Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jul 1950

Vol. 122 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Office of the Minister for Justice.

Debate resumed on the question:
"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

In dealing with this Estimate the last night, you saw fit, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, to rule out a reference that was being made to a case at Ballylinan when I was quoting a report of the case from the Leinster Leader. You ruled that out on the grounds that it was suggested in this House that it was sub judice, that Deputy O'Higgins states that the case is sub judice and that there are certiorari proceedings pending. So far as I am aware, there are no certiorari proceedings pending. It is true that for some time it might be open to Deputy O'Higgins to bring such proceedings. In so far as Deputy O'Higgins states that that procedure is contemplated, I accept the Deputy's word; but it would be an extraordinary procedure here if, on an allegation that certiorari proceedings might be taken at some unspecified time in the future, a matter of that kind could not be discussed. If the proceedings are not taken, presumably the matter can be raised again.

I understand Deputy O'Higgins to state he was associated in the case and that there is more than a possibility, there is a probability, of a writ of certiorari issuing in the case. Deputy Moran will not lose an opportunity of dealing with the case, if he wishes, afterwards.

He knows nothing about the case.

Major de Valera

On a point of order, may I put the point further? Where there is a case either pending hearing or at hearing before a judge, I respectfully agree that it should not be discussed. Where a case is the subject of appeal, I think the same would apply. Where the time for an appeal or for further action in the court, if it is a question for that court, is still running, I submit the principle of the Chair applies. But I submit that in this particular case there is a distinction. Here there was an unusual intervention of the Minister for Justice, not a usual one. Where the usual procedure in any such case would be that the writ or the order of the court would run and would be automatically enforced by the Executive, here apparently is a case where it is alleged that the Executive did something extraordinary, in that it took upon itself not to execute the writ that would ordinarily run—that is allegorical language, if you like—as it then stood. The normal procedure. I submit, is that the order of the judge would be executed and the proper course would be to go to a higher tribunal and deal with the judge. In this case, the Minister is alleged to have usurped the function of the judge and I put it, on the point of order——

Let us end this point of order.

The Chair does not propose to discuss complicated court procedure here. A member of the House who has been associated with the case states that there is more than a possibility, that there is a probability, that the case will come on for hearing again. This House has a duty that it must not prejudice the case by anything that may be said here. Therefore, I am ruling that the matter cannot be discussed at the moment. I am also saying to Deputy Moran and anyone else interested that they are not losing an opportunity of discussing any matter. This matter may be raised in some other way in this House, if it is considered desirable. Therefore, the House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter at a later date. I am ruling out any discussion on the case at the moment.

On a point of order, I accept your ruling, but I wish to point out that Deputy Boland and Deputy Moran, and now Deputy de Valera, have asserted that the Executive have interfered in the case and that I am getting no opportunity of repudiating that particular charge or of dealing with the matter. I am not going to deal with it, but I want to say here and now that there is a full and ample reply to any such allegation.

The Minister will understand that the Chair cannot deal with statements until they are made. How is a statement to be dealt with before the Chair knows what it is?

Is the Chair aware that the further discussion of this case may prejudice the position of certain State servants?

I have ruled it out, as I think discussion here might interfere with justice being done to some citizen or citizens of the State.

Major de Valera

I trust the Minister will understand that I have said nothing about the case. I was merely saying that, if the facts are as stated— I personally know nothing about it—I was raising a point of order.

I would ask the Deputy to read the Official Report.

Mr. Boland

I was definitely under the impression, and I am still certain, that the matter is not sub judice and that is why I raised it.

Then it will have to be discussed, and the Deputy will have to prove that.

The Chair has ruled and we will have to accept that ruling.

Deputy Moran was informed by me of the full facts before rising this evening.

I accept what Deputy O'Higgins has said. I want to make it clear to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

Deputy Moran does not know anything about the case.

——if the matter is not brought before the courts by way of certiorari——

It was ruled out the other night.

Nothing I have said will prejudice the right of any Deputy. The rights of Deputies stand.

I want to deal for a moment with the position of the Land Registry. I want the Minister to understand that not alone I but every Deputy receive complaints day in and day out from the length and breadth of the country about the delay in the Land Registry. It is due, in the main, I think, to two factors, the lack of staff and the unsuitability of the building. There is not a Bar Association in the country that has not been complaining about this. I have had experience, and so have many other practitioners, of cases being held up for two and over two years awaiting registration. It is true that the work of that Department has increased very considerably over the last number of years. I think that the building the staff have is completely unsuitable and I would appeal to the Minister to take some positive action about this matter.

This matter affects not only those in my profession but it also affects everybody who has any dealings with registered land throughout the country. We suffer all these delays in the Department. It is the general opinion of those who know anything about this matter that those delays are due in the main to the overcrowded state of the building, to the lack of space and to the lack of sufficient staff to deal with the matters coming before the Land Registry. The position has got so bad that the entire country is complaining bitterly. If the matter is not dealt with soon, the situation will go from bad to worse. There are many more registrations now. The work is accumulating and the complaint about the position in that office is becoming daily more general. I do not know how far the introduction of photostatic machinery in that office and also in the Registry of Deeds would help matters. That system has been tried in England for a number of years and it has also been practised extensively in the United States. It should be a simple matter to reproduce the necessary documents photostatically. In my view that would save a good deal of time. It would certainly save the staff and might result in speeding up the machinery in that Department and in other Departments that deal with estate documents.

I do not know what the Minister proposes to do about district court clerks. A number of these clerks are non-pensionable. They have given the best years of their lives in the service of the State. Many of them are now due to retire and they will be thrown out without any recompense for their labours. Their work has increased over the last few years due to all the new legislation and the new charges that are now being introduced in the District Courts under the Road Traffic Act and so on. Formerly these men worked two or three days in the week. Now they are working day in and day out waiting on the Gardaí summonses and drawing up charges for them. Their work is now whole-time. I do not see why they should be left in the lurch when all other groups of State servants are being catered for.

I know a few of them myself and if the Minister does not take action this year or prevail upon the Department of Finance to do something for these men, it will be too late. These men have given excellent service. They perform an important duty in the community. I have been told that an increase was given recently to the Circuit Court staff in Sligo. That increase was not given in other areas, particularly to the temporary staffs. I would like to know why there was this discrimination made as between Sligo and the other areas concerned.

Some of the staffs of the Circuit Court offices throughout the country are unestablished. No provision is made for them in the future. They are small in number and they cannot exert the same pressure as that exerted by a highly organised body. The result is that they are forgotten. I think the position is very unfair. I think the Minister should examine the whole matter in relation to these unestablished officers in the Circuit Court offices. They have given a life-time service in these posts and something should be done to ameliorate their conditions and make proper provision for their future. Some of them have been there since the days of the clerk of the crown and peace. They are still waiting and hoping year after year that at some time some Minister will come into office and do something for them. The present position is not very encouraging for these men. It is no recompense to them after their life's service to have to look forward to being thrown out without any provision being made for their future. The Minister may be able to find some method of dealing with their position. It should not cast a very heavy burden on the Exchequer since there are very few involved. These posts are now filed by public examination and the people who come in are established civil servants. I understand Sligo is graded as grade five by the Department. There are other offices throughout the country where the staffs are entitled to the same rate of remuneration as the officials in Sligo have.

The proposal to increase the District Court jurisdiction has been on the mat a long time and the increase is long overdue. The Minister is aware of that himself. It has been a hardy annual for a number of years.

And always out of order, as it is now.

It will require legislation.

I do not know that I am out of order. Surely the rule-making committee which made the present District Court rules could do something in that respect. Surely they should be able to give effect to my suggestion without its necessarily involving legislation.

That is quite a good wangle.

I think it would be within their functions. Judging by some of the rules they have made, I think it would present no difficulty to them to give effect to the suggestions I am making. As far as the ordinary countryman is concerned, the District Court is one of the most important and one of the most popular courts. The system has worked extremely well. There is one important matter with which the Minister can deal. I do not think temporary district justices should be appointed any more than one should appoint temporary Circuit Court judges. If judges have to be appointed, they should be appointed full-time. It is a bad system to appoint a man as a temporary district justice or a temporary Circuit Court judge year after year.

