The importance of this Estimate lies in the fact that it is a link between the Estimates from No. 31 to No. 37. We have already dealt with some of the matters concerned, but it is just as well to mention that these Votes when taken together amount to over £2,000,000. When I say that, I include the incidental expenses which occur on other Votes. To criticise a particular Vote it is necessary to have regard to that matter because the amount of money spent on a public department includes such money as has been really spent on its behalf by another Department. It also includes appropriations-in-aid which are generally balanced against the estimates and which are also in the nature of expenditure that comes out of the pockets of the public. As I have said, this Vote is really the centre and head of Votes 31 to 37 which represent a total of £2,000,000 or one-tenth of the aggregate estimated cost for the year of all State services. This particular Vote amounts to £49,752, of which £8,000 represents rates, etc. Although the Vote is a small proportion of the whole, it is, as I have said, the most important part.
We might ask the Minister how he sub-divides the work of his Department. There is the Minister himself, a Secretary at £1,200 a year, an Assistant Secretary at £900, and a Second Assistant Secretary at £832. These, I take it, are the most important officers of the Department. The rest of the Department would subdivide itself under them. It would be interesting to know how the work is sub-divided and how the activities are carried on. It appears to me that some of the work of the Department is neglected while too much time is given to other activities. We do not propose to discuss to-day anything in regard to the civil administration of the Courts, because that is the subject at present of committee inquiry. We have already dealt with the administration of the Civic Guards, both in detail and by way of political criticism. I would like to make one brief remark in reference to strictly criminal matters and would point out that the methods of criminal investigation are open to criticism. Judges have made comments upon the way in which investigations have taken place. I am sure that the Minister and his Department have noted these matters and that the Minister will be in a position to give us his view as to what changes he proposes to make in his methods of investigation.
In certain cases his methods of investigation have practically broken down. That may be due to the fact that the Department has been trained in a school of criminal investigation which does not suit a country like this, namely, in the American system, which depends for its success on terror rather than detection. It would be far better if the Minister tried some of the methods used in countries other than America and tried to detect crime in other ways than by drawing statements from individuals by means of terror. I do not know whether the Minister has a set of rules or not, but there should be a set of rules in existence by which the conduct of a criminal investigating officer would be guided so that, while carrying out his duties, the rights of the individual would be protected. There is one Vote here dealing with prison matters. I take it that on the present Vote we would not be able to discuss the antiquated system of treating prisoners in this country as compared with the modern and progressive methods adopted in other countries. In sub-head A there is a Vote of £100 for the medical inspection of prisons. That is a matter which should require very great attention. The particular officer mentioned belongs to another Department, but I do not see how an officer could carry out his work in anything but a perfunctory way when he receives only £100 a year for such purpose. I do not say that the total amount of public money spent in that direction should be increased, but that the officer devoted to that work should be a whole-time officer and should not be paid for any other duties in the Local Government Department.
