This Estimate has been introduced in what I can only call a very unsatisfactory manner. We are here asked to vote very large sums indeed for a new force of Guards. Three hundred men are brought under very strange and exceptional circumstances into the Guards, and not one single word of explanation is given to the House by the Minister as to why these 300 men were brought into the Guards, or what was the need of these 300 young men in the Guards. According to the Minister when in Opposition, there were not only sufficient Guards, but there were at least 2,000 too many Guards. It used to be the burden not only of his speeches, but the burden of speech after speech delivered from these Benches when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition, that there were far too many Guards in this country, that there should be enormous savings made in the Guards, especially by the reduction of their numbers. Indeed, if his memory does not play him false, and if he will just cast his mind back over a very short period, the Minister who sits beside the Minister for Justice— the Minister for Industry and Commerce—would remember how very eloquent he used to grow on the possibilities of enormous savings in the Guards. That is now all flung over. There can be no savings in the number of the Guards. Although the Guards were at full strength when the Minister took over office, or at least when his predecessor took over office—and there was practically no diminution during the term of his predecessor in office—we now discover that that force was not adequate and that 300 new men are required. What has become of the Minister for Industry and Commerce's eloquence? Is it lost? Does he never speak to his friend the Minister for Justice and tell him of the ways in which he was willing to save, and saw that those sums could be saved? Does he never use that persuasive tongue of his to effect a reduction in numbers rather than an increase?
The poor Minister for Justice himself has evidently got to admit now that all that stuff he used to talk in Opposition was a mere vote-catching cry. There was nothing in it; it is all humbug from first to last. The Minister has not even attempted to give us any justification for this increase in the number of Guards and also for the very strange and extraordinary method which was taken to recruit those men. This is a matter which has come under criticism in this House indirectly already and one would have thought the Minister for Justice in introducing the Estimate would have been burning with zeal to explain why this new force was brought into existence and why every single regulation governing recruitment to the Guards had to be flung aside in order that a certain type, and only a certain type, of men should be brought into this new force.
The regulations as to recruiting men for the Guards are very clear and specific. Men must be a certain height; they must have a certain chest measurement, they must be under a certain age, and they must be unmarried. All these things are laid down by regulation for recruiting men to the Gárda Síochána. These three hundred men, as we know, were recruited in the teeth of the Gárda regulations. Many of them did not correspond as far as height is concerned, as far as chest measurement is concerned, as far as age is concerned, and as far as the fact that they were unmarried is concerned. I know that the Minister made a statement in this House that men had been taken into the Guards in previous years before Fianna Fáil came into office who were unable to meet the requirements laid down. That is not so. No men were taken into the Guards who did not fully meet the requirements. The Minister said that men were taken in who were under height. There were two scales of height for recruiting Guards. There was one for the ordinary person who had to be a certain height. There was another regulation dealing with men recruited out of the army and in their case the height standard was reduced. But here we have it admitted by the Minister that these men were taken in not in compliance with the regulations at all. We know, too, because it was stated in the newspapers at the time, and never contradicted, that these men were chosen and selected, not by the Commissioner of the Guards, but by a Deputy of this House, and then they were handed over holus-bolus to the Commissioner with "you have to take them whether you like it or not."
What is the reason for all that? Why could not the ordinary regulations be kept? Why were men long over age taken into the Guards? Why were married men taken into the Guards against the regulations? Anybody who has anything to do with a police force anywhere in the world has always made this discovery, that if you want to have a really good and efficient policeman you must take that man and begin the training of him when he is young. As a matter of fact, I do know that long experience had convinced the leading officers in the Depot that if you want really good policemen it would be better to take them in under 20 rather than over 20. I am informed, and I believe it to be a fact, that actually men with sons old enough to be in the Guards themselves were taken into this force. There was no desire obviously, no wish to get proper or suitable men. There was only a wish to recruit men of one political outlook, and for that purpose a police officer could not be trusted and a Deputy of this House had to do the important work of the Commissioner of the Guards. I am not interested in the insult that that was to the Commissioner, but I am interested in the question of efficiency, and I say that a force recruited in that fashion can never turn out to be a really first-class or efficient body of men. Of course, they were not. We know that. Men taken suddenly, collected together, and selected by a Deputy of this House, were not going to turn out good and reliable Guards.
We had one of the most, in fact I should say without any qualification, the most disgraceful incident in the history of the Guards occurring very recently in consequence, as I believe, of that method of recruitment.
There was a trial before the Military Tribunal, that of Commandant Cronin. There were two charges against him, one being membership of an unlawful association, and the other sedition, because he said that the revolver ammunition had been dumped in his offices by a search party. It was a rather strange case. In the first place, Commandant Cronin was not charged with possession of the ammunition. He was not charged with having the ammunition under his control. The charge brought against him was that he used seditious words. In other words, the Attorney-General had given up hope, and did not consider that there was a prima facie case, even for investigation, against Commandant Cronin as regards possession of the ammunition, or of having it under his control. Seeing that he could not get reliable evidence upon which he could formally found a prima facie case, he fell back upon the second charge, that he seditiously said the ammunition had been dumped. The case went into court, and when he was tried Commandant Cronin frankly admitted using the words, but pleaded their truth. He was acquitted on that charge. In other words, nothing could be clearer than that, in the view of the Military Tribunal who tried the case, the ammunition had been dumped, and dumped by some member of the party which was searching Commandant Cronin's premises on that day.