I do not know that it should be necessary to appoint another Circuit Court judge because we now have a President of the Circuit Court. He directs the work of the different Circuit Court judges. In that way overlapping is prevented and when one judge finishes one particular circuit he can now be directed to some other area where his services are required. There is no sound reason why there should be temporary Circuit Court judges or temporary district justices. I understand that when a temporary district justice is sent down the country he gets the princely sum of 3/6 per day. The labourer is worthy of his hire. I do not believe the lowest paid civil servant in the Minister's Department would put up with that. It may be a relatively unimportant matter but it is these small things that ultimately destroy good service. I think the Minister should look into the matter.

On the last occasion I referred to a case here, the Moore case, and I want to know now from the Minister——

On a point of order. I can assure the Chair that this case is sub judice. The case was at hearing to-day in the Dublin District Court and was adjourned until to-morrow week.

What is the case?

Deputy Moran will understand that there are certain charges of larceny and receiving and there are also certain summary charges which will be left over until the more serious charges are dealt with. The summary charges are unlawful possession of particular items. I would suggest to the Chair and Deputy Moran that the mater should not be raised now.

If Deputy Cowan assures the House—it is certainly news to me that the case is at hearing——

The case was at hearing to-day.

I shall certainly not go into the matter very deeply. These men were before the court a considerable time ago and I do not think that what I have to say on the matter now will affect Deputy Cowan or anybody else involved in the case.

The Chair can never know of that. The Chair can only rule on a matter when it is said, and when it is said it is gone beyond any control by the Chair. I suggest to Deputy Moran that he should not discuss the case at all.

I did not catch the name of the case.

The case that I was referring to is the case of Albert Moore. I hope Deputy Cowan and myself are not talking about two different cases. It appears now that no one can discuss any case that has arisen in this country within the last two years.

The Chair has not made any such ruling about a time limit, but cases which are sub judice should not be discussed or referred to.

I agree, but let me make this clear in case there should be any misunderstanding about the matter. I am speaking of an alleged robbery at Pearse Street post office.

That is correct.

What I want to ask the Minister is this: where, for example, remittances are sent by people in America to constituents of mine and are lost or taken in the course of the post, is he aware that there is no redress for the unfortunate people whose money has been pinched or taken?

The Deputy should know that such cases would come under the control of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and not the Minister for Justice.

What I have in mind is that the officials of the Minister for Justice would have something to do with these cases. However, in case anything that I say might be taken as prejudicing something else, I had better pass from that. I will certainly have something to say in connection with this matter at a later stage.

Please God, this time 12 months.

The Taoiseach, a few days ago, seemed to suggest that anybody in this country is entitled to maintain a private army in the same way as Deputy Cowan's army, but I notice that the Minister for Justice had nothing at all to say.

It may be quite true that, possibly, Deputy Cowan wants a white army, Deputy General Mulcahy a blue army, Deputy MacBride a green army, and other Deputies different types of armies. If different members of the House are entitled to have their own armies it is time that the Minister should say on behalf of the Irish people —particularly at this time in view of outside developments—that there is only one Army here and that it is under the control of the State. That should be made clear to the people. Surely, it is the Minister's duty to stop any of these private armies which now seem to be started by all and sundry throughout the country.

The Minister may well smile. Other people may smile at Deputy Cowan's army, but it is the duty of the Minister to see that those people, even amongst themselves, must be prevented from shooting themselves. The Minister is not entitled to allow any bunch of young lads to be misled by anybody—to allow them get into a position in which they will get guns into their hands and create trouble, even if it is only amongst themselves. I think the Minister should take some steps in regard to Deputy Cowan's army and in regard to any of the other armies that we have represented either inside or outside this House, except our own official Army.

The Minister is responsible in a way for the appointment of different State officials. In the main, he is the man responsible or, at least, the man at the head as far as the judiciary and the courts are concerned. Everyone will agree that, as long as the people have confidence in the courts and in the impartial administration of justice, it will save an awful lot of trouble. Immediately, however, the people lose that confidence in the courts, or get the idea, rightly or wrongly, into their heads that there is interference with the course of justice, it will be a bad day for this country. In that event, a situation could well arise which the Minister could not control.

We have had here in this House what the Minister described as an undesirable practice carried on by different judges in this country, arising out of the famous document produced here by Deputy Lehane. Why the Minister described it as a general practice I do not know, because it was not a general practice. According to my information, it was only carried out in three counties or by three judges. The practice of a chief superindent of the Guards producing the record of a prisoner, or letting a judge see it, does not matter a very great deal in my opinion. When a judge goes to a circuit he meets the chief superintendent. He will know of the indictable cases and of those who are to be tried, but it is the jury who will have to find, on the evidence before them, whether the prisoner is guilty or not. If a prisoner is found guilty a document is produced in open court and read by the chief superintendent or an inspector of the Guards giving the record of that particular prisoner. If he has a record, in the official sense, the judge takes that into consideration before passing sentence on him. But if he has not a record, or has not been in trouble before, that fact is also stated by the chief superintendent and that counts in his favour.

At all events, the Minister thought fit, in this House, to say that this was the practice of the judges, and that it was an undesirable practice which he proposed to stop. But, be the practice desirable or not, the Minister certainly took no action in connection with the manner in which that document was taken from a Circuit Court judge sitting on the Bench in this country. Everyone in this House and in the country knows that that document dealt with a dog swindle down in the Minister's own constituency. Everyone knows that it was a case in connection with the substitution of a dog called "Flying Mantle" for a dog called "Mullagh Bridge." This document was undoubtedly stolen from this particular judge. It was produced here in this House. The Minister, presumably, had his Garda officials to inquire into how that document came here or how it came out of the control of the judge in question. The Minister said nothing as to how that happened. He gave no indication to the House or to the public as to how it was, whatever the nature of the document, it could be stolen from the judge out of his chambers, and that nothing was done about it—that no one was brought to justice in connection with the matter.

It is rather significant that the document was produced here by Deputy Lehane. Everyone knows whose record was produced in that particular case, and why the matter was brought up here. For what the Minister has not done, I think the House must indict him for not doing, that is, bringing the perpetrators of that crime—the stealing of that document—to justice, and for not finding out in what circumstances that document came here to this House. If any judge going around the country has any of these confidential documents given to him and if they can be purloined from him without his knowledge, I think it is a matter that the Minister should certainly look into. The Minister chooses to say nothing about the matter here. But, if the Minister takes that line so far as the judges and the courts of this country are concerned, the confidence of the people in these institutions will be undermined. I suggest to the Minister that when that time arrives it will be a bad day for this House and for this State.

Major de Valera

My contribution on this Estimate will be brief. One matter I should like the Minister to advert to is that we cannot ignore, as has been pointed out on a number of other occasions, the present trend of things and that, if things become any more critical, the question of internal security here becomes a very serious one. That is as much a matter for this Minister as it is for the Department of Defence or other Departments. We have one lesson before us that we should never forget, and that is the lesson of the last war.

In 1939, after the war had started, but during the "phoney" war period, we had a raid on the Magazine Fort which disclosed how seriously such a situation can develop in times of crisis in a country like this. I am not going to expand on that, but I want to point out to the Minister this simple fact. Let him and the country contemplate what might have happened in this country if that Magazine Fort raid had taken place in April, May or June of 1940. Just consider that possibility. It was a mercy for this country that it happened at Christmas and that before the critical crisis of 1940 the internal security problem in this country had been put in order. Let us learn that lesson and see that such a possibility from which we were providentially secured in the last war does not arise. That is all I want to say to the Minister on that. I am talking about the prudent preparation that the Minister, as a responsible Minister, should make if we have to face a crisis, if there is the possibility of a crisis. Everybody knows that if you have not your internal security organisation in order, some people or other will take advantage of it and that, when trouble is stirred up in such a situation, the people as a whole pay. If the Magazine Fort raid had occurred in May or June of 1940, what happened in the subsequent course of the war might have been altered. That is the net lesson, and it is a lesson for the Minister to see that his police force and general administration are in order to cope with such a contingency, if it should arise. It only means a little forethought and, particularly, keeping the morale and strength of the Garda up to the proper pitch. In that connection, there have been suggestions made during the year that the strength of the Garda should be reduced. I think this is a most inopportune time. This country owes a lot to the Garda Síochána, especially during the last emergency.

