Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jul 1955

Vol. 152 No. 6

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

Minister for Justice (Mr. Everett)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £59,320 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice.

I propose, if the House agrees, to follow the same procedure as in previous years and to deal generally with the group of Estimates Nos. 29 to 37 for which I am responsible as Minister. These Estimates, which are all for essential services, show little change as compared with previous years and I am sure that the House will not expect me to give a detailed explanation of them.

The aggregate amount of the nine Estimates is £5,206,920, an increase of £53,880 as compared with the Estimates for 1954-55.

The first Estimate, No. 29, is for a total of £88,980 for the Office of the Minister for Justice. It shows an increase of £3,700 as compared with last year. This is mainly due to the occurrence during the year of 53 pay days for staff paid weekly, and the provision of additional staff for the Office of An Bord Uchtála. The increases due to the foregoing are offset to some extent by the retrenchment of other clerical posts. Last year reference was made to the Adoption Act, 1952. The administration of this Act is now proceeding smoothly. During the year 1954 the number of adoption Orders made was 888, an increase of 507 as compared with 1953. The board now have the services of a specially qualified inspector to assist them in the investigation of applications to adopt.

The next Estimate, No. 30, is for £4,519,920 for the Garda Síochána. It shows an increase of £69,670 as compared with the Estimate for 1953-54. There is a decrease of £65,815 under the pay sub-head due mainly to the retirement of members receiving the maximum rate of pay and their replacement by recruits at the minimum rate. The main increases are £18,012 for clothing and equipment (sub-head E), and £122,385 for pensions and gratuities (sub-head P). The increase in the cost of clothing and equipment is due to the provision of better quality cloth for Garda uniform. The cost of pensions is an ever-increasing charge and will continue to increase for some years before the peak is reached as more and more of those who were recruited in the early days of the force reach the age of retirement or become eligible to retire on full pension.

Since April, 1948, the strength of the force has fallen from 7,510 all ranks to 6,699 on the 1st April of this year; a reduction of 811. Two factors have operated to reduce the strength; the stoppage of recruiting for some years and the large increase in the number of retirements on pension during the past three years. Retirements on pension either voluntarily or on reaching age limits in 1952 totalled 156; in 1953 the number was 310 and in 1954 it was 362. The total wastage in 1954 including retirements on health grounds, deaths, dismissals, etc., was 448.

As indicated in the previous paragraph, an increase in the number of retirements may be expected each year over the next few years. There are nearly 3,500 members of the force who are over 50 years of age. A very large number of these have 30 years' service and can consequently retire on pension at any time. Over 1,000 members of the force have 33 years' service and are in a position to retire and receive full pension in addition to the maximum lump sum gratuity payable under the Garda Síochána Pensions Order, 1951. It is anticipated that pensions and/or gratuities will be payable in respect of 480 additional members of the force during the year 1955-56. It is proposed during the year to enrol 450 recruits.

The provision of cars for use at district headquarters is continuing. Fifteen additional cars are to be provided during the current year and this will leave about 30 districts yet to be supplied. The cars are required to provide greater mobility for the smaller number of men now attached to stations. In addition to these cars it is proposed to provide six motor cycles to increase the traffic control squads on duty in and around Dublin.

The Prisons Estimate, No. 31, at £185,740, is £9,790 less than last year; the decrease is mainly due to the fall in the number of prisoners and reduced expenditure on the improvement and maintenance of buildings. The daily average number of prisoners in custody has fallen over the past ten years from 732 to 450. There is a very marked decline in the number of women prisoners, the daily average number in custody in 1945 was 97, in 1954 it was only 27. Having regard to the continuous fall in the number of persons in custody, I am considering whether it would be possible to close some of the existing establishments.

Estimate No. 32 for the District Court is for £83,540 and shows a decrease of £10,000 as compared with 1954-55. This decrease is accounted for in the main by reduced provision being required for the pay and travelling expenses of temporary district justices, lesser factors being a reduction of four in the total staff employed and a smaller provision for additional clerical assistance.