Has anything been done? Has there been any inquiry? We heard of no such inquiry. We have the findings of the court, that some individual dumped the ammunition. That individual is still in the Guards, and, as far as the public knows, no effort has been made to trace him out by the Guards themselves, and no proceedings have been taken. This is not a matter of mere rumour; not a matter of mere suggestion. The position is that certain members of the Gárda Síochána—beyond question members of the new branch—dumped the ammunition. That is the finding of a court competent to deal with the matter. They had to find that, preliminary to the acquittal, as they did acquit Commandant Cronin.
The House is asked to pass a Vote for an enormous sum of money, £30,000. Certainly it is a big sum in these days to have flung upon the revenue, because 300 new men have been chosen in a most extraordinary fashion, for no reason that the Minister has been now or at any other time able to put forward to satisfy the people of this country or this House. What were these men recruited for? Why was this new addition made? The Guards were adequate in number. They had kept the peace of the country splendidly for many years. There was no section of the community—of the law-abiding section, at least— that was not perfectly satisfied with the existing Guards and the way in which they did their work. They have won the admiration of every law-abiding person. Nobody could challenge their efficiency. What we do challenge, and what we must challenge is the fashion in which this body has been recruited. Therefore, you are going to change the old system, and instead of having a force of Guards that will command the respect and confidence of every law-abiding citizen, you want to set up a force which, certainly in one instance, has shown itself entirely unworthy of the Guards' traditions. You have set up a force which you recruited in that extraordinary fashion solely for political motives. You are endeavouring to have a particular political section of the Guards, that the country cannot trust to do their duty. If more Guards were required—and the Minister has not shown us that they were—then they could have been got in the ordinary way. Recruiting could have been opened at the depot. The men could have come up for examination and could have been selected in the ordinary way by the Commissioner and then absorbed into the force, wherein there would be companionship with old, experienced, highly-tried and trusted members of the Guards. In time they themselves would learn their duty and would, if properly selected, become highly respected and highly competent members of the Guards. But we have none of that now. We have men sent out through the country who do not command the confidence of the people—of course, I mean the law-abiding people.
We had another example which came before the Military Tribunal the other day. In the presence of the Guards a man was able to fire three or four shots into a house. He injured a person in the house. It was the mercy of Providence that he did not kill someone in it. I know that a man has been convicted, but that firing could go on in the presence of Guards, and the persons concerned cleared away. As far as that household is concerned, the two new Guards who were outside were of no help and of no assistance. In a case like that why were not tried and experienced members of the Guards, who would have known how to do their duty, sent there? Not at all. You have only succeeded in demonstrating to this country that by your political method of recruitment, you have selected the wrong type of men. In consequence you have shaken the confidence of the law-abiding citizens of this State in the efficiency of that section of the Guards. It is a very bad thing. If you start shaking public confidence in the way in which a section of the Guards do their work, the country may not be able to discriminate, and the confidence of the public in the old, responsible and tried Guards would be shaken. There is another thing which should never be forgotten, that in a force like the Guards, with its fine traditions, splendidly built up during the last few years, one of the most valued things is esprit de corps. One of the things that can be utilised in the most perfect fashion is the feeling amongst the Guards that they have a force with a fine reputation. Each individual member will consider that he has got to keep up the reputation of that force. In consequence, there will be a driving power behind each member of the force to keep along the straight and correct path. But do the other thing: bring in a man who lowers the reputation of the Guards in the public eye and who lowers the reputation of the whole force in the Guards' own eyes, and you are killing that esprit de corps: you are taking away from the Gárda force one of the very best assets that it has got, and you do so want only and without any cause.
When you come into this House to introduce an Estimate dealing with that body of men you come in with no explanation to offer: just a few short words dealing with the facts and figures, but not one single word as to why this extra expenditure is required and why this extra body has been recruited in this strange fashion. Considering the present economic condition of this State, this sum of £30,000 is a very large sum, a sum which could be invested in valuable work amongst those whom the economic policy of the Government have driven into poverty. You have this sum added on to the Gárda Vote, and an explanation as to why it should be added on is not forthcoming from the Minister for Justice. In my judgment this is not a Vote that the House should pass. If the country wants extra Guards, if there is a need of an extra police force, if the present force is not fit or adequate to deal with crime and the Minister comes to this House and says "There are not sufficient Guards in the country to maintain order; I want more Guards and I am going to recruit them in the ordinary way, I am going to get the best men I can, I am going to let competent officers of the Guards select the recruits."—If the Minister comes to the House and establishes a case such as I have outlined, there will be no member more willing to support him than I will be. The primary object of every Government ought to be the maintenance of order. If the Government wants a police force bigger than its existing police force to maintain order, then most certainly I will support the Government in such a demand, but I will not support the Government in a demand that they may get pay for men whom they have not brought in to make easier the task of keeping order in this State, a body of men whom they have not recruited in the ordinary fashion and trained up in the ordinary, old way, and a body of men who have not helped in the preservation of the peace in this country and in whom the country has not got and cannot have confidence.