A Deputy

Hear, hear!

Major de Valera

"Hear, hear!" to the Deputy and "hear, hear!" to the Garda during the time of the Blueshirts. The Garda have been faithful, vigilant and effective servants to the community and they should be given every chance. They have proved it a number of times. Their quiet efficiency during the last emergency was such that I am afraid we do not often give them the credit due to them. The very silence of their efficiency hides it. However, I have made my point and I want to make it as forcibly and as objectively as I can.

In that connection also, it might be well to consider the possibility of at least making plans for reviving the L.S.F. in some shape or form in contemplation of a possible emergency, if such should come. If any young man wants to serve his country at the moment and wants to do the loyal thing, there is the F.C.A. which he can join. If the Minister will look to it, he can give an opportunity in a revived L.S.F. and voluntary services of that nature for serving the community. The Minister will appreciate that that was my main purpose in rising and I make the point as objectively as it is possible to make it, in the same spirit as the point was made on other Estimates. But, unfortunately, taking events as they have been in the last year, I am afraid that point should be made in this debate. Much as every one of us would like to think that there was no necessity for considering such matters, I think prudence demands that we should not minimise or magnify the prospect, but there it is.

Passing from that, there are one or two other points I should like to put to the Minister and they are points of administration. The question of the jurisdiction of the courts has been mentioned. Personally, I was under the impression that that was a matter for legislation. Perhaps, having regard to the change in the value of money, an increase of both the District Court and the Circuit Court jurisdiction might be considered by the Minister and his Department. I should like to join with Deputy Moran in what he said about the District Court. It has been a very successful and very useful court and a court which has served our community well since its inception.

There is another matter in connection with the administration of justice which the Minister might consider, in these days particularly. It has been raised frequently in this House before but it has been always passed away from and it is this. We have now virtually abolished jury trial for civil purposes except in the High Court. Well and good; justice is adequately met, I think. Nevertheless, our criminal system for serious charges depends upon a jury. Our Circuit Criminal Court, which is a jury court, is an important institution which is doing its work well. But that court, in certain counties at any rate, is a source of hardship to jurors. I can think of one county and I imagine the same would apply in other mountainous counties. I do not know about Kerry, but I imagine it would apply in Mayo, Galway and places like that. It certainly applies in Wicklow, where there is a mountain ridge running down the centre of the county and where jurors have to come long distances by devious routes to attend the Circuit Court, and they get no expenses; I mean that they are at a net out-of-pocket loss.

We have talk about duties to the community and so forth. It may be all right in the case of jurors in Dublin, where there is not so much hardship, having regard to the people who serve on the juries and proximity to the court. But, in counties such as I have mentioned there are small-holders who either have to face a fine, which is a very serious thing to them, or suffer hardship and loss in hiring cars, etc. I know this has been mentioned to the Minister and that the Minister can very well say to me: "Why did not other Ministers before my time do something?" I am taking all that into account, but I do think the grievances of these men should be voiced once again in this House and I am taking this opportunity to voice them.

From the civil point of view, another question about the strength of the Garda arises also. It is a fortunate thing that in many ways—principally because we are still largely a ruralised country—we are a fairly law-abiding people, so far as serious crime is concerned anyway, and that fact enables us to get away with something at the moment and it is this. Because of the low strength of the Garda, coupled with the multifarious duties of a nonpolice nature cast upon them, you can cross this country from Dublin to Galway or travel from Dublin to Cork after the hour of 11 o'clock at night and you will never come across a Guard. I should not say that you will never come across a Garda but you will seldom come across one, except possibly in the big towns. It is not the fault of the Gardaí. Their numbers are such and the additional duties cast upon them are such that it is a physical impossibility for them.

They would be no good if you could see them at night.

Major de Valera

May be there is something in what the Minister says, but they are no good at all if they are not there.

You could not see them.

Major de Valera

The Minister need not try to put the blame on my eyes. I know very well where to find them if I want them. I know the Minister has some investigations under way at the moment but, in all seriousness, I think there is no case for reducing the strength of the Garda. Indeed, if anyhing, there is case for increasing it. I also agree—I think this is what the Minister is thinking of—that it is time we examined a number of the duties discharged by the Garda. A number of Gardaí spend their time filling up forms that do not properly relate to police duties. If the Minister is following up that line, I take this opportunity of saying good luck to him.

Again I should like to impress on the Minister the desirability of ensuring co-ordination between his Department, the Department of Defence and other Departments involved, so that if we have to face anything approaching an emergency within any foreseeable time we shall not be at a disadvantage and shall be in a position to profit by all the lessons which we were providentially given an opportunity of learning during the last emergency.

This debate is of the utmost importance to the ordinary citizen because there is no one who has so much to lose by the maladministration of justice in any State as the ordinary private individual who has nothing to stand between him and the thief, the robber, or the murderer except the knowledge that if a man is caught and convicted, due punishment will be inflicted upon him for his crime. This debate has given us an opportunity to bring out into the open the facts about the administration of justice in this State under the present régime. On the basis of those facts, it is not going too far to declare that the enforcement of the law and the administration of justice have been debauched by pandering to the most petty and ignoble political considerations. We now live under conditions in which, when two miscreants are brought to justice, are justly condemned and sentenced, the political machine is put into motion and the warrant of the courts is not executed. On the contrary, the malefactors are left at liberty to cock a snook at the judge who passed sentence upon them——

It is now brought into the open. If the Deputy proceeds along those lines, he tears the whole case open.

I tear open the fact that a member of the Government Party is involved in this case and that upon his personal statement, that the advice of senior counsel had been taken about certain proceedings, these men are allowed to walk the land as free subjects. Is that what is left wide open? That is what I want to get opened.

We trust it is.

That is what I want to get opened. I want to know who took part in this transaction——

Discussion on this case has been ruled out of order already.

May I say, on a point of order, that I have a dual interest——

That is not a point of order.

The Chair rules what is a point of order.

The Deputy has intervened to drag a red herring across the discussion.

On a point of order, may I point out that a matter that has already been ruled out by the Chair has been discussed by the Deputy in this debate. In all fairness to the parties concerned, I would suggest that there should be a full discussion and a full disclosure with regard to all matters in this particular case.

Let us have it then.

Acting-Chairman

That case has been ruled out of order and it is still out of order.

It has been ruled three times out of order, presumably in the hearing of Deputy MacEntee.

He has referred to it here again and I ask the indulgence of the Chair that there should be a full disclosure and a full discussion with regard to it.

I am not concerned with Deputy O'Higgins' request. I am concerned only to say that I did not hear this case ruled out of order. On the contrary I heard Deputy O'Higgins refer to it in the debate on Friday afternoon last. If I may——

A Deputy

This is deliberate playacting.

Since there would appear to be some question about the relevancy or the order of what I was going to say, I propose to refrain from saying it.

You have said it.

I propose instead to refer to another matter which is not sub judice.

It is not either.

I propose to refer to the fact that a practitioner in the Circuit Court may steal a document, the property of a judge, a judge before whom he practises, that the disclosure of that document to this House by the receiver of it causes the Minister for Justice to set on foot an investigation into the purveyance of it, and the investigation made by the police, according to what I have heard, discloses he stole it but because the thief is now a political ally of the Minister's, no attempt is made to bring him to justice and make him stand his trial for what is an indictable offence, while the receiver protected by the immunity which he enjoys in this House as a Deputy gloats at his defeat of the law——

A combination of the Brothers Grimm and Baron Munchausen.

A third case. An individual steals a considerable sum of money running into thousands of pounds entrusted to the postal authorities for conveyance in the mails. He is convicted and sentenced to penal servitude. He has served only a few months of his sentence when, on the intervention of the Tánaiste, he is released and conveyed home in triumph in a State car at the public expense and this House is virtually given to understand that we may thank our stars that he has not been honoured at a public banquet, dined and wined at the public expense, since his relatives are members of the Tánaiste's trade union. In Galway, another case: one of the principals in the firm which the Minister for Health imported to build the Fianna Fáil regional sanatorium at Merlin Park crashed in a car and, it is alleged, was drunk. All Galway knows about this, but the whole business is hushed up and no proceedings are brought. Surely the public is justified in asking the Minister for Justice why?

