Vol. 122 No. 6
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £45,720 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1951, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice.
I suggest that the House should, with the permission of the Chair, follow the same procedure as in previous years, and discuss this group of Estimates together.
I expect that we can ask questions on any Vote?
Yes, on specific points on any Vote.
That is agreed.
The aggregate amount of the nine Votes is £3,528,220, which represents a decrease of £191,310 on last year's Estimates. Most of the Estimates show only slight variations from last year's figures, the only significant change being in the Garda Estimate, No. 30, which is down by £198,660.
The main cause of the decrease in the Garda Estimate is that we are budgeting for a force of 7,116 as compared with 7,322 last year—a reduction of 206 men—and that last year's Estimates had to provide for arrears of pay increases from 1st November, 1948, to 31st March, 1949.
The Prisons Estimate shows a decrease of £7,200. The main cause of this is that we are making provision for a daily average of 560 prisoners as compared with 600 last year. As a result it has been found possible to effect slight reductions in staff. The District Court and Circuit Court Estimates show increases of £2,630 and £7,490 respectively. These increases are due to provision being made for better salary scales for the clerks.
The Vote for the Supreme Court and the High Court shows an increase of £1,260. This is due in the main to normal salary increments and some staff changes.
The Vote for the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds shows an increase of £4,080. This is caused by provision being made for additions to the staff to deal with increased work in the Land Registry.
I do not think that it is necessary for me to say any more in regard to the figures. I should like to say a few words of general explanation, however. In the first place I want to say a word about the Garda. As the House is aware the Government suspended recruitment for the Garda pending examination of the question whether it might be possible, by reorganisation, to police the country effectively with a smaller force. As I told the House when speaking on last year's Supplementary Estimate, a committee has been set up to consider this question and it is at present engaged on the task. I hope that before the time for next year's Estimates arrives, I will be in a position to inform the House of the committee's recommendations and of the Government's decisions in regard to them.
In regard to crime I am glad to be able to say that, although the crime returns are still very high, the figures for 1949 show a reduction. In 1938 the total number of indictable offences reported to the police was 6,769. The numbers increased rapidly during the early years of the war until in 1943 the peak figure of 17,305 was reached. Since then there has been a slow but steady decline. The figure for 1949 was 12,242 as compared with 14,949 in 1948.
In 1949 the police instituted 165,823 prosecutions for summary offences, as compared with 104,188 in 1938. Of the total, 99,887 prosecutions were in respect of traffic offences, and 61,528 of these were for lighting offences. This big volume of summary proceedings wastes a lot of police time, and I should like to take this opportunity, if I may, to make an appeal to the public to observe the traffic and parking regulations which are made for their safety and convenience and not to cause themselves trouble and the State expense by making it necessary for the police to institute 100,000 prosecutions every year in an effort to enforce road safety.
I am glad to be able to say that definite progress has been made towards improving the position of clerks in the Circuit Court and District Court. As regards the Circuit Court officers it is proposed to give the unestablished officers an opportunity to qualify for establishment through the medium of a limited competition to be conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners and to admit to the competition all officers who, on 1st April, 1950, were between the ages of 18 and 65 years and who on that date had not less than one year's continuous service. Of the 93 unestablished officers serving at present, 78 satisfy these conditions and will be eligible to take part in the competition. The remaining 15 officers cannot be considered for establishment for reasons either of age or of short service. Successful officers over 55 years of age on the date of appointment as a result of the competition will be appointed in an unestablished capacity. All successful candidates whether appointed in an unestablished capacity or not will be placed on appointment on the appropriate scale at a point determined by their years of service, that is to say, they will be given credit for past service.
Deputies will not, I am sure, expect me to go into the matter in great detail at this stage. In order, however, that the House might have some idea of what practical benefits will result immediately for the clerks concerned, I have had an analysis prepared which shows that for more than four-fifths of the clerks appreciable and, in many instances, substantial increases in pay will result from their appointment under the scheme. About 16 per cent. of the clerks will get increases ranging from 4/6 to 20/- per week, 23 per cent. will get increases ranging from 20/- to 30/-, 16 per cent. from 30/- to 40/- and about 28 per cent. from 40/- to 56/- per week.
I am not in a position to make quite as categorical statement as regards the District Court clerks. This much I can say however, that an arrangement has been reached under which a considerable number of the present unestablished clerks will secure established status and, in their case too, establishment will result for most of them in substantial increases in pay as they will be permitted to enter their new scales at points which will take account of their unestablished service. Legislation is necessary to implement the arrangement in the case of the District Court clerks and it will be ready for introduction early in the next session.
I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. At the outset, I want to congratulate the Minister on the fact that there is a reduction in the number of indictable offences. Unfortunately, the figure is still very high compared to what it was in 1938. It is probably due to the very large increase in the city population, or to something of that kind. When I was on the other side of the House and had to present the Estimate, I generally referred to juvenile delinquency. As I mentioned last year, when it comes to the police having to deal with crime of this kind, things would appear to have gone very far. I think myself that the reform with regard to juveniles should start in the home or in the school. I do not know what the position is at present about juvenile offences, but I hope it has improved. I hope, too, that from now on it will improve still further.
I hope that the motoring public and those who use bicycles will take notice of the appeal which the Minister has made, that they will be more careful in the observance of lighting and traffic regulations, and will not be causing the Guards, or users of the roads, so much trouble as, apparently, they are doing at present. The position, in regard to offences of this kind, would appear to be rather serious and alarming, in view of the fact that it is necessary for the Guards to bring 100,000 prosecutions in a year.
The sub-head for prisons shows a decrease of £7,200. That is accounted for by a reduction in the number of indictable offences reported during the year. The Minister did not say anything about the condition of the prisons. When I was Minister, I had to listen to long appeals to me to do something about modernising the prisons, especially the Borstal institute. Deputies who were present during these years will remember Deputy Dillon, as he was then, appealing to me to do something—at least to provide a new Borstal institute so that modern treatment could be accorded to youthful delinquents. The present Minister for Finance was also very eloquent in his denunciation of me for, as he said, degrading unfortunate people in Mountjoy Prison and allowing such appalling conditions as existed there. He wanted running water in every cell and all sorts of amenities which were simply impossible in an old prison like Mountjoy. On another occasion—I think it was the last time I was responsible for the Vote—for hours we heard great condemnation of the Minister for not doing something about Sligo Prison. Two Deputies who had been in Sligo Prison for a month spoke about the appalling conditions in this prison.
I know something about Mountjoy Prison as I was in there on a couple of occasions. I know that it required repairs. We had to break up that prison on one occasion, as well as the Belfast Prison on another occasion. I know a lot about Mountjoy from the inside. I was most anxious that we should try, if possible, to introduce some up-todate methods in the treatment of prisoners so as not to degrade them. Apart from the building itself, which presented a very big problem, one of the things I was most anxious about was to try at least to improve the dress of the prisoners, because I think the way some prisoners are dressed has a bad effect on them. If they are not fairly well dressed, it has a depressing effect on them. I did not get very far, but there may have been an improvement made since. Before I left office we allowed prisoners who were serving long sentences to wear the new clothes that would be given to them on their release in the evening time and also on holidays and Sundays in order to try and restore some of their selfrespect. I must say I was disgusted when I heard of a speech made by the Minister during the by-election in West Cork about my activities and the waste of public money that I favoured. The speech was not published and therefore I have to rely on the word of people who heard him.
That is very doubtful sometimes.
Recently, the Minister was speaking in County Mayo and his speech was reported. Amongst the terrible things that the last Government were going to do the Minister said they were going to build a prison in Chapelizod which would cost £1,500,000. The Minister shakes his head as if he did not say that. Members of my Party heard him say it in Schull. When you have not a record of the spoken word you have to rely on the memory of those who were present. But the Irish Times reported a speech of the Minister's in County Mayo and put it on their front page. I have it here in case the Minister might be inclined to contradict me. He can take the matter up with the Irish Times reporter if it is not accurate.
I did not put a figure on it.
The figure is given here. Whether the Minister put a figure on it or not, it was an unworthy thing for him to say. After all, this is a question in which we are all concerned. I was attacked in the Dáil during the war for not providing proper accommodation for unfortunate people who broke the law. But I often said that if there was anything I could do to better the conditions I would do it. Anyone who has studied prison administration or who examines it in an unbiassed way will admit that, short of making our prisons places outside which people would be queueing up to get admission, we have made tolerable improvements in the conditions. It is too bad that a Minister responsible for the Department of Justice should attack me or the former Government because we did try to make some provision for the future. As everybody knows, the first step you must take when you see building sites being taken up everywhere is to try and procure a site. That is as far as we had advanced. Whether we actually got the site I do not know. I myself visited several places with the late Secretary of the Department and the official responsible for prisons to try and get a suitable site for a new Borstal institute. We had to have regard to the convenience of the staff necessary for the running of that institution. Anyway, the Minister is reported in the Irish Times of 3rd July last—this bears out the report I heard except for the figure given—as follows:—
"If he were to interpret Fianna Fáil policy as announced by the Party he could only come to the conclusion that it objected to this country's allocation of Marshall Aid being spent in this country—it would put the money in the bank or invest it in England to earn money for Britain.
"Or perhaps," declared General MacEoin, "Fianna Fáil would continue with this policy of capital expenditure—a new Parliament House costing £12,000,000, new Government Buildings costing dear knows how many millions to polish up the Castle, and £1,500,000 for a new jail at Chapelizod."
I say that that is an unworthy thing for the Minister to say.
How much to polish up the Castle?
It does not state here. I must protest against the Minister making this sort of thing a Party issue. I agree with what Deputy Dillon said when he was in opposition, that we ought to try to do what is in our power to alleviate the lot of unfortunate people who have to be imprisoned for social offences. The Minister ought to keep off the line he has been following. It may get a few odd votes down the country, but it is unworthy of a Minister of State to behave in that way. I did not think I would have it in black and white. If he had denied it like he denied the statement he was reported as making about my leaving festering sores, I would be in doubt about it, but it has been corroborated by the published statements. The general belief is that the Minister is saying that sort of thing and he ought to cut it out from this on.
I now come to the question of the Garda Síochána. I think the Minister and the Government are unwise in reducing the strength of the Garda. Take Dublin alone. The Minister on one occasion said that there were more Guards in Dublin City than ever. When I questioned him, he had to admit that there were fewer Guards. It must be six years ago that I received a very representative deputation from the Dublin Corporation on this question of the Guards in Dublin.