I do not think there is need for me to say anything about Estimates Nos. 33 to 37 for the Circuit Court, the Supreme and High Courts, the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, the Public Record Office and the Office of Charitable Donations and Bequests. The small variations in the sums included for the current year as compared with 1953-54 are due to minor adjustments in staffs and adjustments of pay consequent on the grant of normal increases in salary. With regard to the Land Registry I would, however, like to refer to the arrears which accumulated, following the end of emergency, in connection with the completion of the registration of Land Commission vestings. These arrears were caused by the progressive increase in the number of such vestings over the post-war years. Last year when the Estimates were being introduced the hope was expressed that when introducing the Estimates for 1955-56 the Minister for Justice would be in a position to report that the arrears had been cleared off. I am glad to be able to state that this is so, the work in connection with the registration of Land Commission vestings is now up to date.

It has been customary for the Minister for Justice when introducing the Estimates for his Department to give a brief summary of the volume of crime in this country. I propose to continue the practice.

I am glad to be able to tell the House that the upward trend in indictable crime which was a cause of much concern in recent years was reversed in 1954. The interim figures for 1954 show a substantial and very welcome decrease of 22 per cent. compared with 1953. The actual decrease was 3,514, the number of indictable offences being 12,088.

The decrease is accounted for mainly by a decrease of nearly 3,000 in the Dublin metropolitan area where the number of larcenies of pedal cycles was down by over 2,500 and the number of housebreakings down by 382. Decreases in other classes of indictable offences were smaller but there was some decrease in every class.

The decrease can be attributed in part to an increase in police strength in the metropolitan area and we may hope that this will continue to have effect. It is too soon to say whether the improvement shown last year will be maintained and while we welcome it as a step in the right direction (and a very big one at that, for a single year) we cannot be satisfied while the figures are still nearly double what they were before the war.

There was little change in the level of juvenile crime. The number of persons under 18 years of age who committed indictable offences was 2,524, a reduction of 33 compared with 1953. The number charged in court was, however, down by 416, to 2,058, but this was almost entirely due to the fact that, in certain types of cases, the Attorney-General has authorised superintendents to caution children under 14 years of age instead of prosecuting them. This authority was exercised in 471 cases in 1954. I would refer Deputies who may be interested in this point to the Dáil Debates for 11th November, 1953, where the instructions are quoted in full.

There was a reduction of over 21,000 in the number of prosecutions for summary offences. The number of these prosecutions in 1954 was just over 109,500. This is much the same as before the war. In 1938, for instance, the number was 104,188. As usual, most of the prosecutions—over 61,000— were for road traffic offences. Next came offences against the licensing laws (16,634), unlicensed dogs (7,167), and offences against the School Attendances Act (4,457). The prosecutions for road traffic offences were down by over 17,000, compared with 1953, but I fear that I cannot go so far as to say that that reduction is a sign of improving standards of driving. I think it is mainly due to the fact that the Garda are becoming less inclined to prosecute for trivial traffic offences of a technical nature. That is a tendency which I am glad to encourage, for it is more important to concentrate on bad and inconsiderate driving on the roads than to watch out for motorists who may spend half a minute too long in a limited parking place.

The Estimates, as I said at the beginning, are all for essential services. They vary little from year to year and I trust that the House will find no difficulty in approving of them.

Mr. Boland

It is a matter for congratulation that the crime figures have gone down and the Minister for Justice is right in saying that in Dublin it is largely due to the increase in the police force. When I was in office I agreed with the commissioner's action in closing some of the country stations where the Guards are hardly needed at all. hope that trend will continue.

I have not got a great deal to say on the remainder of the Estimate but I want to bring up some matters not mentioned by the Minister. When I went back to the Department in 1951 the Department had almost completed a scheme of reorganisation of the District and Circuit Courts. They had it on paper after the passing of the Courts of Justice Act of 1953 which increased the jurisdiction of the Circuit and District Courts.