I want to point out that the Minister for Justice brings no prosecution against anybody and nobody knows that better than the Deputy. The Minister for Justice has no responsibility whatever.

The Minister for Justice may not bring a prosecution but the Minister for Justice, we understand, is quite capable of stopping the Guards from bringing a prosecution. At least that is what is alleged in this case.

Another individual in this same city drives when drunk and it is stated that he has lost his driving licence in Glasgow for that offence, but again nothing is done about it, and again one may begin to ask oneself why? Is it because there seems to be some connection between these gentlemen and the Minister who placed a contract with them?

The Minister for Agriculture spoke the other day about vice and corruption. Others of his colleagues talk about racketeering. It is common knowledge that the things now being permitted in this State under the present Administration would shock the lowest racketeer in American politics. Tom Prendergast in his heyday would be ashamed to stand for some of the things now being done.

They would only be done by Maximo.

Deputies may laugh with a hardened laugh but there is no use in trying to brazen these things out as Deputy Lehane and Deputy Cowan have tried to do. The people are getting to know about them and are, I think, not only appalled but generally alarmed at the depths to which the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law in this country have now declined.

I should like, at this stage, to make comment on the particularly disgraceful exhibition to which Deputy Lehane treated us on Friday last in his pitiful attempt to answer the charge laid against him by Deputy Boland. The Deputy on that occasion endeavoured to divert attention from his own part in this particular episode by trying to raise a side issue, but the vital question in this matter is not what the document related to, but how it was come by.

That has no significance at all.

If the Deputy will bear with me for a moment and let his colleagues in Leinster House hear the point——

Certainly.

The important thing is not the actual document in this particular instance as far as the administration of the law is concerned but how Deputy Lehane came to procure it.

To prevent the administration of the law from being polluted.

My information is that the document was stolen by a solicitor—as I have already stated— from the judge in whose court he was a practitioner. The solicitor in question, it was said, had more than an ordinary professional interest in the matter. It was also said—Deputy Lehane may contradict this or not if he wishes—that Deputy Lehane acts as his town agent.

Deputy Lehane does not act as town agent for any solicitor.

Mr. Boland

He acted as town agent on this occasion.

The papers were handed up.

Like the Russian jewels.

Mr. Boland

They would not be handed up if they were in some people's possession. Deputy O'Higgins would not have handed them up.

The O'Higgins kept you right for many years. They have respect for law and order.

Mr. Boland

You will not shout me down.

You are spoiling Deputy MacEntee's speech.

I am accepting that Deputy Lehane does not act as town agent for this solicitor.

For any solicitor.

That is merely a manifestation of wisdom on the part of the profession.

A typical MacEntee insult.

However, whether he acts as town agent or not, is it not a fact that the solicitor from whom he got the document is a political colleague of his and that at any rate this ill-gotten document found its way into his possession and that Deputy Lehane received it knowing it to have been stolen? That is the charge against Deputy Lehane. He has virtually admitted it. That was the tenor of his speech on the last day, and he gloried in the fact.

I am delighted at having an opportunity of stopping an injustice permitted by your colleague.

Might I ask if it is parliamentary procedure to slander somebody, an unnamed solicitor?

Mr. Boland

I take it that the Minister is to take responsibility.

The Minister will answer that.

I am also entitled to comment on the attitude the Minister's defenders have taken in the debate, including in particular the very man who is the whole kernel of the whole episode, Deputy Lehane. I gather that Deputy Lehane not merely glories in the fact that he did receive this document in the circumstances I have narrated but that he knowingly consorts with a pickpocket.

Deputy Lehane glories in the fact that he stopped a pernicious practice which your colleague permitted.

What does the Minister for Justice do when he is confronted by this combination of thief and pickpocket? He does nothing. He bends down before them like a reed shaken by the political wind. The instances to which I have referred are a series of manifestations of the manner in which the enforcement of the law is being made subservient to political considerations.

There are, I think, some other instances that might be cited but I do not wish to detain the House. I propose instead to go on to another matter. The facts to which I have referred may be disquieting, but nevertheless they are made to pale into insignificance by the way in which the Minister and the Government permit both the law and the Constitution to be openly defied by their political supporters. On the 27th June a question was put down in this House in which it was recited that the Constitution lays down in Article 15 that:—

"The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas; no military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever."

Is this General Parson's army?

I know that of course Deputy O'Higgins smiles at our Army as his father sneered at our coastal protection corvettes. I propose to raise a matter of constitutional significance. I know, of course, that the O'Higgins family opposed the Constitution when the people were asked to enact it in 1937, but I ask them, since they are now sitting in this House under the Constitution and profess to have accepted it, to bear with me while I charge the Minister with permitting the Constitution to be flouted and the law to be violated. I was saying that the Constitution provides that no military or armed force other than the military or armed force raised by and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever.

You did not always think that.

The Taoiseach accepted that statement of the constitutional provision and gave some pious assurances that he would uphold it. But what are the facts? The facts are that, so far as I can gather, we have now three armies in this country: the regularly constituted Defence Forces of the State, the army for which Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke in this House on the Adjournment on Thursday evening last and the force to which the Taoiseach referred in the following terms:—

"There is, if the Deputy likes me so to describe it, what is euphemistically called a volunteer movement."

That, I think, is a light-hearted statement of the position. I think we may ask ourselves this question in the light of some recent disclosures: Is the levity of the Taoiseach justified in relation to this force, which is now being organised and which the organiser boasts is now expanding rapidly? To answer that we must consider not merely the appearances of this organisation as they manifest themselves to the Taoiseach who would appear in relation to these matters of grave public concern to mould his general action and approach on the well-known habits of the ostrich. It is not the appearances of this force as they appear in the eyes of the Taoiseach that matter, but the men behind the force, and, what is more important, the men behind the men who are behind the force. It is these realities and not the specious appearances which apparently disarm the Taoiseach and lull the Taoiseach in that matter.

I believe that this so-called volunteer force which is being organised with the acquiescence of the Government to be a movement—and I speak deliberately and with a great deal of knowledge—which is full of danger to the peace, internal and external, of this country. I believe that this force which is being organised in the name of Irish patriotism is, in truth, being organised to serve other ends and I propose to adduce evidence in support of that statement. This volunteer force, as the Deputy himself, has admitted, in the course of this debate, is being organised by Deputy Cowan and it is therefore relevant to the debate to ask what is Deputy Cowan's public record as an organiser.

For the past 30 years.

I do not propose to deal with Deputy Cowan's earlier military and political career.

From the time he attacked the Republic onwards.

I merely wish to remark that, when he was recalled to the Colours in the Autumn of 1939, he applied to be released from active service.

On a point of order——

That matter does not arise.

Oh, yes, it does.

It is the starting point.

I have already in this House, when Deputy MacEntee made the same allegation, said it was untrue and Deputy MacEntee very graciously, as the records will show, withdrew the allegation.

Am I to understand that the Deputy continued to serve with the Colours from September 1939 until the end of the war.

It does not arise.

The Deputy made no application to be released from military service.

What happened? Was he put out?

No. He was released. The Minister can explain it.

We will let it stand at that. The Deputy was released from his obligations as a member of the Army Reserve late in 1939 or early 1940. That is all I wish to have on record. My next concern with Deputy Cowan, the organiser of this volunteer movement, is with Deputy Cowan as Director of Organisation of the Labour Party in 1942 and 1943.

That does not arise.

It does, Sir, because I intend to prove that this force——

Deputies

Chair!

——which the Government is ignoring has its roots in a very sinister movement and I think that, in view of the public importance of the occasion, I am justified in raising it. The Constitution declares that no force or army will be maintained or organised, except with the sanction of the Oireachtas. There is an army now being organised in this country; young men are being told that it is their duty to do certain things; young men are being armed. I want to show what is the record of the man who is organising that army and I am justified in doing that, in view of the neglect by the Government to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law. At the time of which I speak, it was decided that the Communist organisation in this country——

I have said that that matter is not in order. Therefore, it is not in order.

If I am not in order in speaking of the fact that, while Deputy Cowan was Director of Organisation of the Labour Party, it was publicly stated——

The Deputy is now trying to say what has been ruled out of order.