There were Deputies and members of the corporation on that deputation, including members of the Labour Party. I told them that I would do whatever was possible and would ask the Commissioner to allocate some of the new recruits to Dublin City. Anyone who knows the position in Dublin City is aware that the city is under-policed. There is no question about that. I say to the Minister that that is false economy. We are told, with some truth, that there is discontent amongst the Guards because of the increased work they have to perform in the city, due to the fact that they are under strength. Money saved in that way is unwisely saved.
I think that in the present world situation, when we do not know from one day to another what is likely to happen, that the Minister and the Government are badly advised to cut down the strength of the Guards in the country either. I do hope, no matter what the commission decides, that they will keep their report in abeyance until at least the world situation has eased. I have the clearest recollection, after the descent of the first of the parachutists who came here, when we found his papers and discovered he was looking for particulars of landing places and matters of that kind, of having sent for General Murphy. We went through this man's equipment and we decided there and then—we had only very short notice—to ask for the cooperation of all Parties in this House to set up the L.S.F., as it was then called. Overnight that was done but that was only possible because we had in every part of the country a nucleus of Guards around whom the country could rally. We all know the wonderful success it was but it could never have been established had it not been for the fact that we had in every part of the country a few Guards who were able to take charge of these units as they sprung up. That served a twofold purpose. There was an organisation in existence at the time, not a very big organisation, but the members were rather widely spread over the country, who were anxious to bring in one of the belligerents. There was an eye kept on them as a result of how widespread the Guards were. Also, if any parachute landings took place, we had even in the most remote parts of the country some representatives of the Guards. I hope that whatever economies are contemplated in that direction they will not take place, at least until the world situation has cleared up.
Apart from anything else, I think the Guards in a country barracks serve a very useful purpose for more than one Government Department. The matter of non-police duties performed by the Guards has been mentioned several times. I think that the Guards employed on what are called non-police duties are doing the work much better and more cheaply than it would be done if the Government had to employ special inspectors for collecting statistics and information of that kind. They are engaged in many activities connected with unemployment assistance, passports, travel permits and other matters which provide a convenience for the people generally. Apart from that, we all know that the presence of Guards in remote country districts has very often resulted in brightening up these districts. From a cultural and athletic point of view, they have been a great boon to different parts of the country. Counties that were never heard of in Gaelic Athletic Association circles have sprung to the fore very largely as a result of the presence in these places of Guards who were good hurlers and footballers, and who could train teams. That is something well worth remembering. Along with that, the people always felt that they had some protection close at hand in case of need.
The strength of the Garda is not the sort of thing on which the Government should economise. This commission has now been sitting for some time and I think 12 months is a rather long period to wait for its recommendations. I think that the Minister should hurry up its deliberations because there is some anxiety in regard to what these recommendations are likely to be. He should not put the matter on the long finger because there is, as I say, anxiety amongst the Guards as to the form the recommendations will take. Some of them are rather afraid that they are going to reduce the strength of the force in country barracks, even if some of these barracks are not closed down.
When in former years, some Deputies complained about Guards cutting turf, I had to point out to them that the Guards are not supposed to work 24 hours a day any more than any other person in the country, that they had time off and that if they used that time to cut turf or to engage in other activities of that kind, it was all to their credit. If you are going to reduce the strength of any station below three Guards, and if you divide the 24 hours between them it will mean that each Guard will be on duty for 12 hours at a stretch and you do not allow one day off in the week. That is not the sort of thing that is calculated to make them too content.
Another question that is causing some anxiety is the matter of promotions in the Guards. As we all know, it is a very big force. I do not know what percentage of the Guards can ever hope to be promoted but it is a very small one, as the Minister knows. Therefore, I think when senior posts become vacant, the Government should not economise by not filling them. I do not think I can be accused of advocating extravagance in making that statement. I am informed—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong; this information may be a little too old but it would be correct up to a few months ago—that there has been only one promotion from the rank of sergeant to that of inspector in the last 12 months and that the last examination held for sergeants eligible for promotion was held in 1942 and that the last three vacancies that occurred—two for superintendents and one for inspector —were not filled for economy reasons.
Not for economy reasons.
They were not filled. That is the important point. Perhaps the Minister when replying will be able to give me the reasons. I have here the remark: "bad economy".
So far as I know they filled every one of them.
Perhaps the Minister would find that out. I received this information from people who are watching closely and who had a hope of getting some promotion. Another complaint I have is that, when a vacancy occurs, it takes six months to fill it. These are grievances that cause a good deal of discontent and there should be some effort made to improve the position.
The Minister brought in a pensions Order some time ago and he is to be congratulated on that. It was something that should have been done in my time and whatever credit is due to him for doing what I did not do I freely concede to him, but I think he should press to have the four outstanding cases dealt with. One man who has been writing to me gets £2 10s. 0d. a week. He was injured on his way to work. He was retired before this new Order was made and he is not covered by it. He says definitely that when he produces his discharge papers they affect his efforts to get employment, as they show that he was discharged medically unfit. There are only four of these cases and I do not think it is correct to suggest that, if the Minister makes the Order retrospective to cover these four cases, it would also apply to civil servants. Guards are not treated as civil servants. That point has already been established, if the Minister will look up the records. When the increases in salaries were granted, it was held that Guards were not in the same category as civil servants. I should like to point out that, if the present Minister for Finance has not changed his attitude since 1947, he reminded me then that the increases given to the Guards were miserable and that they should be quadrupled. He cannot have departed from that attitude very much since he became Minister for Finance.
Another matter to which I should like to refer is that in 1947 we passed a Courts of Justice Act. One of the principal matters dealt with in that Act was the reorganisation of the Circuit Court. We provided for a President of the Circuit Court, who was to have the right to call on any circuit judge who had a light circuit to help in the circuit of another judge who was very busy. There are some circuits, as everyone who knows anything about courts is aware, that are very busy. There are others, on the other hand, that are very slack and I subscribed to the principle put forward by the present Taoiseach when he was on these benches that it was a bad thing to have either temporary judges or temporary district justices if it could be avoided. In pursuance of that, in the Courts of Justice Act, 1947, we made permanent a Circuit Court judge who had been acting as a temporary judge, thereby increasing the number of circuit judges to 11, whereas the statutory number had been ten. That power lapses when this judge's time is up and there will only be ten in the future. We hoped, with that extra power, the number would be sufficient to obviate the necessity of having any more temporary judges. That was the whole idea. I thought that that was a success and that it could be done. Two thousand seven hundred less indictable cases were dealt with last year than we had the year before and it is the indictable cases that go to trial by judges. That looks to me like a good reason why the Government should be able to do with the 11 judges but that does not seem to have worked out.
I am well aware that a temporary Circuit Court judge was appointed some time ago and that the old procedure which we had adopted and which, as far as I know, had been adopted by the Government before us was departed from. In our time a temporary judge was paid so much per every sitting day and when he was not sitting— no work, no pay. There was an overriding maximum that he could not get more in any year than the full salary of a Circuit Court judge. When there was no work to do for three months the Government actually put that particular person on full pay for three months.
When the judge he had been acting for came back they kept on that temporary judge until a permanent vacancy could be found. That is not good enough. I know that he is very competent. He is now a permanent judge and I am quite satisfied that he will be a great success. He was appointed by the same process by which we always appointed judges when we were the Government and with which fault was found on the Opposition Benches, but, as I thought at the time, there is no better way to do it. After all, the highest selection board in the country ought to be and is the Government, and you would get no better selection board anywhere. That is what we maintained and that is what this Government is doing. The Minister will find it very hard to justify the appointment of temporary judges, with a decrease in the amount of indictable cases, with an extra permanent judge, with 11 judges where there were always only ten.
Some of them are very slow, you know.
That may be so but the position was that there were some who were very fast. I will not mention them, but I know exactly how many days a year they worked, and I am not going to scandalise people by saying it because they would not believe it. I thought it was a disgrace. I got the Government to agree, and it was agreed in the House that it should be possible to get a judge to give a hand to his lower brethren, if you like, or to his busier colleagues, somewhere else. I am perfectly satisfied that if political pressure were not brought to bear this would not happen.
Some judges do not want assistance.
Whether they want it or not one judge ought not be allowed to go around with his hands in his pockets for half the year while another one is working from one end of the year to another.
Let him work an eight-hour day.
That remark is too light altogether.
I come to something which I think is very serious. Maybe the Minister does not think so. I started by asking whether Deputy Lehane has made available to him that confidential document which he showed in the House.
I want to point out to the Deputy that no judge has reported or admitted the loss of the document.
I am not going to be put off with that sort of thing. The Deputy-Leader of the Clann na Poblachta Party, a member of the legal profession, gets up in this House and hands up a document and says that it is a confidential police report which was given to a judge before people were tried.
An illegal document.
Illegal or not illegal——
A stolen decument.
We have plenty of time to deal with this thing as this is not like a debate on the Adjournment. Whether that document should have been given or not, whether it was proper procedure or not, although some Dublin papers applauded the Deputy who brought the matter up saying that he had performed a public service by doing so, there is a difference of opinion on that. I think on the whole that it should not be done. There are judges who would like to get all the information they can. I do not think that it prejudices them and I think it may be to the advantage of the prisoner, but that is aside from whether it should be done or not. During that adjournment debate I asked the Minister how many judges were concerned. What I meant —and I think it could be clearly inferred from my question—was how many judges were in the habit of asking for these reports, but it may be that the Minister did not take it that way.
I did not take it that way.
There would be at least one judge who would look for it.
I do not want to misrepresent the Minister in any way. I want to tell him—if he is not aware of it—that some judges do not like the practice at all.
Most of them.
I am told that there is perturbation among them because the Minister said there were 11 but it has been cleared up now that he meant only that there were 11 Circuit Court judges.
That is what I meant. I understood the Deputy to ask me how many Circuit Court judges there were—11.
I am mentioning that only in order to have that point cleared up and for no other reason. In asking the question I meant to ask how many judges asked for reports but I did not say that clearly and I understand how the Minister said that there were 11, meaning that there were 11 Circuit Court judges altogether. The Minister now tells us that he does not know whether what Deputy Lehane said was right or not with regard to the confidential document. He does not know! I say that in dealing with this matter he has shirked his duty. When a Deputy said that he had such a document the Minister had a right to find out whether he had or not. Surely he had that duty, the duty of finding out whether it was possible for any judge who had been given one of these reports—and, as we find now, only a limited number of them did get these reports——
Looked for them.