I promised the Dáil to set up a small committee of inquiry to examine the question and to see what the effect was likely to be of the increased jurisdiction—whether it would mean less work for the Circuit Court and more for the District Court, and so on. We had gone as far as getting the consent of a High Court judge to preside, but when we saw there was going to be a general election and as we did not know what the result would be, I thought it better to postpone it.

On the Estimate last year—I think the Taoiseach took charge of it— I asked if it was still proposed to go ahead with that reorganisation of these courts and he said it was, or that it was proposed to go ahead with this committee of inquiry. The opinion of his Department, with which I agreed at the time, was that, if the District Court and Circuit Court were reorganised, it would result in a saving of perhaps seven and certainly five district justices and one circuit judge. I have not heard anything about that yet and I should like to know if the idea has been dropped altogether. I am quite satisfied that the Department when I was Minister were perfectly satisfied that we could do with at least five district justices and one circuit judge less.

It was just a matter of deciding whether the increased jurisdiction would increase the amount of work and if there was an increase in Circuit Court work there should be a corresponding reduction in the work of the High Court. I should like to know what the Minister has to say, if anything, on the matter. I should also like to ask whether the increased jurisdiction decided on here by a free vote —a very big majority of Deputies voted in favour of increasing the jurisdiction in tort up to £50—has been given effect to yet and if the rules of the District Court have been agreed to. I think the House is entitled to know something about that.

There is another matter on which I got plenty of abuse here in relation to the Rent Restrictions Act. I am not advocating legislation, but I should like to know what has been the result of the examination by the Government of Judge Conroy's report. Are we to expect anything from it or is it to be put on the long finger again? I do not think the Minister can do what my predecessor did—set up another commission. That saved a few years, but he will find it difficult to do that. I notice that the Minister very carefully avoided any reference whatever to that important matter.

A further matter which concerned me as Minister at the time was the matter of conviction of drunken drivers. I took a different line from the present Minister with regard to this matter and I am sure that people must have thought that I take a lighthearted view of it. That is not the fact. When the 1951 Act was going through, I strenuously opposed giving the Minister for Justice or any Minister power to restore a drunken driver's licence, and we went so far on this side as to put down an amendment seeking to exempt forfeitures under the Road Traffic Act from the powers being given to the Minister to restore a licence. We were turned down by the House. I pressed the matter, and, on my pressure, the Minister promised to introduce an amendment in the Seanad to make it obligatory on the Minister for Justice to publish in Iris Oifigiúil any case in which he restored a licence which had been forfeited as a result of conviction for drunken driving.

When I came back, I found this power there. I had been Minister previously, but had no such power, and was glad that I had not, although I did feel that there were cases in which somebody should have the power of restoring a drunken driver's licence— but not the Minister. The Minister should never have it and the advice I got from the Department was that I should not exercise that power at all. I felt, and still feel, that I had no right to take that advice. I feel that when an Act of Parliament was passed even though I disapproved of it, there was a duty on me to listen to any petition brought before me and to decide the question on its merits.

As I say, I do not think it is a power that should have been given to any Minister, but it was there, and consequently I went into every petition that came to me. Perhaps I may have been too lenient—I do not think I was—but there were some line-ball cases, and in some cases where a man was convicted, the justice said that if he petitioned the Minister, he would recommend the restoration of the licence, but that the Road Traffic Act gave him no option but to call for the forfeiture for a year of the offender's licence. There were some cases like that—not very many, I admit—but there were others in which a man with a wife and family would have lost his job as a result of conviction. In those cases, a job might turn up six or eight months before he could get his licence back and the line I took in these circumstances was that if the Guards were able to report that he had not been drinking in the meantime, and was likely not to offend again, I thought I was entitled to restore the licence, and I did so.

Perhaps the Minister is justified in the line he has taken, but if he had gone into even one such case in the year he has been in office, it would be an indication that he had considered these matters, but I read a statement by him in the papers that under no circumstances whatever would he restore such a licence. I doubt very much if any Minister is entitled to ignore an Act of this kind, and I think the Minister is bound, if anyone puts forward a petition, to consider it—not necessarily to grant it, but to consider it on its merits. That was my line and I have no apology to make for it. I raise the matter here because I am sure I was made to appear in a very bad light before the general public.

