from Tramore told me that on Sunday evening crowds of people, as soon as they could get no more drink in Waterford, crowded out to Tramore, and that the publichouses there were practically open to anyone who wanted to go in. They were not, he thought under any supervision whatever by the Gárda. I want to ask the Minister if he will inquire whether there is any ground for this charge that was made by the gentleman as to the efficiency of the Gárda in that particular district.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE: I think that if there is any estimate that has ever been introduced into this House that deserves the commendation of the House it is the estimate which the Minister for Justice introduced this evening. I listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the Opposition as to why this Vote should not be passed. Of all the ridiculous arguments that I have ever listened to, the arguments of the official Opposition to-night appear to me to be simply lacking in sense and logic. Deputy Little, who generally is a very logical speaker, put forward one argument as to why the police force should be reduced in this country. He drew a comparison between the police force in the Saorstát per head of the population and the police force in England per head of the population, and pointed out that in England they can do with a much smaller police force per head of the population than we can do with in this country. And then, to cap the whole illusion, in another breath he said there is more crime in England in one week than in Ireland in a year. Now, is that the condition of affairs that Deputy Little wants to see existing in this country? May I ask him what are the objects for which a police force is kept? Why do we maintain a police force at [1378] all? I suggest to Deputy Little that the first duty of a police force in any country is that they are in the nature of an insurance against crime. To me it is perfectly obvious that for anything that we have paid by way of insurance—on the admission of Deputy Little himself there is more crime in England in one week than in the Saorstát for a year—we have the Gárda Síochána as a thoroughly efficient and satisfactory force.

Mr. LITTLE: On a point of personal explanation, I pointed out that the British Government was apparently satisfied that its police were efficient to deal with the crime in England.

Mr. BYRNE: We are not concerned with what the British Government have to say in regard to their police.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: It satisfied Deputy Little.

Mr. BYRNE: What concerns us is that the people of the Saorstát are satisfied with the force here as it now exists. As far as I know, and speaking humanly and without any partisanship in the matter, I have never heard from any party in the city of Dublin—and I am as closely in touch with both parties as any member of this House— any complaint made in connection with the police force. I will only just point out one little sinister feature, or perhaps I should say two, that exist at the moment in the life of the city. In North Dublin City, where I reside, there has been within the past month or two a serious increase in the number of accidents due to motor traffic. Now, who are the main guardians of the people as far as these accidents are concerned? I suggest the police are. We had an accident a week or two ago outside Marlborough Street Schools. Whether a constable was there or not I do not know, but I suggest that more protection, if possible, should be given in the case of children coming out of the schools in the afternoon than is afforded at the moment. That would lead not to an increase in the cost of the police force, as it now stands, but rather to a diminution. We heard a lot of talk this afternoon about what is [1379] being done in other countries. Deputy Ruttledge brought us away to France, New South Wales, New Zealand and Timbuktu.

Have Deputies lived in these countries? A comparison has been made between Ireland and England. Let us come down to bedrock. I have had experience of living in England for a number of years, and I speak from experience when I say that so far as the efficiency of the police force is concerned, and as far as the safety of the subject and the protection of the people are concerned, there is no comparison whatever between the police force in Ireland and the police force in England. If you want to find a policeman in England in a time of crisis how long does Deputy Little think it would take to find one? I remember on one occasion in the City of Liverpool a man coming to my door and demanding admission to the house. None of the inmates of the house had ever seen him and would not admit him. He refused to go away and they sent out to endeavour to get a constable to do his duty. The person who went out was away three-quarters of an hour and no constable arrived. In the finish I myself had to go out to that man and act as a sort of constable myself, though not physically fitted for the job, and it took me two hours before I could get in touch with a policeman.

Mr. CLERY: I hope you did not handle him too roughly.