They knew he got it, anyway, and at least the Garda officer who gave that report to the judges should ask these judges if they had still got them. As a matter of fact, my information is that they have done that and that statement can be contradicted, if it is not true.
The Deputy must have been getting some confidential information.
Yes, I do; I get plenty of it. The Deputy would be amazed by all the information I get, and I do not get stolen documents either.
Would the Deputy give us his view on the practice? He is dodging that issue.
Deputy Lehane talks about dodging. I can tell him that I never dodged anything in my life and I am not going to dodge now.
Give us your view on it.
My view is that, on the whole, it is not a very good practice, but I am not going to give it all-out condemnation. I have too much regard for the integrity of the judges to believe that they will be influenced to the detriment of a prisoner by any document given to them by a police officer. If I did not think that, I would have very little respect for them. Although I am not a legal man, I know that it is not the judge who finds a man guilty or innocent; it is the jury does that. If the judge brings into his summing up, or says anything which could be regarded as wrong, as Deputy Cowan said, the whole proceedings are vitiated. It is the jury makes the decision, and, when there is talk about dodging, I say that I am trying to be as explicit as possible. If I were a judge, I think I would do without these things, but I do not think it is very harmful.
It is very bad.
I do not agree. So far as the sentence is concerned, when the case has been finished, it is the practice that the police say what is known about the prisoner, when he is convicted. That, I think, operates more in the interests of the prisoner than in the other way. If he happens to be a first offender, or if there are some unfortunate circumstances connected with the case, that practice may operate in the prisoner's interest.
That is after conviction by the jury.
If I have not made my attitude to this procedure clear to Deputy Cowan, I do not propose to make it any clearer. All I intend to do is to repeat that the Minister had a bounden duty, in my opinion and in the opinion of other people, to investigate this whole matter, and to find out whether the judge, in fact, did let this document out of his hands by his own volition or whether it was stolen. My information is that it was stolen, either from the judge's pocket or from his office—and by a solicitor at that—and sent by post to Deputy Lehane. In other words, it was stolen and the person who stole it can be described as nothing but a thief. What can we say about the receiver? The Minister, instead of expressing at least his disapprobation of that action, commends the Deputy who flaunts a stolen document in the House, and he ought to be ashamed of himself for doing that.
There is another matter to which I want to refer in connection with a case tried in Naas. It was a case of two rascals who attacked a widow's house in a place called Ballylinan, in County Leix. This widow had two daughters and these men demanded admittance after the public house had closed. They wanted to take part in some dance they thought was in progress there. They got a month and I think they got too little. They appealed and the appeal came before the Circuit Court in Naas. The judge who tried the case said:
"I have rarely heard of a more blackguardly performance than that which took place on the night of 29th April or the morning of the 30th April outside Mrs. Davis's house."
Is that case not still sub judice?
It is not.
Are you sure?
Certain.
It is all over.
What does Deputy Moran know about it? It affects my constituency.
I know my business a little better than that. This case is not sub judice and that is what the judge said about these men. The warrant was made out in the usual way and a dispute as to whether the warrant had been properly drawn up or not was set on foot to give Deputy T. F. O'Higgins an opportunity—and there are eye-witnesses of this—to get in touch with the Minister on the telephone. Inside one hour, the superintendent of the area got instructions not to execute the warrant. That was bad enough, but what happened then? When the judge was getting into his car after dealing with the business of the court, to his amazement, the people he thought were en route to Mountjoy were standing on the footpath and they put their fingers to their nose.
How do you know the judge was amazed?
I know it from onlookers and, if Deputy Cowan had been there, he would have been amazed, too.
From the judge?
Not from the judge. There were plenty of bystanders looking on.
And they knew he was amazed.
That was done for a constituent of Deputy O'Higgins. Some of them lit bonfires to celebrate the homecoming of these two blackguards who did not get enough when they got a month each. That is the sort of thing that will bring any Government and the courts into complete contempt.
This matter affects my constituency. Is Deputy Boland, who is an honourable man, sure that this case has been finally disposed of?
I am. The Circuit Court is the final court in relation to a matter of this kind, unless there is some point of law involved, which, I understand, is not the case. The Minister may have put the men back in jail since—I cannot say whether he has or not. There is probably a petition before the Minister and it may be settled, but in any case that is not the way these things should be done. Before the court rose, an order came to the Guards not to execute the warrant and they did not do so. If Deputy Davin has any doubt about it, he can find out very easily.
That judge is always shouting: "blackguards."
That judge did not come near me.
It is like the case of the man shouting "wolf."
There is one final matter I want to refer to which concerns Deputy Cowan. I should say that it really concerns the Minister for Justice, but Deputy Cowan is involved. We all know that the Taoiseach is responsible for the Government of the country, but each Minister is charged with a special duty. The Minister for Justice has the duty of seeing that public order is preserved and, so far as I know from the Constitution, there can be only one Army in this country, and whether the other body which this Deputy is trying to form, or has got some distance with, is called a volunteer force or otherwise, it ought not to be allowed.
The Taoiseach says—and when he was saying it he had his legal adviser listening in, and I am sure he got advice from his own advisers—that no illegal action was taken, that Deputy Cowan's action is not illegal. People have come to me, who are every bit as competent legal people as any the Government has at its disposal, and they tell me that it is definitely contrary to the Constitution and specifically so to Section 6 of the Offences Against the State Act. Whether it is or not, it ought to be made so. If there is any doubt as to whether it is or not, it ought to be made so because, although we all know that Deputy Cowan is more or less playacting, some of the people that he may induce to take part in this volunteer organisation, as the Taoiseach calls it, may not be playacting.
The Taoiseach says he has no evidence that they are doing any military manoeuvres. The Taoiseach must not be looking for evidence. The Minister for Justice can easily find out, if he wants to, that these people are doing a certain amount of manoeuvring in the Phoenix Park, almost opposite the Garda Depot. They have not, as far as I know, displayed any arms yet but, surely to goodness, we are not going to wait until they start to shoot. Is it going too far to say that this thing is not dangerous, that we have to wait till they start to shoot?
Do not we all know that there is another organisation there which, naturally, is taking full advantage of all this? We know it is. I am glad to say that there have been no acts of violence since 1942. Since the last Guard was murdered in Donnycarney, no Guard has been shot but is not this a dangerous movement? Is it not possible that other elements in this part of the country may follow the Deputy's lead, people who would be far more dangerous?
I say to the Minister that, in my opinion anyway, it is his duty to get the Government to make sure that this thing will not continue. We have the F.C.A., if they want volunteers and soldiering. As far as I can gather, it is not at full strength or anything like as strong as it ought to be. Any young people who want to practise the use of arms have the F.C.A. there, if they do not want to join the regular Army.
For goodness sake, this thing ought to stop. I know the Minister's difficulty. He has not got a united Party behind him. He has four or five Parties to please. But, he has a fundamental duty, which he ought not to neglect. There is no use in singling out Deputy Cowan and saying he is a sawdust Cæsar, as some papers said the other day, like certain people were when they started antics on the Continent. Small things like this often lead to very serious results. The Minister is not entitled to take this thing complacently.
You are giving him good advertisement anyway.
I may be giving him good advertisement. He is quite welcome. He is getting plenty of advertisement all right, but if he gets an advertisement from the Government to say that he is not going to be let proceed with it any longer, it will not do one bit of harm and it may be a lesson to other people that they will not be let do it either.
The Government cannot break the law.
But the Government can make the law such, if there is any doubt about it.
They cannot. It takes this House.
I mean that. The Government represents this House. If the Government cannot do it, what they should do is to bring in a Bill and we will decide it here. If there is any doubt about the position, it is the bounden duty of the Government, not alone in my opinion but, I can tell the Minister, in the opinion of some lifelong supporters of his Party, not to allow this position to drift.
I want no drastic action taken against anyone but I am appealing to the Minister, for the sake of every one of us, and for the safety of the country, not to let this thing go on, to remove all doubts and to tell this Deputy that he must not do it.
While I am on this matter, there is another little point that I would also like to make.
Deputy Boland is a defender of Basil Brooke in this House.
About that, all that Deputy Boland can say is that he did his damnedest, in his own time, to prevent Partition being made permanent.
That time is past.
We were beaten by Deputy Cowan and people like him and Deputy Cowan's colleagues gave the title deeds to Sir Basil Brooke and, that being the case, he is the head of a Government recognised by this Parliament and I do not think I have any right to insult him, as he was insulted.
You co-operated with him during the emergency.
It was not my fault. I had a vote in 1925. I was a member of the Sinn Féin Party then and I did everything in my power to get that Party to come in here and vote against the Border but I did not succeed. But, while I admit I was delinquent in not doing my share then, I did everything I could.
The Deputy should not travel so far back.
Will you go down to receive the Queen?
Are you going to allow this man——
I am not going to allow Standing Orders to be set aside.
Let me get to my point and I will close. It affects the Minister too. I do not want in any way to be insulting to the Minister either, or to Deputy Cowan for that matter.
Will you——
Deputy Cowan can make his own statement.
If Deputy Cowan—— I will drop it. I admit he is not worth following.
Deputy Boland, on the motion to refer back.
The last point I want to make is this. I think it is a bad thing to allow people not serving in the Army to have military titles. I do not care whether they are on this side or the other side, whether it is Major de Valera, General MacEoin or Captain Cowan. There is a danger in it. I do not know whether they are legally entitled to carry these titles at all or not. At the very least, it should be followed by the word "Retired," such as "General MacEoin (Retired)." We know Deputy Cowan and we know what he amounts to. We know very well. I am not going to say, but we know him.
People who do not know "Captain Cowan" think he may be a doughty warrior. They think he may be a man who would actually lead his army from the front and not from behind and, in that way, when he attempts to start a volunteer movement or an army, he is more potentially dangerous than an ordinary civilian like myself would be if I tried to do it. I do not know what the legal position is. I have my doubts. I have grave doubts as to whether General MacEoin, as he is called, Captain Cowan and Major de Valera have any right to call themselves captain or major or general either. That should be dealt with.
What about General MacEntee?
I say that this is relevant in this way, that the Deputy, sailing under the title of captain, is trying to raise an army here. That is all I have to say on the matter. I hope the Minister will take some notice of what I am saying and not do as he has done on previous occasions, say "I will take some notice of this" and then end up with a five minutes' speech.
The obvious motivating spirit behind the remarks of the last speaker was chagrin at the success which has attended the efforts of the present Minister for Justice to do his job, to do it efficiently and to do it without internment camps or military courts.
Or English executioners.
Deputy Lehane knows all about English executioners.