Then, in this debate, upon a matter of such public importance as the organisation of a movement which is described as a volunteer force, a force which the organiser himself has admitted is expanding in numbers, a force whose members carry arms, I cannot disclose to the public and to this House the information I have in my possession as to the record of this gentleman and the powers behind him. Am I precluded from touching on that matter in view of the importance of the issue which has been raised? It appears to me—I am not the Chair and will have to bow to the Chair's ruling—that these questions are very germane to the issue raised in the question which the Leader of the Opposition addressed to the Taoiseach on 27th June and to the issue I have raised in this debate as to the negligence of the Minister for Justice to enforce the law and of the Taoiseach to uphold the Constitution.

I think at this stage that the Deputy, having said so much, should be permitted to say what he proposes to say, because, if he is not so permitted, it would appear that there was something which I, as Minister, had to conceal.

The Deputy cannot give the whole history of Deputy Cowan.

No, Sir. It is the public history of Deputy Cowan that I propose to deal with. The Deputy is sitting here as a member of this House. He has in this House accepted responsibility for flouting the Constitution and organising an army in defiance of it and of the law.

The Deputy was allowed to say so.

I do not wish to make any statements in this House that I cannot adduce evidence in support of and I am asking you now, since you permitted me to make these statements, in justice to the country and in justice to others, in justice particularly to the young people of this country who are being lured into this force, to let them and their parents know what I know about the background of Deputy Cowan. That is what I am asking, Sir, and, of course, I am entirely in your hands. If I may not speak about Deputy Cowan's activities as a Director of Organisation of the Labour Party, when he was thanked for having permitted——

The Deputy is again trying to repeat what was ruled out of order.

Let me come to another activity.

Again on a point of order. I do not mind what Deputy MacEntee says, if he will only say the truth, but he has interjected there that I was sacked from the Labour Party. I never was.

The Deputy did not say that.

Oh, yes, Sir. He said it. Yes, Sir, just this minute.

It was the other Party you were sacked out of—Clann na Poblachta?

I am dealing with a point of order.

It is not a point of order. What is the point of order?

The point of order is that I am saying that what Deputy MacEntee has said is entirely untrue.

No, Sir, that will not do.

If the Deputy states that something affecting himself is untrue, then the Deputy's word must be taken.

If we have evidence to the contrary, how about that?

Will you please allow me to clear up a certain confusion?

Not if the Deputy denys it and his word is accepted.

I said one thing. Deputy Cowan's hearing is apparently so defective or my enunciation is so defective that he thought I said another thing. He said that I said he was sacked from the Labour Party. I, Sir, did not say any such thing. I said that he was publicly thanked by the Communist Party.

No, you did not.

I said "thanked by the Communist Party".

No, you did not.

He is saying it now.

May I ask a question?

The Deputy may not be hopping up every five minutes unless the other Deputy gives way.

He has given way.

All right. Deputy Cowan:

Deputy MacEntee has made a statement in this House which every member heard. I said that that was not true and then he stated that he did not say that but that he said something different which, again, is absolutely untrue.

It will be conceded, I think, that I am speaking under some difficulty. I understood Deputy Cowan to say that I had alleged that he was sacked from the Labour Party. I gather that, through a slip of the tongue, I said he was thanked by the Labour Party. I understand from Deputy Cowan that that is not true and, therefore, as I never for a moment dreamed that the Labour Party would thank Deputy Cowan for allowing the Communist Party to get control of their organisation, I accept Deputy Cowan's disclaimer.

It is just his method of slander, for which he is well known.

I have been accused of slander. I want to say this, that there is not a single thing that I had proposed to say in relation to Deputy Cowan's connection with the Labour Party that I have not already said in public, print and on platform up and down this country, and if there was slander in it, Deputy Cowan knows that he has a legal remedy.

Ah, no. I know the Deputy knows how to avoid legal action.

The statements I had proposed to make about Deputy Cowan's association with the Labour Party have been said by me on numerous platforms in this country, have been reported in the Press, have been printed and published in the Press under my own signature and Deputy Cowan has not yet had the hardihood to take the legal proceedings which lie so easy to his hands.

And completely without success. You were an absolute failure in your programme.

If I may come along to another aspect of this matter.

If the Deputy would come to the Vote.

Administration of the Department of Justice—that is what he is at.

I am partly the judge in that matter, possibly.

I am not questioning your ruling in relation to anything that I have said.

Indirectly, others are.

No, Sir. I do not think I need call your attention to the fact that your intervention in order to enable me to secure a fair hearing in this House already indicates that you are well aware, as I have said, that I am speaking under great difficulty and if, occasionally, I may appear to do a little across the line, I would like to ask you to grant me some indulgence for doing so.

I will exercise the prerogative of mercy and let you do it.

Barnum was right.

The Deputy will not get away with matters that are absolutely irrelevent.

I do not propose to say anything more about Deputy Cowan's record in the Labour Party. That does not arise. But, Sir, the volunteer force is not the first movement of the kind that Deputy Cowan tried to organise and I propose, with your permission, to speak of that because I think the two movements are very closely related to each other. In August, 1944, there came into my possession——

Surely these are matters which were under the jurisdiction of the former Minister for Justice, not of this Minister.

And they were dealt with at that time.

Tell us about Deputy Boland's communists.

As Deputy O'Higgins has reminded the House, these matters were under the jurisdiction of the former Government and, as the former Minister for Justice, the present Minister's predecessor, has reminded us, they were dealt with on that occasion. I, Sir, was beginning to deal with Deputy Cowan's record. There will be on the records of this House, on the printed report of these debates, when they come into the possession of Deputies to-morrow, the statement made by Deputy Cowan in relation to the record of the former Minister for Justice as Minister for Justice over the period from 1939 to 1948. The whole of that record was traversed. The former Minister for Justice was accused of being a sadist and other things were alleged about him in relation to the distasteful task he had to perform in order to secure the peace and freedom of this country——

He did not consider it distasteful.

——and the preservation of the lives of public servants and the protection of public property and, of course, the preservation and the upholding and maintenance of the institutions of this State. You, Sir, have said that I may not talk about Deputy Cowan as an organiser of the Labour Party and I have accepted your ruling but, Sir, you will find in the records of this House a gross and ill-founded attack upon a man who served this country well, who served it long before Deputy Cowan ever thought of even saluting the republican flag—I do not believe he ever fought under it. In any event, Sir, it is there on record and I wish now to deal with the record of the man who made that grossly personal attack in the terms which I have indicated.

I am going on to say, Sir, that this is not the first military movement with which Deputy Cowan has been associated. There came into my possession a circular issued over his name in August, 1944. I would like to point out what Deputy Cowan then proposed to do, in order that we may appreciate what he is now doing.

/On a point of order. I think, Sir, you yourself ruled on more than one occasion—and it is well established practice in this House—that in the discussion on Estimates the only thing that comes under review here is the administration of the particular Department for the previous 12 months.

Precisely.

On that, Sir. When I was Minister, a speech which I made in 1928 was read out here.

May I say, if the Chair will bear with me, that Deputy MacEntee is not proceeding to deal with the speech made by the Minister for Justice but by a member of the House. It is quite a different thing.

For which I have no responsibility.

It would be desirable on the Estimate to refer to the past 12 months—very desirable. However, I have seen documents and posters which were 12 years old brought into this House on the Estimate.

The people do not want this nonsense.

Mr. Boland

Twenty years old, in fact, in my case.

Twenty years old and quoted from the back benches. What the Minister for Industry and Commerce suggests would be very desirable. I understand that at present Deputy MacEntee is refuting remarks made by Deputy Cowan in his intervention on this Estimate.

I should not like to say that. What I am endeaouring to do is to show the close analogy between what Deputy Cowan is now succeeding in doing under the present Government and what he tried to do, but failed to do, under the last Administration, that is, to form a private army in order to serve his own political purposes. That is what I am endeavouring to show. If I may, I propose to do that by quoting from documents and published statements of Deputy Cowan in order that there may be no doubt whatever in the mind of any person that neither the present Taoiseach nor the Minister for Justice is justified in treating this matter lightly or in regarding it in any other way than seriously and in doing their duty by suppressing it and if necessary bringing Deputy Cowan to trial for treason.

Deputies

Ha, ha.