Mr. BYRNE: Well, anyway I had the pluck to do the job, and I carried it out. It is all very well to talk of reductions in the police force. Possibly, Deputy Little would say one of the means would be a reduction of the pay. I do not think I would be inaccurate if I say, and I think the Minister would agree, that the conditions of pay existing in the police force are not to the satisfaction of the force. I can go further and say that better salaries and hours are available in the police force across the Channel—a force that is not nearly as efficient as ours. I believe there has been a certain leakage of very good highly-trained men from our force across the Channel attracted by the better conditions there. If you [1380] want to have a satisfactory policeman you must give him reasonable remuneration for his work. Deputy Little made the point that if they were not employed in the police force they would be forced to emigrate. I have always contended that no matter what conditions exist there will be a certain amount of emigration. My attention was drawn to the fact that strong men come up from the country and finish their training here, and when they have spent sufficient time in the force to save up enough money they emigrate to America. There are causes for emigration other than economic ones. Here we have with regard to the police force two causes operating at the present time to check its efficiency. We may ask what is the reason for it.

We have been told the police force as it now exists is semi-political. I suggest that when statements of that kind are made in this House some reasonable evidence should be forthcoming to substantiate them. Wild statements of that kind do no good to anyone, and they hurt the morale of the force. We know that the force during the past few years has gone through difficult times, and the phases of crime that existed a few years ago no longer exist in the State. As Deputy Davin remarked, I think it is the duty of every public representative not to injure the morale of the police force but to do everything within his power to increase the efficiency of the force. I heard the Minister explain sub-head after sub-head in the Vote, and I think his explanation is one that would satisfy any reasonable man. He went through the strength of the force, and he pointed out that there has been a reduction of 1,860 in the Gárdaí as compared with the old R.I.C. in the Saorstát. That is a very substantial reduction. He pointed out as far as the city of Dublin was concerned the police force is at the same level now as it was a year or two ago. No man coming up from the country, no man who has occasion to pass through the city, will contend that the amount of work thrown on the force by motor traffic, the new buses, and a thousand and one other things has not considerably increased.

[1381] I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance this evening telling the story of how Dean Swift when he found a little hole in a tablecloth made it larger and larger until he could drink soup out of it, and he pointed out that a Deputy who had criticised the Board of Works was attempting to expose that Department in a manner similar to that of the Dean. I think Deputy Little has been similarly engaged. There has been no valid reason given as to why this Vote should not be passed. When listening to the Minister's reasons for the increase in the Vote I considered that no more satisfactory reasons could have been adduced. The Minister explained that under one sub-head the increase was due to the annual increment. He turned to another sub-head and explained that the increase in that was due to the allowances given to a number of men in the force who had got married. Could anything be more satisfactory than that? These young men in the force who settle down are the men we can rely on. These are the men who are doing their duty, and these are the men who if Deputy Little's Party, or the Labour Party or my Party have occasion to call on their services will ungrudgingly and willingly get them.

MICHEAL O CLEIRIGH: Ba mhaith liom freagra a fháil ó'n Aire ar chupla ceisteanna sul a gcuirtear deire leis an diosbóireacht seo. Buaileann daoine isteach orm-sa agus deireann siad go bhfuil Gárdaí ag a bhfuil Gaedhilg san nGaeltacht ach nach mbaineann siad aon usáid aistí. An bhfuil a fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil na Gárdaí seo ag tabhairt droch-shompla do mhuinntir na n-áiteanna seo? Má tá Gaedhilg ag na Gárdaí san nGaeltacht ba cheart dóibh a bheith cúramach nach ndéanfaidh siad aon nídh chun an meas atá ag na Gaedhil ar a dteangain do laghdú. Sé sin an rud atá siad a dhéanamh—ag tabhairt droch-shompla do na daoine, ag déanamh gach rud atá Gállda, ag déanamh Seoiníní díobh féin.

Chuala mé fhéin Gárdaí ag a bhfuil Gaedhilg mhaith—Gaedhilg níos fearr b'fhéidir ná mar atá agam-sa—ag déanamh magaidh faoi'n Ghaedhilg agus faoi na Gaedhil san nGaeltacht. [1382] Ní deas an rud san ó Ghaedheal. Nílim ag fáil lochta ar na Gárdaí uilig mar gheall ar seo. Ach ba cheart do no Gárdaí seo athrú do dhéanamh agus an sprid Gaedhealach atá ionnta—mar atá i gach Gaedheal óg—do neartú. Ba cheart do'n Aire no do thaoisigh an Ghárda a chur in iúl do na Gárdaí seo atá san nGaeltacht agus atá in ánn Gaedhilg do labhairt gur ceart dóibh deagh-shompla, in ionad droch-shompla, do thabhairt do na daoine. Is furus don Aire an méid sin do dhéanamh agus ní bhéidh morán costais air.