He does about the one employed by the Party opposite.
There were 77 executions.
I am not going to allow myself to follow Deputy McGrath along the lines of that interjection. It would be easy for Deputies continually to hark back to events in the past. This country has a future.
Why did not you think of that when you started your speech?
That is what we have to try to remember. I shall not even deal with the chagrin on Deputy Boland's part beyond saying that I want to compliment the present Minister for Justice on the fact that we have in this country now political peace that this country did not know from the split in 1922 until the present Minister for Justice took office.
You did not allow it.
I am going to make my speech and nobody is going to interrupt me. In the first place, in that period we have had two and a half years without political prisoners: we have had two and a half years without an atmosphere of bitterness, discord and enmity between fellow Irishmen.
Because you deserted them.
These continuous interruptions by Deputy McGrath must cease.
The only desertion was that by the Deputies opposite when they misled people like me into supporting them and then turned on the Republican movement which put them into office. The Minister for Justice has been successful because to my mind, in the main, he brings two qualities to bear in the administration of his Department—(1) a broad charitable conception of human nature and all it means, and (2) plain ordinary honest-to-God commonsense. I think I am being easy on his predecessor when I say that the charge I lay against him is merely that he did not possess the latter of these two qualities.
I do not desire to inject heat into this discussion. It was not started by me but by the Deputies on the Opposition side of the House. Deputy Boland waxed very wroth at (1) the fact that the Minister for Justice did not condignly commit both myself and Deputy Cowan to Mountjoy Jail, and (2) because, in the opinion of Deputy Boland, the Minister had the appallingly bad taste to remedy a very vicious abuse that existed during the whole of the period of office of Deputy Boland. I am not going to satisfy Deputy Boland's curiosity about confidential documents. I am going to leave Deputy Boland and the Deputies opposite in a state of suspended animation as far as that goes.
I believe that, in bringing before this House notice of the fact that what, in the opinion of a vast number of the people and what, I submit was, in the eyes of the law, an abuse of the process of justice, I merely did my duty. Were the same circumstances to arise again I would take exactly the same course as I took in connection with the documents to which Deputy Boland referred. Is it suggested—and Deputy Boland was evasive and refused to answer on this issue—that it is either correct, right or proper that behind sealed doors or by means of a secret document, a confidential report, the mind of a judge trying a prisoner on a criminal charge should be prejudiced or put into the position that it might conceivably be prejudiced in advance of the trial of that particular prisoner's case? I submit that to permit such a practice to continue would in many cases negative the possibility of a person's obtaining a fair or proper trial. It would mean that matter could be placed before the judge as facts which could not be tested by process of cross-examination. In my view, there is very little difference between a document of that nature and the infamous lettres de cachet which were used in pre-revolutionary France. Deputy Boland waxed wroth at the fact that I had the impudence and the effrontery to let the House know that this condition of affairs existed. I make no apology to Deputy Boland or to anybody else for bringing that practice to light. Presumably the Minister, in the view of Deputy Boland, is also deserving of condemnation because he ended the practice. The only logical conclusion one can draw from that is that the practice is one which meets with Deputy Boland's approbation. If that is so, I am prepared to leave the matter at that and let the people judge between us. It would be far better for Deputy Boland to question his conscience as to whether his permission of this abuse during his tenure of office was responsible for any innocent persons being wrongfully convicted rather than come here to the House and try to make cheap, petty, political capital out of what he thought was a good point but which, when examined, can be dismissed as a point without any substance or foundation in fact at all. I am sorry to have wasted so much of the time of the House on Deputy Boland and his observations.
There are one or two matters to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. I am not quite satisfied that the position of the Irish language is safeguarded as well as it might be in the Garda Síochána force. I had occasion to draw to the attention of the Minister, by way of a Parliamentary question, the fact that the chief superintendent—an excellent officer in every way, I understand—in charge of an area comprising a very large portion of the Donegal Gaeltacht is unable to transact his work in Irish and that, as a result, the very desirable practice which had grown up amongst the Gardaí in that division of making their entries in barrack minute books and, in fact, of doing all their business through the medium of the Irish language has had to be discontinued. It has had to be discontinued because the chief superintendent in the area has not a sufficiently competent knowledge of Irish. I understand that otherwise he is an excellent officer. The Minister may tell me that this is purely a matter for the Commissioner, but I suggest that it comes within the competence of the Minister to see that things are so ordered that the services of that excellent officer are utilised in some other district and that chief superintendents who are competent to do their work through the medium of the Irish language will be assigned to Gaeltacht districts.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer and again I do not know whether it comes purely within the Minister's functions or those of the Government as a whole. I think there is a statutory duty on the Minister and on the Government not to appoint a Circuit Court judge to any area in portion of which Irish is habitually spoken who has not got a knowledge of Irish sufficient to enable him to dispense with the services of an interpreter in his court. The Government are bound by the terms of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, so to appoint, where practicable. I do not think it would be right to refer to specific cases, but I can recall one instance where the terms of Section 44 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, were not complied with both in the letter and the spirit. I submit that it is the duty of the Minister to see that the terms of the 1924 Act are complied with in the appointment of judges to areas where Irish is the language of even portion of the people.
A matter the Minister is often troubled with is the transfer of Guards. The Minister, I understand, takes up the attitude that this is something peculiarly within the competence of the Commissioner, and is something over which he has no control. That may be, but I would like to underline for him the fact that there are many cases where Garda personnel, married and with families, anxious to educate their children, have been refused transfers to stations where better educational facilities would be available, and they have been refused even when alternative arrangements could be made without any disruption of the force, or any undue hardship on members of the Garda. I think to leave these matters purely to the Commissioner, who is bound to take a rather rigid and probably semi-military line in the regulations, is unwise. I suggest where grievous hardship is occasioned to Garda personnel or their families the Minister should have power to step in and see that whatever facilities can be given to them without any undue dislocation should be so given.
I do not know whether the Minister, in the course of his opening statement —I was not here for the beginning of it—made any reference to the committee charged with the revision of the Circuit Court rules, or whether a report has been received from that committee. I will be glad if the Minister will give us some indication in that connection. There are one or two minor anomalies existing, some of which have been pointed out to the committee and some to the Minister himself, and these should be remedied, if they have not already been recommended for remedy by the committee.
There is one thing in particular and, though it is a minor matter, it is one capable of causing hardship on individuals, hardship that can be alleviated. No provision was made in the rules for a proper period of time in the case of witnesses summoned on subpoena to the Circuit Court. Cases crop up where witnesses receive a summons, with which they are bound to comply, sometimes eight, ten or 12 hours before their presence is required in court. I know of one case where a man complied with a summons. He lost his employment and has been unsuccessful ever since in obtaining fresh employment.
Reference was made by Deputy Boland to the need of better Borstal facilities, better accommodation and better treatment for youthful delinquents. Strange as it may seem, on this point I find myself in complete agreement with Deputy Boland. Were more attention paid to the treatment given to youthful delinquents, perhaps there would be less trouble in dealing with our prison population. In that connection, I think the Minister deserves to be congratulated on the fact that our prison population is probably the lowest in the history of the State. This is one Department in respect of which I find it difficult to find points of criticism.
The outstanding fact in this debate so far is that when Deputy Boland made the charge against Deputy Lehane of stealing a confidential document, Deputy Lehane did not deny that, and that is the only issue involved. Any argument about whether a certain form of procedure is the right kind of procedure or not has nothing to do with the case. The fact is that a document was stolen, and that was covered up by the Minister who, incidentally, has done a grave injustice to the 11 judges involved, because it attributes to some one of them the breaking of a confidence and giving that document to somebody he was not entitled to give it to. The issue is whether the document was stolen, or whether the judge broke confidence and handed it out.
The Minister might inform us, when he is concluding the debate, whether he has been able to do anything about better housing for the Guards. Now, when we are moving from the housing debate to this debate, housing is fresh in one's mind. If a housing scheme for the Guards were prepared, it would be a tremendous advantage and it would be easier for the Commissioner to move Guards about, if he wants to. This problem arises in every debate and, now that a housing move is being made, it would be a very timely thing and a very good opportunity to try to solve that particular problem to which I have referred.
Juvenile crime is exercising people's minds to a considerable extent at the moment. It is true that by the time juvenile crime comes before the public, it is at the end of a series of causes. Have the Minister and his Department ever considered the advisability of inquiring into the causes and the development of juvenile crime? I know that this is something which impinges, too, upon other Departments, such as the Department of Education and, possibly, the Department of Local Government, because of the necessity of having other things built as well as houses. Houses are being built to a considerable extent at the present time. New housing areas are springing up. We all know the trouble that arose in some of the big housing schemes in the past where there were no facilities for the children and where they could not be properly looked after. It is undoubtedly an important matter to provide these facilities because when children start on a career of crime they eventually create a criminal society when they become adults. It is then too late to deal with the problem. For that reason, I think a very searching inquiry and examination should be made into the causes in an effort to find out whether there is any effective remedy. This might be done by way of inter-departmental committee since, as I have pointed out, other Departments are affected to some extent. It should be the aim of this committee to stop the evil at its source.
Road traffic undoubtedly creates a great problem at the present time. The number of motor car owners is rapidly increasing. Accidents are becoming greater in number. The Minister did not give us the figure for this year. He did give the figure for last year.
I have not got the number for 1950. I have it for 1949.
I think there were 200 last year. One must admit that driving is rather reckless on the whole in this country. I was in London recently and I was travelling in a car driven by an Irish doctor. He told me that if he were in Dublin he would be afraid to drive a car. Apparently, people in London have to be much more careful because of the density of traffic. To a considerable extent the people here have not yet come to realise that our traffic is just as dense in its own way and almost as concentrated as it is in other big centres of population. I think the Minister would be well advised to carry out extensive propaganda for the purpose of warning people to take great care when driving. I had the tragic experience myself of coming upon the scene immediately after a very pitiful accident had occurred on the Bray road. Perhaps I am going somewhat outside the scope of the present Estimate, but I do think that particular road requires some improvements in order to make for better traffic and to prevent such accidents occurring. It would be a big step forward if Gardaí could be put on point duty on certain parts of that highway. Deputy Boland has pointed out that we have not a sufficient number of Gardaí at the moment, certainly not in the City of Dublin. The number should be increased, even if only for the purpose of putting men on point duty at these danger spots.
I think a certain amount of publicity was done by Deputy Childers when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government. I think there was a certain amount of propaganda over the radio. The Minister for Justice should continue that campaign and do all in his power to remedy the present position in view of the abnormal increase in the number of cars on the road.