It is easy to laugh but it is noticeable that the Deputies who appeared to be most amused about this——

Would the Deputy look to his left?

——are the Deputies who are trying to prevent me from putting this fact before the House.

And who were allies of the Deputy concerned.

It is only Deputy Cowan's friends who are anxious to get these documents withheld. The people who are really concerned about the safety of this State; about safeguarding their young people from being led into evil ways, would like the public to be informed as to what really is the motive behind this alleged volunteer force.

You are proving its best friend. You are giving it the best advertisement.

Deputy MacEntee must get out what he has to say and what he has in his hand.

I want, if I am permitted, to say, what Deputy Cowan hoped to do in 1944. He proposed to work for a certain type of revolution. He said: "This revolution will not be so difficult as it may appear to unthinking people. Five years of war have brought about many changes and minds that were sealed against new ideas by capitalist propaganda in its many gilded forms have been opened to the vision of the better world that socialism can achieve.

Hear, hear!

"There is a widespread spirit of discontent with things as they are that can be organised by courage and determination into a force"—"force", mark you, like this volunteer force—"that will destroy capitalism and establish socialism in Ireland."

Hear, hear, James Connolly could not have put it better.

He continued: "When the war is over thousands of our workers will return from England where they have been paid higher wages than are paid here. These workers realise the evils of capitalism and the benefits of socialism"—having been trained in the Connolly Club. That is not in the document.

The Deputy should read the quotation without making interjections.

"They will not return to slavery nor will our soldiers on demobilisation meekly line the relief queues for the sops that capitalism would dole out to them."

Would the Deputy state what he is quoting from?

I am quoting from a manifesto which was signed by "Peadar Cowan, 86 Malahide Road, Dublin". This is a copy of the original which is in my safe possession. The date is August, 1944. As I say, this movement was put down by the then Minister for Justice whom Deputy Cowan accused of being a sadist.

He never lifted a finger.

This movement is now being tolerated by the present Minister for Justice and by the Government of which he is a member and which Deputy Cowan supports.

Deputy Cowan's crime is that he put you out? Is not that so?

I hope I shall not have to propose that anybody else be put out.

On a point of order. The Deputy is reading a document and he has interjected certain remarks.

And said they were not in the document.

I submit, with respect, that that is not the way to read a document. Comments on it may be made afterwards.

Where is the point of order?

"That returning emigrants and the demobilised soldiers——"

I agree with the Deputy that a document should be quoted correctly or not at all.

He is trying to get something over to the Press that is not in the document.

Mr. Brady

So are you.

Now that Deputy Cowan has told me how to read a document, perhaps I may proceed to read it correctly after his lesson.

I wish the Deputy would proceed with the Estimate.

"The returning emigrants and the demobilised soldiers will be ready to take their place in the struggle for the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of the Socialist Republic."

Hear, hear!

"The termination of hostilities will see the formation of a Federation of League of European Socialist Republics that will abolish the causes of European wars and enable the peoples of Europe to develop in peace, happiness, prosperity and security." That was what Deputy Cowan said in his manifesto.

Very good photographs.

Let us see what he said elsewhere in public. I am quoting from The Standard of the 29th September, 1944. A report appeared in that paper on that date of a speech made by Deputy Cowan when he was trying to organise the Vanguard movements which we put down. It reads as follows:

"Mr. Cowan then referred to the spirit of socialism throughout the world"——

I ask if what I said on the occasion is in order to be quoted. I am asking the Chair to rule on this. I have no objection to that but if it is what somebody says what I said I think it is not playing the game.

It was not contradicted.

I am quoting a report which appeared in The Standard of the 29th September, 1944.

That is a Press report.

Though Deputy Cowan had some controversy with The Standard in relation to this matter, he did not controvert the accuracy of this report. It reads as follows:

"Captain Cowan then referred to the spirit of Socialism throughout Europe and envisaged a Federation of Socialist States in Europe. In that field Portugal will find its place"—

this is given in quotation marks in the report—

"so will Spain, after the present Government has been uprooted. Socialism is the next development due in this country. It will not be achieved without co-operation. It will only be achieved"—

and I trust the Minister for Justice is taking note of this—

"by uprising and a revolutionary movement of workers and working farmers. We intend by propaganda and hard work to give the lead to the people and to create a spirit of revolt so that Socialism may be achieved in our time."

Hear, hear!

A further statement from that report may be of some service. In the same report, Deputy Cowan is reported to have stated that the world situation to-day is composed of four ideologies, Communism, Fascism, National Socialism and the Corporate State, and that the last three—Fascism, National Socialism and the Corporate State will disappear——

They are gone.

——leaving only Communism.

They are gone.

These are Deputy Cowan's own words as reported in a newspaper which then enjoyed a wide circulation in this country. As I have said Deputy Cowan engaged in some controversy with that newspaper regarding his aims and methods and some editorial comments which it passed upon Deputy Cowan—but he never once challenged——

On a point of order. The Deputy has read what I am purported to have said and at the end of it he quoted that "Communism only would remain." I deny that that is in the report.

I did not say that.

The whole House heard it.

I did not say that statement was in the report.

Of course, you did.

I think the Deputy has gone far enough.

Deputy Cowan will not get away with that.

The Deputy must relate what he is saying to the Estimate. Already he has got a lot of liberty.

I am relating it to the fact that Deputy Cowan is now organising——

Deputy Cowan rightly rose to state that these words were not said by him.

But these words are his.

The words "Communism only would remain"—he denies that he used those words.

What Deputy Cowan did say was this——

The Deputy has said it already and he may not repeat it.

In view of the fact that I am being continuously interrupted, I must be permitted to protect myself against misrepresentation.

The Chair is simply upholding Deputy Cowan in stating that he did not use the words "Communism only would remain".

If you state four things and if you know the subtraction table and you take one, two and three away, the fourth is bound to remain, unless we are anxious to upset the very fundamentals of the principles of mathematics, and that is what Deputy Cowan is trying to do. Reference was made to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism and the Corporate State. The Corporate State goes, National Socialism goes and Fascism goes, but Deputy Cowan does not say that Communism goes. On the contrary, he makes it quite clear that what he wants to bring into this country is Communism.

I want to hear something now about the Minister's administration for the past 12 months.

I am stating that this is a most dangerous movement.

The Deputy has been given a lot of latitude, and that cannot go on.

The Chair has given him enough rope with which to hang himself.

I shall have another opportunity of dealing with this matter at greater length—perhaps on a motion.

The matter that is now before the House is the administration of his Department by the Minister for Justice.

I now want to come to something that happened in this House.

Might I ask the Deputy how did they suppress Deputy Cowan then? I would be glad if the Deputy would tell me that.

It will be time enough to attack me like that when I am Minister for Justice.

Have you given up your defence aspirations?

It is quite clear that Deputy Cowan has quite a number of allies on the opposite benches. This gentleman who wants to nationalise land and all industries does not, apparently, find his allies only in the Labour Party; there seem to be members of the Fine Gael Party who are prepared to stand with him as well on this issue.

That is the finest achievement of the year.

Will the Deputy now come to the Estimate?

If I would be permitted to do so. Of course, you appreciate the fact——

I appreciate the fact that Deputy Cowan is not the Minister for Justice.

That is not quite the point. I am dealing with the Minister's administration in so far as the Minister is not doing his duty. There is an Act called the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, and I think Section 6 of that Act makes it illegal for anyone to maintain an army or volunteer force. The Minister for Justice is charged with the administration and the enforcement of the law. He has failed signally—I will not say he has failed, but he has refused publicly to do his duty in relation to this movement of Deputy Cowan's.

On a point of order. If the Offences Against the State Act is referred to and a particular section is mentioned, perhaps the Deputy will quote it?

That is not a point of order.

On a point of order. I object to the time of this House being taken up by Deputy MacEntee acting as a recruiting sergeant for Deputy Cowan.

The Chairman of the Friends of Soviet Russia ought to keep out of this debate or he might be brought into it, too. I have as much information about him as I have about Deputy Cowan.

I challenged you in your paper and you were not capable of taking it up.

If I am permitted to proceed without these unseemly interruptions——

Quote the section.