Rud eile, dubhairt múinteoirí scoile liom go bhfuil Gárdaí, imeasc daoine eile—ní h-iad na Gárdaí amháin ar a bhfuilim ag fáil lochta—ag cur obair na scoileanna ar neamh-ní toisc go bhfuil siad ag cainnt i mBeurla leis na páistí agus ag tabhairt isteach rudaí Gállda— —damhsaí Gállda agus cleasa Gállda— in ionad damhsaí agus cleasa nGaedhalach. Dá bhfuigheadh siad so comhairle—is dó liom go mba leor san—ó'n Aire ná ó thaoisigh an Ghárda táim sásta go mbeadh athrú ann agus bheadh níos mó measa ag na daoine ar na Gárdaí agus gan morán le déanamh acu san mbearraic. Muna bhfuil Gaedhilg acu, tá am go leor acu chun an teangadh d'fhoghluim. Ba cheart féachaint chuig sin freisin.

Tá a lán cainnte annseo mar gheall ar droch-shaoranacht agus deagh-shaoranacht. Do réir mo thuairime, ní féidir leis an Gárda no leis an Airm, cibé lionmhaire atá siad, cosc no deire do chur le clampar no trioblóid in aon tír. Sé an taon nidh amháin a cuirfheas cose le clampar ná meas a bheith ag na daoine orra féin agus meas a bheith acu ar an Rialtas atá acu de bharr deagh-dhlighthe agus deagh-ghíoín. Má fheachann an Rialtas chuige, sin ní bheidh an méid céanna Gárdaí ag teastáil uatha.

Ceapaim freisin go bhfuil an iomarca bearraic ann. Is dó liom go bhfuil an Rialtas ag leanúint do réir an scéim a bhí annseo faoi'n tsean-réim. Síleann siad gur ceart bearraic a bheith in gach áit in a raibh sé san am atá thart. Ach tá athrú ann anois agus ba chóir don Rialtas a scéim féin a cheapadh. Dá ndéanfadh siad seo, bheith airgead le spáráil acu le h-aghaidh rudaí eile. [1383] Thiocfadh leo an tairgead seo a chaitheamh san nGaeltacht ar rudaí go mbeadh tairbhe ionnta do na daoine.

SEAN O GUILIDHE: Aontuighim le Teachta Micheál O Cléirigh mar gheall ar gach nidh adubhairt sé i dtaobh na Gardaí. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil ins an Ghaoltacht Gárdaí ná fuil aon Gaoluinn acu, ná aon mheas acu ar an nGaoluinn. Ní ceart é sin. Na rudaí eile atá le rá agam abrochaidh mé as Béarla iad.

Somebody has said that it appears to have been the policy of the Government to place barracks where the British Government had barracks in the old days, and to instal as many men in them as there were R.I.C. men formerly. It appears to me as if that policy were being followed, because in many remote parts where there is no crime, where the people are absolutely peaceful and law-abiding, I see in the Estimates that sums of £1,500 are provided for building nice houses. In these buidings there are three or five or seven men whose work, as far as one can see, is practically nil. I know of one particular area myself, between two fairly populous towns with a good police force in each town. Would it not be possible to have these remote areas patrolled by motor cycle police? In these days police forces are more mobile than they used to be even ten years ago. Would it not be possible, therefore, to have these remote areas regularly patrolled from the larger centres? It would avoid the necessity for putting up expensive buildings, especially in rather poor districts, affording a rather strong contrast very often with the houses of the people who have to pay for these buildings. Many of the houses in the immediate neighbourhood of these barracks are very poor houses—many of them are in ruin. It makes a very strong contrast when a fine new, expensive building is put up, housing a certain number of men who have very little to do, in the midst of these other houses. I do not blame the men. I suppose they do their work as best they can, but they have very little to do. The people are saying to-day what they [1384] said in the old days about the R.I.C.: “Why have we so many police; what do we want them for?”