With regard to the jurisdiction of the District Court, I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter and take some steps to increase the present jurisdiction. I do not wish to say any more on that point at the moment since it is a matter of legislation and not administration.
I would like to go after Deputy Cowan but I think it would be better to hear what he has to say first as to his justification for his extraordinary antics. He should be careful. If he encourages young people to become militarily-minded in regard to this question of dealing with Northern Ireland, very tragic results may follow which he himself would regret more bitterly than anybody else. There can be only one authority in the State in control of military activities. Surely Deputy Cowan must realise that for himself. That authority is the Government under the democratic control of the Dáil and the people. No matter how good the object may be, any other military force extraneous to the authorised force may lead to tragedy in the future. It is not as if we were talking in the abstract. We have all had tremendous experience of that particular situation in the past. No Government wants to be placed in the position of having to deal with a problem like that in the future. We are all glad to see different people coming in here to take part in a constitutional movement. We ourselves, after the civil war, had to adopt the attitude of coming into the Dáil and accepting the situation as it was. We are not surprised, therefore, to see others now following in our footsteps. There is no resentment or bitterness in our heart but if certain people make charges against us of having taken life unjustifiably during the period of the emergency, they must expect to get their answer; the answer is that it had to be done because we might otherwise have been plunged into a war on one side or the other and what was done then was done for the protection of our people.
No one is charged with that. In opening his Estimate, the Minister referred to 12,000 indictable prosecutions in the last year and pointed out that that represented an increase of approximately 5,000 over the figure for 1938. Now that may look serious. Deputy Boland dealt with it as if it were serious and to some extent the Minister himself suggested that it was serious. My interpretation of the statistics does not bear out the seriousness of it at all.
It has been my personal experience over the past ten or 12 years that counsel are becoming more and more proficient in framing indictments and, where one charge would have sufficed ten or 15 years ago, there are now five or six charges. It would be interesting to have a comparison if the Minister would give the number of persons charged rather than the number of charges on which they were indicted. Every time a person is now charged, he is charged with stealing, breaking and entering and stealing, breaking and entering and receiving; and the ingenuity of State counsel can even go beyond that in respect of a single offence. I think if it is examined in that way, the volume of crime in the country is not bad at all, and I think we ought to congratulate ourselves that it is so.
When judges go to the country to open Circuit Courts, there is some old tradition of presenting them with white gloves which is, of course, a fiction and a fraud. They are not presented with the gloves, and it is very doubtful whether the gloves they are given to hold for a few minutes are white. Probably there is an origin for that sort of thing. I think it is all codology, and that it ought to be done away with. There is no sense in it. When they go through this fiction, the judge swells out his chest and he congratulates the Guards on their magnificent efficiency, and it is because they are so efficient that the people of the district have not committed any crime. I think that is an insult to the people of the country and should not be tolerated. If the people have committed no offence, they have committed no offence because they do not want to commit an offence and not because of the Guards.
It would be a bad thing if the Guards were not efficient.
The Guards are efficient. If a crime is committed they are so efficient that they will bring the criminal to book, but if there is no crime, and if there is anybody to be congratulated, it ought to be the people themselves and not the Guards.
On this particular point of summary prosecutions, I think we have too many of them. It is very hard for the ordinary, decent person in the City of Dublin to move around without breaking some law or some by-law or committing some offence. In fact, in some parts of the country it is an offence to have a sense of humour. Down in the County Limerick recently there was a gentleman who had a few drinks in. He was not drunk, and he was in at the market. He took his horse out of the cart, got into the shafts himself and ran up and down the street a few times singing. He was summoned for doing that, and not only was he summoned but he was convicted of impersonating the horse. Now, if there was any sense of humour either in the Guard or in the district justice——
If he had turned the horse into an ass it would be more like it.
And who would be in the shafts?
There would be a jackass in the shafts if my friend, Deputy MacEntee, was there.
A she ass if you were there.
I understand there is a shortage of that commodity in that district.
You combine both qualities.
Order!
In the neighbouring County of Clare, at Ennis—I have been there only a few times: it is not a town in which there is as much traffic on the footpaths at 10 or 11 o'clock at night as you would see in London or New York—a few lads went and bought a few pence worth of fish and chips, which they ate on the footpath. They were up on the following day and charged with obstruction. I think there is no sense in that sort of work at all. The Minister knows nothing about it until he reads of it in the Evening Herald or the Mail, but that sort of work has been done in the far recesses of the West.
I think that, generally speaking, it would be a good thing if the Guards would exercise a certain amount of discretion, that, where they come across some petty or summary offence, they would give a few words of advice to the person concerned on the spot. If they were to do that, it might be ten times as good as having those persons hauled up before a district justice and fined a shilling.
I find the same thing in Dublin in regard to what is known as juvenile delinquency. I appear frequently in the Children's Court. Long ago, in my young days, if a person boxed the fox or, as they call it now in the courts, stole some apples, well, if he was caught he got a cuff on the ear, and if it were known that he did any damage his parents were told and he got some punishment. Similarly, if he happened to be passing a shop and was attracted by a nice display of sweets and took a few bars of chocolate, he was dealt with on the spot and reported to his parents.
In Dublin the time of the Guards is taken up dealing with these little things as if they were the most heinous crimes. The child is brought to the Garda station. The mother is brought there and all the paraphernalia of warning and caution is gone through. Statements are read out, charges are prepared and the charges are brought before a district justice. Fortunately, we have in Dublin, dealing with the juvenile court, one of the finest district justices in Europe, but that does not mean that he has not to have before him, day after day, those types of offences. I would suggest that, probably in consultation with the district justices and the Guards, there might be a toning down of these footy little charges.
Deputy Boland in the course of his speech, referred to the observations of a circuit judge, when he was sentencing prisoners or confirming a sentence of one month's imprisonment on prisoners and when he called them blackguards. Not long ago there was the case of a man and his wife at Navan, one of those cases that arise frequently in the country. The district justice, a very sensible and experienced justice, heard the case and came to the conclusion that the wife was at fault and refused to make an order for maintenance. There was an appeal which went to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court judge in open court said the husband was a blackguard, a scoundrel and a ruffian. Now, that is bringing the administration of justice into contempt. Here was a judge and a district justice, one giving his view about the husband, and the other expressing his view about the wife—both opposite views. Well, both of them cannot be right.
On a point of order.
I was about to say that in both these cases, I am afraid, the justices are identifiable. It is not right they should be arraigned here.
I am sorry——.
If such particulars are given, and if they can be identified, it is not fair. There is no redress. Apart from that, it is no function of the Dáil to re-try cases.
Deputy Boland, in dealing with the matter with which I am now dealing, referred to a case in Naas——
And quoted a newspaper report of certain proceedings in support of his statement.
Yes.
He did not attack the judge or criticise him as the Deputy is now doing.
I am not criticising the judge.
The Deputy will realise that we must not attack a judge here and that we cannot re-try a case.
These are things we must take notice of. There is too much bandying around of epithets of that description—blackguard, scoundrel, villain, ruffian. If a person commits an offence, the law says what the punishment is, but the law gives no right or sanction or authority for that type of abusive language. I only hope that whatever little efforts I can devote to stopping it will stop it. There is growing up gradually a new form of tyranny, the tyranny of the Bench, and the sooner that tyranny is stopped the better for the country. Decent, respectable persons who attend as witnesses either for the prosecution or the defence or who attend as accused persons are very frequently offensively attacked and the only redress they can have is for some person in this House to mention the matter. The law of this country gives judges powers and, in the exercise of their judicial functions, they are absolutely independent. But, when they go outside their judicial functions and make offensive attacks on citizens, they are doing something for which they have no protection in this House or elsewhere.
I am glad that the Minister has set out a programme of reorganisation of the Garda. With the development of modern methods of crime detection and modern methods of travel, the old system of Garda barracks in particular places is not necessary. What is required is probably more concentration of the force, more technical development, more speedy methods of getting around and, if the Minister succeeds by his reorganisation in bringing that about, I think he will. be doing a very excellent job of work If I might say so incidentally, the Garda as a force are to be complimented on the magnificent progress they have made in all the new technical methods of investigating and detecting crime.
Reading as I do from time to time reports of police activities in other countries, police methods of detection and presentation of cases I think that our Garda force can hold their own with the very best in the world; in fact I would say they are much better than quite a number of them. In the short period of less than 30 years since this State was established, it is a magnificent thing to have achieved that measure of success in the efficiency of our Gardaí. I might also say that, for a force that was for many years badly paid and, in my view, not yet sufficiently well paid, there has been a marked absence of anything in the nature of corruption, notwithstanding all the temptations that there have been in the way. The personnel of the Garda force are magnificent, honourable individuals, and every privilege that could be given ought to be given by the Minister, and I know that that would be the Minister's wish.
In the City of Dublin the Garda are doing a magnificent job, particularly in the constituency I represent, in regard to the protection of children going to and coming from school in the morning and evening and during the lunch hour break. They are doing that job well, doing it with humanity. It certainly is a pleasure to see the way in which they handle those numbers of children and to see the bonds of affection between the Gardaí and the little children as they cross the street. I think that is a great thing, because the tradition in this country was that the people were against the forces of law and order. It is a grand thing that that new spirit of co-operation is developing right from the time at which our city children start going to school.
I have asked the Minister on occasions to provide a Garda station in the North Wall-East Wall area. It is a very big area; it is heavily populated, and the people down there wish that there should be made available for their convenience, because of the innumerable things about which they have to consult the Gardai, a station in that area. I hope the Minister will see his way to establish a station there in the near future.
Deputy Boland, before he concluded his speech, made certain observations in condemnation of the Minister because the Minister will not break the law in regard to the new volunteer force that has been established. That new force, I am happy to tell Deputy Boland, and I am sure he will be glad to know it, is growing very much stronger day after day. The significant thing about it is that it has increased substantially in strength since it was subjected to certain criticism by Deputy Boland in the country and by his Leader in this House. I listened with amazement to the observations made by Deputy Boland. I forgive Deputy Boland. If Deputy Boland knew the effect of his observations, I am quite sure he would not make them.
The difficulty with Deputy Boland is that he has an unfortunate past which he tries to justify on every conceivable occasion. No Minister likes to have to enforce the law to the extent that it may lead to the execution of an individual and most Ministers who might be in that position, if the necessity ever arose, would have to express, and would express, their very deep regret that the onerous responsibilities of their office placed them in that position. Deputy Boland, instead of adopting that line, sadistically gloats over the fact that he had to enforce the law in a particular way. A man with a mentality like that is not worth answering. It is shocking that the affairs of this country, the very serious affairs of justice, were in his hands for such a long period at such a vital stage.