——I would like to deal with matters that are within the cognisance of every man in this House. Deputy Cowan claims to be one of the founders of the Clann na Poblachta Party. Whether he is or not, I do not know, but that claim was publicly made.

It is an historical fact.

Here is a matter which is within the knowledge of every member of the House. We all know the attempts that the United States of America have been making, through the C.E.E.C., to build up the economic, military and political strength of the democratic States of Western Europe to withstand Communist aggression.

That has nothing to do with the Estimate—it is quite irrelevant.

When the present Minister for External Affairs submitted this to the House on 1st July, 1948——

Is it in order for the Deputy to refer to the submission of a Supplementary Estimate by the Minister for External Affairs?

That is precisely what the Chair wanted to hear.

When that was submitted by the Minister, it was received with the unanimous assent of the House, with the exception of one Deputy.

It has nothing to do with the Estimate before the House.

When the question of technical assistance was before this House——

We are not here to study the history of Deputy Cowan or his attitude in relation to certain matters.

Is the Deputy not entitled to express his views?

Deputy Cowan voted against that. Now, the relevancy of these two questions——

It is not relevant.

The relevancy——

It is not relevant.

Then, Sir, is the position this, that we have the Taoiseach referring to a volunteer force, which is being organised in defiance of the Constitution and in violation of the law, and pretending to treat it lightly, when the man who is organising that force is a man with a record such as I have described, and whose actions in this House, in relation to matters of External Affairs, in which this volunteer force might try to intervene, are such that he opposed all attempts to cooperate with the United States——

I must ask the Deputy to sit down, for contravening the ruling of the Chair.

He will have a nightmare to-night.

The Minister, to conclude.

The Minister proposes——

Politics is a very dirty game.

The Deputy must cease interrupting.

I want just to say this, before the Minister starts. If the Minister sets up a public inquiry, I will prove everything I have said, provided he produces the documents which I require.

The Minister proposes to answer——

But the Minister for Justice will not do that. He prefers to shield Deputy Cowan.

The Minister for Justice proposes to answer all the legitimate questions put to him in the course of this debate on his administration for the past 12 months. If I have to refer at any point to some historical fact, I hope that I shall try to do so within the rules of order and that, if I do not, you will give me indulgence. I asked Deputy MacEntee to give me a little bit of information, as to how the predecessors of this Government were able to suppress Deputy Cowan.

I was not permitted to give that information.

The Deputy did not answer me. If I am permitted, I will give the answer. They suppressed him by doing what I am doing, and that is, nothing; and by ignoring the whole situation.

They did not allow his private army to develop and did not allow him to advertise for recruits.

If the question of private armies is to be discussed here, I want to remind the Party opposite that if Deputy Cowan called his volunteer force "Fianna Fáil"—which is "The Army of Destiny"—I presume that because he said it in Irish it would be all right. Those opposite have a private army, according to themselves. For goodness' sake, let them not ask me to go into that matter.

Be serious.

Only on points of order did I interrupt other Deputies. On that private army the Taoiseach has answered the Leader of the Opposition quite recently here and on that question I have nothing more to add. He gave the Opposition a very positive undertaking that the Constitution would be maintained and upheld. Let me say that the only people who have assisted Deputy Cowan in the establishment of his so-called force—if it is anything like that—are the people opposite. The Irish Press was the only paper in the State which advertised Deputy Cowan's private army as such. I would like to know why they did it——

The others were all concerned not to embarrass the Government.

——and why they are trying now to advertise him, for some reason.

The others are trying to suppress the truth.

This country is more than any person or Party, and I trust that, after all our years, we have now reached the state in which we would protect the interests of this country before those of any Party and not try to make petty points.

That is what we want the Minister to do.

I will discharge my obligations to the country and will stand by the Constitution as faithfully as I ever did in my life and that will have to do. The Government of which I am a member accepts my point of view on that.

Now I will come back to ordinary things, having got out of the war and rumours of war. Deputies Boland and de Valera and others are perturbed about the suspension of the recruiting for the Garda Síochána; they argue that the strength is too low and they are afraid that the committee of inquiry which has been established would reduce the numbers of stations or the number of Guards. There is no question of doing any such thing. I want to remind the Deputies opposite that the Garda Síochána force was hurriedly thrown up here in 1922 under rather difficult circumstances and that it was organised upon the lines of the old R.I.C. That organisation as such was never fully examined by any Government in this country. For the first time, I am having the matter examined to see if we could get a better organisation and a more effective one, on Irish lines.

There is a point I would like to make to the Minister. Would he not admit that if it is going to take 12 months to get the committee to report, that will cause a lot of uneasiness and unrest amongst the Gardaí? At least it should not be protracted so long, keeping the people waiting in suspense.

I said I hoped to announce the whole plan this time 12 months and I hope with the help of a very efficient Department, which Deputy Boland gave to me——

With no festering sores.

That committee is working very hard and I expect that it will not be at all 12 months before the report is made. No Guard or officer should be one bit perturbed about his present situation or future conditions. There is no reason whatever for that.

The Garda strength on the 30th June of this year was 7,083, which is identical with the strength on the 31st of August, 1939. In the Dublin Metropolitan Division, the strength to-day is 1,501; on the 31st August, 1939, is was 1,407.

The city has grown a lot since then.

Since then we have got cars, vans and radio—and unless one argues that these are absolutely ineffective and of no use, surely that increased number with the increased technical aid, meets the case.

Will the Minister give the comparative figures for the Dublin metropolitan area on the dates which he mentioned?

I gave them in reply to a query someone put. It has been increasing all the time. One of the things this committee is examining is the policing of the City of Dublin in particular and I think I can nearly say we have come to certain conclusions. It is of very great interest to me to see to it that Dublin and every city in the country is efficiently policed. I think it is at the moment, and if anything happens it will be——

The Minister has not the figures?

I have not. I have the figures of comparison for what is known as peace time conditions. I hope and believe that we are at peace at the moment, that we have been for the past two years, and, with God's help, we will be at peace for another two.

The city conditions have changed very considerably.

The conditions have changed. We have added the mechanical aid and improved conditions with radio cars and one thing and another. Then we have also the street traffic lights, which save police. The matter is being examined and Deputies can take it from me that I am as anxious as anyone else that the city and country would be policed properly.

The Minister understands that there was never a higher standard of conduct than there is in Dublin at the moment amongst the ordinary people.

Regarding the ordinary people, their appreciation, for instance, of the traffic regulations, is very disconcerting. On the question of Garda promotion, I was not aware that there were any vacancies. It does appear that there are two vacancies for superintendents.

And one for an inspector.

Because of the suspension of recruiting, there were two superintendents to spare and these two are just allocated to these duties until recruiting reopens. The Commissioner is satisfied with that and if he notified me of any vacancies I did not advert to it. He has closed that gap. On the question of inspectors, the Deputy knows well that the Commissioner does that himself. Deputy Boland when Minister never promoted them, nor did I. The promotion of inspectors is a matter for the Commissioner. But you never promoted, and neither did I nor the present Government, an inspector. That is a matter solely for the Commissioner. Since 1st July, 1948, two people were promoted to the rank of inspector in the metropolitan division and one in the detective division and I did not know anything about it.

On the question of Garda transfers, I want to repeat once more what I said on the first Estimate I introduced here as Minister for Justice. Though it ought not to be necessary, I think it is essential that I should do so. Two years ago I made it quite clear that the Commissioner is vested with sole authority in regard to the internal management of the Gardaí and that I have no functions at all in regard to such matters as transfers, discipline or anything else. I would not interfere and could not interfere with the Commissioner's decision in regard to any particular member of the force. I made that quite clear in reply to a question by Deputy Blaney on 22nd June.

I hope that Deputies will appreciate now that whoever is in law responsible for the control of the Gardaí must be left free to perform his duty in that respect without intervention by Deputies or by me on behalf of individual members. The Commissioner has that responsibility. If it should happen that the affairs were not properly administered the remedy does not lie in overruling the Commissioner's decision; it lies in the removal of the Commissioner himself. I have every confidence in the present Commissioner. I repeat once more that I am not prepared to interfere with his decisions in regard to transfers, discipline, etc. I want that to be clearly understood once and for all by both sides of the House. The next time anybody mentions anything to me about a Guard I shall ask him immediately where he got his information and I shall take the regulation as meaning what it says.