Deputy Byrne, I think it was, asked us to produce any evidence of political bias. I am sorry to say that I am in a position to do so. I do not know whether the county I come from is more unfortunate in this respect than others. Deputies will remember a law case some time ago in connection with certain happenings in the Co. Waterford. An action was taken by civilians against certain members of the Gárda Síochána, and rather substantial damages were given against these Gárdaí. In another part of that county just as bad treatment was meted out to other men, but as that incident may give rise to another civil action, I had better not enter into it. What I wish to stress is that apparently these men, who were found guilty in the court of conduct unworthy of any civilian, let alone a police officer, are still retained in the service. It would be desirable that every effort should be made to rid the force of men of this type. A certain barracks with which I am acquainted was attacked at night at that time. Everybody in the district knows who attacked the barracks. It was attacked by some of these men, and these men are still in the force. I regret to say that apparently others of their type are still in the force. I have here a letter, some of which does not make very pleasant reading, but perhaps it will emphasise the fact that some men of this type are apparently in the force yet, and it will possibly make the matter clear if I read some extracts. It is from the husband of a postmistress in the County Waterford who has no connection with politics. The letter says:—

“As you are aware, my wife is postmistress here. On Friday, the 12th inst., two men called at the office and asked to see the cash book. Thinking they had come from the head office at Cork for the purposes of an inspection she handed one of them the book and asked if they had come from Cork. One of them replied, saying they had come from Cappoquin. She then went upstairs for the P.O. cash. When she turned [1385] round to return with the cash she found to her amazement that one of the strangers had followed her and was standing beside her in her bedroom. At this time I came into the house from the yard and went upstairs where I found my wife almost in a state of collapse. I asked what was the matter, and the stranger replied in a rather dogged tone, saying: ‘What's the matter with who?’ My wife then gave me to understand that this man had come from the Post Office to inspect the books and that it was all right, so I returned downstairs, although I thought it strange that he should be in one of the bedrooms. I found another man in the kitchen, evidently taking stock of all it contained, and, from his actions and manner, wanting everybody to understand he was a member of the C.I.D.. I then left the house. What subsequently happened was as follows; My wife was kept for four hours in her bedroom, having become too weak from fright to be able to leave it; all the while having to reply to questions relating to the office and also to questions which apparently had nothing to do with it. At one time she had to go down to the kitchen. When passing through the kitchen she asked her assistant to warm a little milk for her, but he ordered the assistant not to do so. She again returned upstairs, and being by this time unable to stand she sat on the bed. He followed and, sitting opposite to her resumed his questioning. After a while, his companion having succeeded in frightening the assistant, and having satisfied himself as to the contents of every drawer and cupboard in the house, went also upstairs to the bedroom, and for the remainder of the time stared insolently into the face of my wife. What all this meant I am at a loss to understand. No inquiries regarding any loss or irregularity in connection with this office had until then been made; neither did those men state the object of their visit. I can only surmise that it was in connection with the Savings Bank Book. the property of ——. This book had [1386] been sent to Dublin during July and had not been returned to him, although he had written several times for it. Those men had the book in their possession, and upon producing it asked my wife to explain some discrepancy in dates which it contained and in forms relating to it, but being in such a condition mentally and physically because of the drastic treatment received from them she was unable to recollect or explain anything. The difference in the dates which I have referred to was simply a clerical error which may occur in any office ...”

The other details are not of much importance.

These men were apparently police officers and surely police officers, calling on people in connection with a matter of this kind, should not behave as they did, for this seemed to be Black-and-Tanism in excelsis. I might mention another instance which occurred outside my own house. One night a country man was proceeding home—a man who has no connection with any political movement—when he was held up by these gentlemen—not uniformed members of the force but ununiformed members. He was questioned as to where he had been and he was told that he had been seen talking to the secretary of the local Fianna Fáil club. They wanted to know what he was talking about and why he remained so long talking to the secretary of the Fianna Fáil club and when the man protested about being searched they said “Don't get the wind up. You will have plenty of company.” That is not the sort of conduct that will make the police force respected. These incidents referred to in the letter which I read are disgraceful, and, in the interests of the force, every effort should be made to see that men capable of doing this sort of thing should not be tolerated in the force. As a rule, I must admit, I have found the police courteous and careful but undoubtedly there exists amongst them a certain number of men who would be a disgrace not alone to a police force but to any civilised country in the world.