Every person in the country welcomes the change of atmosphere that we have in the country. Even on the buses, in the public-houses, when people talk their minds you will hear them say: "Well, MacEoin is a decent man." I think there is nothing I can say that would be more appreciated by the Minister for Justice than these expressions of his fellowmen. He is a man with a broad humanity. When he is asked to review a sentence of imprisonment, when he is assured by responsible people that the person who committed the offence was a decent person belonging to decent people, that he unfortunately broke the law and forgot himself on a particular occasion, the Minister for Justice approaches that from a humane point of view and, being satisfied that the ends of justice have been met, and that there will be no recurrence of the crime so far as that individual is concerned, he endeavours to release that person from prison. Is that not what all of us would like to do? For acting in that humane way, he has been subjected to criticism in this House and outside it.
It is a grand thing that we can now live in freedom. It is a grand thing that we can express our thoughts in public without the fear of being placed in prison or an internment camp. It is a grand thing that people, whether they are State officials or local government officials, can now express their views, whether they are for or against the Government. I think the Minister for Justice will have more respect for them if they express their views honestly against the Government than if, in order to curry favour, they express views in favour of the Government. This is the third Estimate the Minister for Justice has introduced. I am proud to belong to a House in which General MacEoin is the Minister for Justice. I hope that most of us, if not all of us, will be here for many long years to welcome the introduction of his Estimate because we can be assured that under his administration there will be a gradual improvement down the years and that this country, through the instrumentality of the present Minister for Justice, will go forward in the way this country ought to go forward—in decency, in courage and in respect for one another.
The last time I spoke on the Estimate for this Department was two years ago. On that occasion, I dealt with many aspects of the administration of the Department of Justice. On this occasion there are quite a few matters to which I wish to refer but I hope I shall not detain the House longer than is necessary. I should like first of all to challenge some of the statements made by the Minister in his opening speech, one in particular in regard to the Garda Síochána. He said that there is machinery in operation which will alter the organisation of the Garda with a view to decreasing its strength and to see if it is possible by reorganisation to police the country effectively with a smaller force. When I spoke two years ago I made reference to the fact that Gardaí in some small stations are obliged to remain on duty for unduly long hours. I do not think that situation has altered. I do not think that under any reorganisation of the force it should be found necessary to man outlying stations, whether they be in the suburbs of the city or in the heart of the country, with fewer Gardaí and so perpetuate the unfortunate practice that has grown up for I do not know how long of compelling Gardaí to do duty at stretches as long as 24 hours. I instanced on that occasion two years ago an occasion on which I had to make a phone call and I was amazed to find that the Garda whom I found on duty at some time around 2 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon had been on duty for practically 24 hours continuously. That, I am told, occurs regularly in stations in which there are very few Gardaí on duty. Therefore I would ask the Minister, in any reorganisation of the Gardaí, in the interests of humanity and in the interests of the health of members of the force to have the situation examined with a view to devising some system whereby Gardaí will not be left on duty for unduly long periods.
One other matter to which I wish to refer is the question of the housing of married Gardaí, when accommodation is not available for them in the local barracks. Gardaí as a general rule get a fairly good housing allowance but unfortunately the type of house that they seek is not on the market to any liberal extent. There is some regulation which precludes Gardaí from occupying local authority houses. There are many areas in the country in which there is little or no building done of a nature which would permit the Gardaí to rent houses. I suggest to the Minister that whatever regulations preclude Gardaí from occupying local authority houses should be reviewed and abolished if necessary in order that such houses may be made available for renting by Gardaí.
The Minister has told us that the long-awaited reorganisation of the Circuit Court staffs has now been completed and that the scheme, or whatever form this establishment is to take, is only awaiting the implementation of some scheme with reference to District Court clerks, before being brought into operation.
The Circuit Court scheme is ready to go on. It has not to wait.
I should like to ask the Minister what form this scheme is going to take, so far as this House is concerned. He stated that it is not a matter for legislation, so I presume he will bring in an Order. The unfortunate thing I see about that is that when the Order is brought in the Minister will present to the House a fait accompli and the ordinary Deputy will have no opportunity of putting in amendments as he would have on a Bill and the Deputies who have legal experience and who would consider themselves competent to make suggestions that would better this scheme will be precluded from so doing. All they can do is to speak for or against it and, if they are not satisfied, vote against it, but in so far as, I am sure, it will be a considerable improvement, no Deputy will vote against the Order the Minister will bring in to improve the conditions of Circuit Court staffs.
Therefore I take this opportunity of bringing to the Minister's notice a few things which should be borne in mind in dealing with these staffs. The duties of these officials are most complex and they require to be almost experts in many branches of law. In many counties the county registrar is not only county registrar but local registrar of titles, local registrar in bankruptcies, local registrar in probate, registration officer and taxing master for costs. It is hardly likely that any Government or Minister would expect the county registrar to perform all the duties associated with the individual functions he is supposed to supervise and he must of necessity therefore delegate many of these functions to his staff. I will just take the one instance of the Circuit Court officer who must deputise for his county registrar in court.
In many counties the duties in court for the official, be he county registrar or clerical officer attached to a certain court office, are very onerous and I suggest that if this scheme does not make adequate provision for the remuneration of these men who must perform duties which any man in the clerical grade could not be expected to perform the Minister should now or in some future provision arrange to give them a remuneration commensurate with the duties they perform in court.
Any man here who has experience of court work will know that on certain days when equity matters or other matters of a short nature such as licensing applications are before the court the official in court who acts as registrar has to enter in the minute book of the court orders which are in many cases up to 50 a day. I do not say that that happens every day but there are several days in the course of their lives as acting registrars in the courts on which their duties are not only onerous but are very highly responsible. I can bring to mind cases where the orders as entered by these officials in the court book and as they have appeared afterwards in engrossed form have been challenged by solicitors on one side or the other, and these officials with their limited knowledge of law had to stand over the orders entered in the book and engrossed.
There would not be 50 in a day.
Not every day, I admit.
Not any day.
I speak from personal experience. I know that it has happened in the court with which I am most familiar, the Circuit Court in Cork.
That is the quickest judicial procedure I ever heard of.
Since Deputy Timoney challenged my word——
I did not challenge your word.
——I will instance how this thing can happen. On the opening equity day Cork Circuit Court can have 30 applications for payment out of court to minors who want money for specific purposes before attaining full age, or having attained full age, and then there may also be licensing applications which, as the Deputy knows, occupy only a few minutes in court.
There are other matters of a similar nature which mean that in the short hours of sitting, from 10.30 to 1 and from 2.30 to 5 as a rule, one has as many as 50 matters a day, at least in the court with which I am associated. I acted in this capacity myself and I did not consider myself adequately paid for the services I gave to the State and now that I am no longer in that position I may speak on behalf of the people who are doing that work now.
As I have mentioned the payment of moneys in Circuit Court offices, I might mention to the Minister a thing which I know has been lying unattended for many years since the British time. In almost every Circuit Court office throughout the country there are thousands of pounds lying in endowment accounts. Nobody knows who the beneficiaries are, where they have gone to or whether they will ever claim it. These moneys are lying; there to the credit only of a name. Therefore I would ask the Minister to have the accumulation of these moneys examined to see if he could conduct some kind of investigation into who the people are who are entitled to them and, if they are not found after a certain period, the moneys should be put to better use. I am sure that the Minister will find that what I said is correct and that there are several thousand pounds in every Circuit Court office in the country.
There is one other officer in the service of the court to whom I should like to refer. He is often spoken of in rather contemptuous terms and it is for that reason that I specifically advocate his case on this Estimate. I refer to the court messenger or what he is sometimes called the court bailiff. These men perform very distasteful duties and the Minister must know that their salaries are certainly a disgrace to the nation they serve. Everybody knows that at some stage in the course of the administration of justice execution orders must be carried out on unfortunate defendants. It is only just that that should be done; otherwise people to whom money is owed would never get it. These court messengers are sent after the unfortunate defendant who has defaulted and they must either call week after week to collect a shilling or go to the extreme of putting a man's furniture out on the street in the case of an ejectment. It is only by these means that the demands of the law will be finally met and satisfied. Often these men must work for as little as 10/- a day and if the Minister has not taken them into consideration now I would ask that something should be done for them in his reorganisation scheme.
As far as the District Court is concerned, the Minister has informed us that a scheme which will better the conditions of the staffs in District Court offices will come before us by way of legislation and therefore I will get an adequate opportunity of putting my views before the Minister then.
The last time I spoke on this Estimate I also advocated that some effective system for free legal aid for poor persons should be started in this country. In England they have a very generous Act from the point of view of the types of people and the types of cases that are met by free legal aid.
In this country, it is limited to cases of murder, and I suggest that the Minister should take immediate action to see whether he could not extend, to some extent at least, the scope of free legal aid in this country. I have seen people accused of crime, whether serious or otherwise, coming into court and listening to a long list of indictments. Anybody who has listened to these indictments knows that it is difficult for even the experienced practitioner to differentiate between the various forms of indictment referring to a single criminal act. These people, when unrepresented, plead guilty, parrot-like, to every indictment on the sheet, whereas, in many cases, they may not be guilty at all. The judges, of course, have regard to the fact that they are not professionally represented but I suggest that, if they were, that if they could afford to employ a solicitor or solicitor and counsel, in many cases these people might be able to prove, if not that they were innocent, that there was some defect in the indictment, which facility, at present, is reserved for the man who can afford to employ solicitor and counsel. I know that the Minister will say that it is difficult to know where to stop, but I suggest that there are limited cases which the Minister could investigate and have remedied.
With regard to young people detained in Borstal institutions, there is, at present, a very competent visiting committee in connection with the Borstal institution in Clonmel, or wherever the institution is now. A similar committee existed in Cork when the Borstal institution was situated there. These people, I am told, do their best, not only to rehabilitate these young offenders in respect of life later on, but in many cases procure positions for them, suited to whatever trade they may have learned before entering the institution or in the institution. It is very difficult for these boys to find work outside. The fathers often would be in a position to procure work for them, but, when such work is found, the Borstal authorities serve on the prospective employer a dossier on foot of which the employer must undertake to look after the wellbeing of the released subject, if I may so describe him.