Garda housing and rent allowances have been fairly satisfactorily dealt with though the position is not as good as we would like it to be.

Mr. Boland

Did you build any houses yet under the new Act?

Not yet, but we hope to. Juvenile crime has been mentioned. May I mention in that regard that indictable offences have fallen in number from 3,885 in 1945 to 2,243 in the last year. I think the present system is satisfactory. I do not want these recommendations for newfangled treatments of juvenile delinquents. There is only one rule that I know of, and that is that children should be brought up in fear and love of God and that parents should exercise proper control over them. When that situation obtains, as it should obtain, we shall have less juvenile delinquency.

Mr. Boland

Did you ever agree to the new Borstal? You gave me enough trouble about it.

I shall come to that presently. Let us not get on to that until I have dealt with the business of the Department. Then we can play politics, with the permission of the Chair.

Mr. Boland

It is not politics at all.

With regard to the petition case, I do not know exactly what to say about that because the Chair has ruled it out and it is somewhat difficult for me now to touch upon the matter. However, for the benefit of everybody concerned, I think I should say that the prerogative of mercy has been exercised by successive Ministers for Justice for years past. When representations are made that a penalty is too severe, that a person is innocent of a charge on which he has been convicted, or when new evidence becomes available, which was not available to the trial judge and which, in the opinion of the Minister, would have been likely to affect his decision had it been available, then the Minister always stays the warrant until the matter is investigated.

Mr. Boland

Within an hour.

Within an hour. Let me cite some instances. A man is arrested and charged with having cashed a particular kind of cheque; the evidence before the judge is such that the case is stonewall; an appeal is made——

And the man is convicted.

An appeal is made on his behalf and the warrant is stayed. Three weeks afterwards another person comes up and says: "Parade me before the two people who gave evidence." He is so paraded and it is found that an innocent man has been convicted. Now when I receive sufficient evidence—I am not now, remember, dealing with the present case—which in my opinion would alter the decision of the judge had it been before the judge at the trial, I will stay the warrant as my predecessors have done before me until the matter is examined and investigated. I do not mind whether there is a writ or whether it is going to the High Court, or anywhere else; if the case comes before me for adjudication, as it has come, I shall send this petition down to the trial judge and to the Gardaí. The judge will make his comments on it. I only hope that the trial judge when he gets this petition will not allow his judgment—I am sure he will not—to be swayed by the action of any young tinker doing what Deputy Boland alleges was done, cocking a snook at the judge. I trust the judge will give me the benefit of his opinion. That is the procedure. I have not departed from the procedure in any respect in this case. Personally, I hope that I shall not have to adjudicate on it because I would take a very poor view of any young blackguard doing what it is alleged was done to the judge in this case. It certainly will not weigh in his favour with me. It would be much better if he had manners. I do not think I can go any further than that in present circumstances. That has always been the governing principle and I am glad to say that I am only carrying on the tradition my predecessors carried on so effectively before me. I must pay tribute to this extent; any time I made a case, or any Deputy made a case that I know of, every Minister for Justice has seen to it that justice has prevailed and nothing else. If I failed to do my work, a charge could be levelled against me. Nobody can be charged for having done his duty efficiently.

The Minister is certainly big-hearted.

Deputy Lehane referred to the Circuit Court rules. I have signed the new rules and it is expected that they will be available either by the end of this month or early in August. It is true that the President of the Circuit Court has authority to move judges about if their services are required elsewhere, but it is not an easy matter for the Circuit Court judge and we found ourselves in the position of having to appoint a temporary judge. We have decided that in future there will be no temporary appointments. When two vacancies occurred for district justices there were two acting district justices on the bench. Our Government took the view, and I agreed with that view, that these men who had been acting in a temporary capacity for over a year should be appointed. It did not matter that we may not have liked the colour of their hair or their political view, if any; they had been acting in a temporary capacity under the last Government and our Government decided to appoint them permanently. In the future we will not appoint temporary justices as such. The appointment may be temporary, but the proviso will be there that the first vacancy to arise will be filled permanently by the justice who is acting in a temporary capacity. The idea is to prevent his having to go back to the Bar, after he has been on the Bench, even though his elevation to the Bench may only have been in a temporary capacity.

Will the Minister say how it became necessary, seeing there were 11 judges with the power given to the President of the Circuit Court to transfer a judge, if necessary, and that there were 2,700 less indictable cases to appoint another temporary judge? I think the Minister will admit that almost from the day they took office they had a temporary judge despite the fact that I was attacked here by the present Taoiseach and other members of the Government for appointing temporary judges in the past.

I am very glad to say that there has been a decrease as regards indictable offences. I am not so glad to be able to say, though I am sure great numbers of the legal profession are pleased about it, that civil litigation has increased very much. In the country, the usual thing is for a circuit judge to be able to deal in one day with indictable offences. There are five days left for civil cases.

Will the Minister explain why the Government changed the method of payment for temporary judges? The practice of the previous Government and of our Government was to pay for them for each day they worked.

That was a mean system.

The Deputy is not the Minister for Justice yet.

The reason is that we felt that that was derogatory to a judge. If you were to pay him for each day, and he had three days' work in the week that would mean that he would go back to the Bar for the other three days.

And get nothing to do.

If you were to pay him for the three days' work there would be the inclination to take six to do what could be done in three. I think myself that would not be a good position. I recommend, and I still defend, the present method.

How about the three months of July, August and September when they are getting paid and have nothing to do?

That is wet time.

I believe they call it the long starvation.

Do not try to make it wrong because it is the first time it ever happened.

It never happened in our time.

That would not make it right.

No work, no pay was our policy.

For everyone except yourselves.

The question of extended jurisdiction for the District Courts is, of course, a matter for legislation. The matter is being examined, and I hope a decision on it will be reached at an early date.

Deputy Moran referred to delays in the Land Registry. As I mentioned when introducing the Estimate, we have increased the staff there, and we hope to speed up the work. I am satisfied that it is unfair and a hardship on people to have these long delays. If the staff that is there at the moment is not sufficient we can get more staff. Deputy MacEntee referred to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy—to a case in which he said a car was used. I want again to show that when the prerogative of mercy is extended, it can only be extended when three conditions are present: (1) that the fellow who is guilty is sorry for his offence; (2) that he will never do it again, and (3) that he intends to go well in the future. On what other conditions can mercy be extended? In this case, here was a boy of 21 years of age. The prerogative of mercy was extended to him. He has been in a good job since last November and is doing well. On a few occasions I have asked his employers, confidentially, about him. They speak very highly of how he is doing.

Please God he will continue so.

I think we can leave it at that. I think, too, that the Deputies who dealt with the case would have been better advised to leave it alone. They will want mercy themselves some day. If all of us got justice, there is not one of us but would be looking for mercy afterwards.

I do not think I should follow Deputies about Deputy Lehane's document. Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Boland said Deputy Lehane shook the document, saying: "I have it here." No judge has reported the loss of a document.

The Minister knows it is missing.

I said here before that if a document like that comes into the hands of a Deputy he should hand it over to the Minister, and say where he got it.

The Deputy offered it to you and you would not accept it.

I deny that. I am not a messenger boy to go across to him. If you hand it to me now, there is a messenger there to take it.

The Minister for Agriculture accepted one from Deputy Fitzpatrick last week.

Did the Minister for Agriculture get up and go over for it?

No. It was handed over to him.

Deputy Lehane did not do that. Do not ask me to defend Deputy Lehane or Deputy Traynor. If you offer me a document there is only one way of doing it.

That is a lame excuse.

I am not excusing anything. I am taking the offensive. We discussed all this on a motion for the adjournment, and I thought that the matter was adequately dealt with then.

I did not.

I do not believe that repetition is going to be of avail to anybody, and I am glad that the Chair has so ruled. I am afraid that if I were to continue any longer I would be just repeating myself. I will conclude by asking the House to give me the vote.

Question put: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 75.

Tá.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCann, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Walsh, Thomas.

Níl.

  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Joseph P.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Connolly, Roderick J.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Davin, William.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keane, Seán.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Óg.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, William J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheldon, William A. W
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Timoney, John J.
  • Tully, John.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kennedy and Ó Briain; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Spring.
Motion declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share