Mr. BRISCOE: I quite agree that in [1387] discussing a matter involving the nature and conduct of the police force generally, it is only fair that those who criticise or comment favourably should have some experience or some knowledge of what they are discussing. I wish to contribute in a slight degree to the debate and to say that as far as Dublin city is concerned in one way we are possibly a great deal more fortunate than other parts of the twenty-six counties and that in another aspect we are much less fortunate. We have here in Dublin city a police force consisting of two arms. We have the ordinary force that would be classed as equivalent to the old D.M.P. and in regard to whom I have nothing to say except the highest praise. I had occasion to transact certain business where I had to have their aid and their help and I must say the ordinary uniformed police force in the matter of ordinary police duties as far as Dublin city is concerned, with very few exceptions, is a force upon which the people is to be congratulated.

On the other hand, we have what is called the equivalent of the old “G” Division, sometimes called the C.I.D. I say this in no sense of guessing, but absolutely straight and premeditated that a good many members of the C.I.D. of whom I have had experience in the city are men who are definitely the remainder of a political organisation, absorbed or taken into the police force for nothing except political work. The men I have in mind never had the training or experience that would permit them in present circumstances to hold the positions they do, and to hold the peace of the city on occasions in the hollow of their hands. Most of us on these benches have had experience at one time or another of raids in the past, and have been subjected to all kinds of inquiry and indignity by these people. I do not want to go into the past or say whether it was right or wrong to have those people for that purpose, but I say in present circumstances a great many of these men should be put to other employment. I do not say they should be disbanded or discharged or sent away, but I do say that a great many of these men, from their service [1388] and previous occupation, should now be taken and absorbed in the ordinary police force. They should receive the ordinary training which the ordinary recruit gets when he joins the force. They should be properly disciplined and not put out on the streets until after a certain number of months' service had been spent in the barracks in training, where they should remain until they learn the ordinary routine of the police duties. Then they should be put out amongst the uniformed men for a period to get personal contact with police duties through intercourse with the ordinary citizen. Subsequently, if a man is fit to be drawn out of the ordinary uniformed force, and put into the detective force—I wish to lose sight of the description “C.I.D.”—when fit for that work, well and good. At the present time there are men classed as Gárda and paraded as Gárda, and, as far as I am concerned, I wish to say it is an insult to the ordinary police force of Dublin to call them either Gárda or policemen; they are neither one nor the other. I am prepared, if called upon by any member of the Department of Justice, to give a long list of details which might serve some useful purpose and might improve conditions. I have said on other occasions that I am satisfied that some of these members are only too glad to provoke breaches of the peace. I said on a public platform on one occasion that I believe from their actions they would be only too glad to see disturbance going on.

I would like to ask one or two questions arising out of the introduction of this Estimate. The Minister mentioned a figure in connection with barracks in occupation by Gárda throughout the country, and said that the number of such barracks was less now than during the time of the R.I.C. I would like to know if the Minister took into consideration in his calculations the 130 odd barracks now under construction, as appears in the Vote for the Office of Public Works. Would that figure increase the number of barracks that are available now?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: No.

Mr. BRISCOE: These are taken into consideration. I am satisfied with that. [1389] In the Vote itself I notice on page 111 the item “Superannuation and retired allowance,” amounting to £136,495.

On turning to Vote 16 I cannot bring it into line with any figure in that Vote, and I would like if the Minister would tell us where it comes from. I see item “L” of Vote 16 specifies pensions, gratuities to members of the Gárda Síochána including members of the old D.M.P., £63,000, but under which item of that Vote are the superannuation and retiring allowances referred to under Vote 16?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY: If the Deputy looks at page 74 I think he will find the particulars he wishes.

Mr. BRISCOE: I have nothing further to say except to ask the Minister to consider the advisability of absorbing into the ordinary police force the members of the C.I.D. who have not had ordinary training in police work. Perhaps then, after a certain period, a number of the grievances that have been expressed, and which may possibly be expressed further from these benches, will disappear.