I suggest that, in certain cases, where the parents or guardians of such a youngster in a Borstal institution can show to the Minister's satisfaction that they are in a position, if the youngster were at home, to procure work for him, that boy might be released for a defined period, and, if the work was not found for him in that period, the period of release could be terminated. I know that a difficulty has arisen in at least one case to my knowledge, a case in which a father said: "If I had my boy at home, I could get work for him but, while he is in the Borstal institution and the necessity arises for a guarantee by the employer, I am afraid I will not be able to get any work for him."
Another hardy annual which I want to bring to the Minister's attention is the question of expenses for jurors. I mention that matter in particular in so far as it affects my own county and city. In Cork, as I have often said here, the borough boundary is very restricted. The valuations about it are not as high as the valuations in Dublin, and we, therefore, find the same men serving on juries repeatedly because the scope is so limited. Men who served last year during the autumn sessions find, when the next autumn sessions come along, that they are called on again for jury service. It is a severe hardship on many of these men, not so much on men who have their own successful businesses, but on tradesmen and others who are living in houses with valuations sufficiently high to qualify them for jury service and who must attend the court and serve on the jury at their own expense. If the Minister is not prepared to provide expenses for all jurors, I suggest that, in particular cases, such as cases where tradesmen lose wages by reason of jury service, some provision should be made.
With regard to County Cork, everybody known it is the largest county in Ireland and many of the Deputies opposite, when they went to Cork in connection with the West Cork byelection, found, when they reached Cork, that they had only got half-way to the point where they were to speak. Many Deputies on the opposite side expressed their amazement at this fact to me. The city is the only place where the criminal sessions of the Circuit Court are held and jurors are called upon from all over the county. They come from as far west as Castletownbere, which is something like 80 to 100 miles distant from the city. When they come up for service, even though it is a matter of only one day's court, it means at least three days, and in many cases the best part of a week. These men are mostly poor farmers who can ill afford to lose the time lost in attending court or the alternative of a £3 fine. The fine of £3 does not relate only to attendance on the first day, because the judge has power to impose that fine for every day on which the juror fails to put in an appearance. That it is seldom done, I do not deny, but the danger is there and, in these two cases, the cases of tradesmen who lose work by reason of jury service and the cases of poor farmers who have to come unusually long distances, I think there is a strong orgument for the provision of adequate compensation or expenses. There is another case which I intended to put before the Minister but I think I will wait and have it dealt with by private treaty later on.
With regard to the High Court on circuit, for some time there has been an agitation in Cork that the magnitude of the business in the Circuit Court warrants a permanent High Court sitting in Cork. That would probably be asking a lot but, as the Minister knows, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in civil cases is only £300 and, in very many cases, particularly cases of car accidents, runningdown cases, as they are generally known, it is almost impossible for the plaintiff to keep his estimated damages within that limit. Therefore, if he wants to claim what he expects to get in court, he must of necessity come straight to the High Court. As everybody knows, it is rather difficult in a running-down action to say who will be the winner or loser. Therefore, in many cases in Cork, to my own knowledge, plaintiffs have restricted the amount of their claim to £300 in order to avoid the huge expense of bringing witnesses and of going themselves to Dublin.
In many cases people who have been successful in getting the full £300 under the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, feel that if they had gone to Dublin they would have got a great deal more. Therefore, I would suggest that the Minister should examine the possibility of providing, if not a permanent High Court in the City of Cork, at least more frequent sittings of the High Court on circuit.
The present system, satisfactory though it may be, has a great deal of limitations. There is one limitation which is general throughout the country. The High Court goes on circuit in March and July. When cases are decided in July, the appellant or respondent has an unduly long time to wait until the following March before his case will be decided on appeal. On the other hand, in July the judges find that the volume of business is almost one-quarter of what it had been in the previous term.
Therefore, I would suggest to the Minister that he should examine the position to see whether or not he could space the sittings of the High Court on circuit more evenly over the whole year. If the July sittings are maintained, I suggest that the March sitting should be brought forward by a month or two.
I wish now to refer to the land registry staff. The Minister stated, and we all welcome the statement, that at last something has been done to deal with the volume of arrears in the land registry. He has appointed four, if not five, officers, who are legally qualified, to deal with these arrears. I would make a bet here and now that these officers will be temporary as long as they hold the positions. They will never be able to overtake the arrears or, if they do, they will find that four extra staff will be required to keep abreast of the work when the arrears have been dealt with. I suggest that these officers should be made permanent here and now. It is very unfair to take a person, who may not have a very good practice, out of his profession and give him a temporary position for three, five or seven years and at the end of that time to say: "Thank you very much. You have done what we asked you. Now you can go back to your profession." As everyone knows, it is very difficult for a lawyer to take up again where he left off.
I would, therefore, suggest to the Minister that he should make these officers permanent when he is sure that they are qualified for the work for which they have been appointed and also to give them a salary commensurate with their qualifications. I understand that at present their salary is something like £8 a week. These men and women have spent a lot on their education. They have staked all on following a legal career. The paltry salary of £8 a week is very poor compensation for work in such a highly technical occupation as examining land registry titles. I would ask the Minister to investigate the matter with a view to seeing if he could make these officers permanent at an early date and to review their salary scales.
I do not intend to follow the line of some of the other speakers but I do not think I could let Deputy Peadar Cowan get away with his last remark. This repeated blowing about the air of freedom we now breathe is about played out at this stage. There was always freedom in this country, thanks be to God. There is no extra freedom here now. People have begun to realise that the present Government's predecessors worked along the lines that every other Party in the country has now adopted. Parties in the country did not see eye to eye with them. Certain people went off the rails more than others. They were brought back on the rails again. There is no greater air of freedom here now except that people who tried to flout the authority during the previous Government's administration are now following the line of the average nationally minded citizen in bringing the country to the state of prosperity and national integrity that it deserves.
Deputy Peadar Cowan also referred to the present Minister's humane attitude in regard to prisoners. I entirely endorse what he said. I do not think the Minister will deny that his predecessor also had a humane outlook in regard to prisoners. As long as I can remember, there has been a system of mitigation of sentences and fines in the Department of Justice. I do not know how long the Petitions Section has been in operation but it was certainly in existence for many years before the term of the present Minister.
That section worked to a set system which was very fair and which operated very much in favour of the convicted person. A judge, having found a man guilty of a crime, and having felt that he must sentence him, imposed a term of imprisonment which fitted the crime, as the lyric writer, Gilbert, would say. If that man, or his relatives or friends, petitioned the Department of Justice, the machinery was set in motion and I am sure that has been done often during the present Minister's term of office. The Garda are asked for a report. The judge or justice is asked for a report. When the Minister has got all the reports and has evidence, which was not admissible in the courts, as to the background of the prisoner and, possibly, other extraneous matters, he is in a much better position to decide whether or not the judge had been a bit too hard, or possibly too lenient, with the accused. In many cases the judge admits that certain facts which would not be relevant as legal evidence have come to his knowledge and he writes to the Department, I am sure, to that effect. It was in such circumstances that the Minister's predecessor did release prisoners before the expiration of their sentences. If that procedure has been departed from, I would ask the Minister to tread carefully.
Every Minister for Justice, every judge on the Bench, must be assumed to be a humane man. He would not be fit to hold his office if he were not prepared to examine the merits of a hard case, even when sentence has been pronounced, to examine the case having regard to the history of the imprisoned person and his family circumstances. I am sure the Minister would be the last to say that, in the matter of being fair to imprisoned persons, he has adopted any better course than his predecessor adopted in his term of office.
I merely rise to mention one thing by way of personal explanation. I was not in the House at the time but I have been informed that Deputy Boland, when speaking on the Estimate, referring to charges brought against two constituents of mine, who were convicted by the Circuit Court judge at Naas, said as follows—that after the conviction a dispute as to whether the warrant was made out in the usual way and as to whether the warrant had been properly drawn up or not was set on foot so as to give Deputy T.F. O'Higgins an opportunity—and that there were eyewitnesses of this—to get in touch with the Minister on the telephone.
I want to say that that statement is completely untrue and that the person who so informed Deputy Boland did so recklessly. I have no knowledge good, bad or indifferent of any such question or dispute and I may add that, in relation to this particular case, I am aware that the opinion of senior counsel has been sought on the question of certiorari proceedings in the High Court of Justice. That matter is sub judice.
Finally, I should like to say that as long as I am in public life I shall be concerned to see that the principles of justice are not merely respected but are practised also.
Were the men sentenced by the judge?
We cannot have a cross-examination now in regard to the matter.
We have heard a good deal of talk about the human side of life. I thought that the Minister, when he was replying to a parliamentary question put to him a short while ago by Deputy Blaney, was not as humane as he might have been in his outlook in respect of Gardaí making representations to public men if they feel they have a grievance. We have heard a good deal of talk from all sides of the House about human beings and not one of us is supernatural. When we speak about human beings we should go the whole way. If a Garda feels that he is not getting a fair deal from his sergeant or superintendent or if he feels he is being transferred wrongfully—and there are likes and dislikes in the force just the same as there are here in Dáil Éireann—it is only human that if he makes a complaint and thinks that he is not getting a fair hearing he will approach somebody to plead for him with the Minister for Justice or somebody else in charge. That will go on to the end of time.
I have no responsibility at all for that. It would be a reasonable charge for the Deputy who is now speaking to me to make if I did so.
I am making no charge. I suppose that the answer to that is that it is either law or justice. I have heard other Deputies refer in this House to the position of Gardaí in very small stations—especially where there are only three men. If one man should get sick or have to be absent for one reason or another the other Gardaí in the station have a good deal of extra duty thrust upon them. Even though people may say that their duties are not heavy, nevertheless, they have to be there for 24 hours and sometimes maybe 48 hours. We should do our best to make certain that we are always fair and reasonable in so far as the health and working conditions of our Gardaí are concerned.
Since I first came into this House in 1944 I have been urging that the grave matter of the housing of our Gardaí be given attention. I am most anxious that the Department of Justice will take a more active interest in this matter. I think that the Minister for Justice has no direct responsibility except in so far as the giving of allowances is concerned but in certain cases the housing conditions are most inadequate. As these men have nobody to get houses for them I feel that I should try to plead their case and for that reason I say now that the Department of Justice and the Department of Local Government should make it their business to ensure that Gardaí in country districts are properly housed just the same as other members of the community.
I have heard complaints also, in an indirect way, to the effect that the bicycle allowances are inadequate, taking into consideration the amount of work the Gardaí have to do in certain areas. I should like the Minister to look into the matter and see what can be done about it. I am well aware that he is very humane in his outlook and I feel confident that he will consider any representations which I may make to him in that regard.