Mr. T. SHEEHY (Cork): As a Southern Deputy I wish to add my testimony to that already paid by Deputy Anthony to the efficiency of the Gárdai. In the South we are proud of the Guards. We recognise them as a great pillar of the State, and we believe that they are doing their duty faithfully and conscientiously to the Treaty and to the Constitution.

Mr. LEMASS: Hear, hear.

Mr. SHEEHY: I went through two General Elections and no one could say that the Guards took any part whatever with regard to politics. They carried out the law impartially between all candidates, and at the declaration of the poll all the candidates bore testimony to the impartial and fair manner in which they discharged their duties. I would appeal to the House to pass this Estimate unanimously. I have listened to the speeches this evening for the last two or three hours. They were all more or less moderate, and they all recognised that in the Free State we must have a police force. None of them stated that [1390] our present police force should be done away with, though some said that their numbers should be reduced. If the Deputies who hold that view would take one step forward and would stand firmly to the oath they took when entering this House to be loyal and true to the Constitution and Treaty we could then run the country with a reduced police force and a reduced Army. The same arguments were put forward about the Army as about the police. There were sneers at the boys in green, but the boys in green have come to stay as well as the Guards, and they will be here when all of us have long passed to our reward, upholding what they were organised for, namely, to keep the State as firmly and solidly as it is to-day.

Mr. LEMASS: It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, because I had very little hope that I would be able to convince the Minister of the error of his ways and the falsity of his arguments, but now that one whom I can regard as an ally has entered the House I can attempt to do so. That ally is the Minister for Agriculture. It appears that the Minister for Justice is under the impression that the police force consists of 7,210 men. It is to be regretted that he was not present when the Minister for Agriculture was speaking on the Army Estimate a few days ago and when he informed the House that in addition to the 7,210 men in the Civic Guards we had 12,500 policemen in the Army. If the Minister for Agriculture is correct we, therefore, have 20,000 policemen in the country, and it must be remembered that the functions of the Civic Guard, as defined by the Minister for Justice, do not differ one iota from the functions of the Army, as defined by the Minister for Agriculture. We have both forces serving the same functions and both costing the State several millions between them. The Government from time to time professes its anxiety for economy, and Deputies frequently emphasise the need for economy. Surely there is here an avenue along which it is possible to achieve economy. We have two forces performing the same functions.

[1391] I am trying to quote the Minister's exact words: “Both established for the purpose of ensuring that the people of the country will have the right to do wrong.” 12,500 men in the Army, established for the purpose of ensuring that the people of the country will have the right to do wrong and 7,210 men in the Civic Guards established—I hope the Minister will agree—for the same purpose of ensuring that the people of the country will have the right to do wrong. If, as Deputy after Deputy repeatedly assured us, this is one of the most crimeless countries in the world; and if, as Minister after Minister assured us, any abnormal conditions which heretofore existed are now rapidly disappearing, it is possible to combine the functions of these forces, thus to reduce their numbers, and incidentally reduce the cost of both. The Minister for Justice is apparently very definitely of the opinion that the functions of the Civic Guard are not what are normally regarded as police functions in other countries. He compared the number of Civic Guards now in the Twenty-six Counties with the number of members of the R.I.C. in the Twenty-six Counties in 1914. He also compared the number of Civic Guard stations now in the Twenty-six Counties with the number of R.I.C. barracks in 1914, and by doing so and claiming credit for that argument, he has undoubtedly conveyed the impression that the functions of the Civic Guard are identical with those of the R.I.C. in 1914. The functions of the R.I.C., as stated by Sir Hamar Greenwood or somebody of that ilk, were identical with the functions of the National Army as stated by the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. HOGAN: Or Balfour.

Mr. LEMASS: Any of them. They all talked much the same. The Minister has probably studied the various replies they gave to identical questions asked of the British Government. Certainly he has all the phraseology.

Mr. MacENTEE: What is bred in the greenwood comes out in the Minister for Agriculture.

[1392] Mr. LEMASS: We know, and some Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies know, that the R.I.C. was not a police force as such. It was the active service unit of the Briti