I come now to the question of District Court clerks, which has been referred to by other speakers. I desire to add my voice also and to plead with the Minister and his Department to do everything possible to remedy the grievances which these District Court clerks have had for quite a long time.
I have a special interest in the subject of juvenile delinquency and I listened carefully to what Deputy Cowan had to say regarding his experiences in that respect. I have been present at sessions of the Children's Court and I desire to pay a tribute to the very humane way in which the district justice carried out his duties. I may say, too, that the probation officers are experienced people who are doing a very good job. Nevertheless, I feel we should keep pace in this country with what is being done in other countries in this respect and for that reason I should like the Minister to consider the possibility of the appointment of a full time psychiatrist in connection with that court. It often happens that a young person, through no fault of his own, is sent to an institution or to prison and when that happens he is branded for life as a criminal or even as a jailbird.
I fully realise that every chance is given to a child so as to avoid having to send him to an institution or to prison as the case may be. The only thing the justice can do is to consult with the parents, teachers and probation officers and that is why I feel he should have the advantage of the advice of a psychiatrist specially appointed to assist him in cases in which there is a doubt. Instead of sending a child to an institution or to prison he should be sent to a place where he would get treatment. If a young person is sent to prison there is the danger that he may come out of it with degrees in crime.
How many children were sent to prison last year? The Deputy is talking nonsense.
Will Deputy Collins give us the answer to his question?
Practically none— and never for a first offence.
The Deputy must have been absent from the courts in the past 12 months.
Not at all.
Does Deputy Collins think that I am talking here for fun or that I have no practical experience of this?
Just for the sake of talking.
Does Deputy Collins think everybody is like himself? He is constantly interrupting and he will not give a person a chance to make a speech.
You are talking rubbish.
Deputy Collins must cease interrupting and Deputy Burke should address the Chair.
While I claim that all humane methods have been and are being adopted, I urge the Department of Justice to establish what they have established in other countries, and that is trained psychiatrists to assist the justices in juvenile courts. I will pass on from that particular point. I do not think I have very much more to say.
What about Captain Cowan's army?
Captain Cowan's army has been very fully dealt with by Deputy Boland. So far as the treatment of prisoners is concerned, while Deputy Boland may be misrepresented by speakers from the Government side, under him as Minister the prisoners were treated very humanely on all occasions. So far as the prison system in this country is concerned, it definitely did improve under his administration. All precautions were taken and a very independent visiting committee was appointed to inspect the various prisons and report on conditions. I hope that will continue.
I am a great believer in this, that there is some good in all of us. I believe that even in the greatest criminals, provided they are not soured completely against society and are handled as human beings, after justice has taken its course, there is some good. Treat them as human beings and do not sour them completely against society and if you can get a small percentage out of a large number of criminals coming back to the right road, then your experiment will be worth while. My experience of meeting some people of that type is that they become soured against society and they say "there is no hope for us." If they feel someone is anxious to give them a helping hand over the style, there is a great possibility that they will react in the right direction and that they will definitely come back to be useful citizens again.
I was very glad to hear the Minister's introductory remarks and I want to congratulate him for telling us that he is preparing legislation to give the benefits that are long overdue to clerks in the District Courts. I notice Deputy Boland did not touch on that. It is satisfactory to observe that this matter, which has been a burning question for years, will at last be remedied and that the representations made are bearing some fruit.
I want to make a brief reference to the uniforms worn by the Garda. I fail to see why the Department of Justice cannot realise the need for some alteration in the Garda uniforms. The Department of Defence has realised the necessity for introducing a better type of uniform for our soldiers, such as the open neck on the tunic. It should be possible to do something like that for the Garda. It is only fair to those men that some consideration should be given to them. There should be some better style introduced in connection with their uniforms.
There was another matter referred to by some Deputies and in connection with it I think the existing situation is a disgrace to the Department. I refer to the housing conditions for the Garda. I realise that under another measure which we were discussing to-day members of the Garda Síochána may in the future be provided with houses by the local authorities in country districts. I think in this matter the Garda have been unfairly treated. Back over the years, no matter what Government was in power, the Garda were neglected in the matter of housing. They should have been provided with decent houses in country districts years ago. It may be said that the Garda are given an allowance to cover house rent. In South Cork, even though they are getting that allowance, they are forced to live in condemned hovels because they cannot get a decent house.
I want to raise what may be considered a small point, but it is an important one and it has reference to the Garda doing point duty in cities and towns. It should be possible to provide a raised dais for these men and not have them standing in the centre of the streets, as we so often see them in Cork and Dublin and elsewhere during the winter months in very bad weather. This is really a small point, but the grievance could easily be remedied and I trust the Department will give it sympathetic consideration.
There is another matter to which the Department could usefully attend and this has reference to barracks where electric current is already installed. I suggest the Minister should frame some regulation which would give the Board of Works authority to install an additional circuit for power current. This would make a big difference for the Garda. At the present time they have in Garda barracks, for lighting purposes, a 5 amp. fuse and for that they are paying at a certain rate. If they want to use electric heaters it would mean that the rate they would be paying for the current would be higher. I believe it would be a simple matter and would mean only a little extra wiring to install a 10 amp. instead of a 5 amp. fuse. If that were done it would give the Garda in these barracks ample current for electric heating at a cheap rate and they are entitled to something like that.
It is a common expression down the country that there are people at the present day—I am now speaking mainly of motorists—getting away with murder. I honestly believe, and I have expressed this view to many people, that this is a matter that must be faced in a far more drastic way than we are now facing it. It is a matter of vital importance to people down the country, at any rate. I have no intention of interfering with the powers that be in the courts, but I think—and I can only go by the evidence I see in the papers —there are too many cases where motorists are gallivanting around the country, very drunk at times, and when these people get into trouble, by taking lives or maiming people for life, the period of six or 12 months that they may get in jail is not sufficient.
Secondly, taking the driver's licence away for 12 months is not sufficient. The attitude down the country sometimes is that as the judge has a car himself he will be lenient. That is a dangerous view. Where it is proved that drivers of cars or lorries were dangerously under the influence of drink—there is a lot of quibbling sometimes and there are doctors on each side, but I am referring to cases where it is proved—there should be not only a severe penalty but the driver's licence should be taken from the offender for life. It is one way of making motorists face the responsibility. I am not speaking of the ordinary motorists, the big percentage of whom are careful but I am trying to protect, as well as the ordinary citizen, the careful motorist, from the blackguardly type trotting off to dances and race meetings and who are a danger, not only to themselves but to the whole community.
Coupled with these car accidents is a vicious circle whereby people are definitely placed in the wrong at times. Take the motorist who, through no fault of his own, meets with an accident when another crashes into him. The insurance companies adopt a knockfor-knock policy and as a result the companies get away with murder themselves. These matters must be tackled.
In connection with checking up on drivers, it would be better if we had a little less of Guards round the country watching the poor devil trying to get a pint of Beamish and Murphy down in Cork—I am not blaming the Guards, as they have to carry out the instructions they get—and if we had instead a proper patrol system between village and village and between town and town. Those of us who have to travel round a lot know that one of the rules which motorists are failing to comply with is the decent courtesy of dimming. Nearly every Deputy knows of accidents caused by motorists who refuse to dim their lights. By the patrol system I mention, where they would be provided with a car and slip round the country, they would get more cases in one week than by hanging around towns and villages for 12 months.
Deputy Cowan mentioned the three little boys who, when eating fish and chips on the footpath in that decent respectable town of Ennis, were rounded up by the Guards. The Minister may be anxious to round me up as soon as he can, but I say in conclusion on this point that there were old words and they are true:—
"Though justice be thy plea,
Consider this
That in the Courts of Justice, none of us
Shall see Salvation."
I was interested to hear the last Deputy mention that some people were getting away with murder. As far as I can see, under the Minister's administration there are certain people getting away with murder and that is what this House should stop in this Estimate. If we refer to the Ballylinan scene in which some people described as hooligans by a Circuit Court judge and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment and who were not sent to jail, obviously on the intervention of Deputy O'Higgins, who defended them, that is a typical case of "getting away with murder". In the whole experience of the Department I do not believe that such a thing happened before.
On a point of order, in view of the carefully worded explanation given by Deputy O'Higgins inside the last half-hour, to which the Deputy was listening, is it in order to proceed with this case any further?
It is not. The Deputy has been told that there is a writ of certiorari asked for in that case, therefore the case should be sub judice.
With great respect to you, Sir, no. Deputy O'Higgins said he was contemplating a writ of certiorari. He did not say the writ was heard or issued. This was an appeal from the District Court to the Circuit Court, which is the final tribunal for appeal. With great respect it is not sub judice; the Deputy did not allege so. He said he was contemplating some proceedings which have not been taken and I submit I am in order.
I do not think the Deputy is in order. The case may yet come before the court and we should not, by any action taken here, prejudice in any way the decision which may be arrived at. Deputy Moran is an experienced practitioner and he knows that himself. He might very well pass from that case.
He does not know the background of this case or anything about it.
If you so rule, I will not deal with it, but I submit that it was not suggested that proceedings were pending.
Deputy Moran is not precluded from raising this matter in another way later, if he wishes. The House is here and he can raise it in another way at a later date. At the present time, however, it would be to the credit of this House not to deal with it.
I bow to your ruling. If you so rule, I will pass from the matter.
A case has been made and a charge levelled. By that ruling, you would preclude me from replying, other than to say that my opinion is that the case is sub judice. I think that, having raised the matter, they might have it out.
The Chair cannot rule one way at one moment and another the next. A certain allegation has been made. I have asked the Deputy not to proceed any further. I cannot allow further discussion, notwithstanding the allegations made.
If the Minister agrees that this matter is not sub judice, surely I am entitled to deal with it. If he says it is, I will not go further; but I understand from his remarks that he believes it is not.
The Minister did not say that at all. Deputy Moran will please pass from that.
Very well. There is another matter. In the post office here in Dublin, the Minister's officials, or Government officials, took a certain number of postal packets from where they properly should be and planted them in a room, for the purpose of detecting a criminal. These postal packets contained remittances from America which were coming to constituents of mine in Mayo. In Pearse Street Post Office, they were deliberately placed in this way and, due to the inefficiency of some of the Minister's officers, the gentleman was allowed to get away with them and they have disappeared.
The Deputy knows that that post office is under the control of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
I am dealing with the prosecution of justice in the case of an official, which would be under the Minister's Department. I move to report progress.