What the Minister should do now is to press for an amendment of either the Road Traffic Act or the particular Criminal Justice Act which gives that power to the Minister. Somebody should have the right to restore a licence. If a person commits murder or other such serious crime and is not executed, in due course he gets a remission of sentence. If a man is sentenced for an ordinary crime, if his behaviour is good, he gets a remission of one-quarter of his term and there should be no differentiation made as between those cases and the case of a person who loses his driving licence as a result of conviction for drunken driving, if he has behaved himself in the meantime. A question was raised with regard to this matter which had the effect of making me appear in a very bad light, although I did get a certain amount of satisfaction because there was a time when I was considered to be the reverse—too soft.

The question of a registrar in Kilkenny was raised by Deputy Walsh some time ago and the Minister gave me a shock when he said that I had censured the particular county registrar. I remembered the circumstances when he mentioned the matter, although I had forgotten them. There was something amiss in that office, but I have no recollection whatever of having censured this registrar. He wrote a letter when he had gone out on pension, stating that he had never been censured by me, and I am quite satisfied that he was correct in saying that. The Minister said I did censure him, but I remember now exactly what happened. There was some little difference of opinion between two members of the staff and something had to be done by the Department to set the matter right and it was set right, but the registrar was in no way responsible, except that he was head of the office and, I suppose, should have kept discipline there. It was merely a matter of a disagreement between two members of the staff which was afterwards settled. This particular man seems to be very upset indeed—he thinks there is a reflection on his character—and I think the Minister should look into the matter and make it clear that there was nothing against the man's character and that I did not, in fact, censure him. It is due both to me and to the person concerned that that should be done.

The Minister stated on that occasion that these county registrars were pampered servants of the State because they got a pension after 30 years. The fact of the matter is, as I know, that most of those who are appointed registrars are generally in the early 40's. They are very rarely in their 30's and it is impossible for them to serve the 30 years to enable them to get the full pension, unless they are allowed to go to 70 years of age, and the practice always has been to give a man a year by year extension, provided his health remains good. Those people were always entitled to expect that they would get an extension if they were satisfactory. If there is a change in policy, that is another matter. When I was there, except in one or two cases, I always agreed to give that extension.

I am glad to see that the Adoption Act is working well. I made a note of the figure the Minister gave, 888 cases during the year.

I am sure the Minister must be troubled about the possibility of a great number of Guards retiring. When I was there, I was saying that if those who were entitled to retire on pension and get a gratuity did so the Estimate for the Department was going to soar. For that reason the Minister will have to take care that plenty of new men come in. It is over 30 years since the State was set up and a great number of the men—I think he said over 3,000—are in a position to retire. For that reason he will have to see that, even though it would cost money, the recruits are kept up.

Mr. Desmond

It is heartening to hear from the Minister about the reduction in crime and I hope it will continue. There is one point which was mentioned by Deputy Boland. Notwithstanding that he was Minister for some years—and whatever comments I have to make there is no question of personality in them—I cannot agree with his views about the Minister's action towards drunken drivers. I want to congratulate the Minister wholeheartedly on his recent statement that he would show no mercy to them. Why should he show mercy to drunken drivers? Why should drunken drivers be allowed to career around the country with so many lives at stake, going into court afterwards with a sob story about having had "a few too many"?

We have seen many letters in the evening papers about faulty education of our children. I wonder if some of those drivers ever had any education. Do they realise that they have not full authority, when sitting behind the wheel of a car, to ignore human life on the side of the road? Too often have we heard and known of cases of unfortunate victims left dead on the roadside through the action of drunken drivers. If the present Minister never did anything else during his term of office than act according to what he has said, showing no mercy to them, he will have justified his inclusion in the Cabinet of the present Government as Minister for Justice.

We want to make it perfectly clear that we are solidly behind the Minister. On any occasion on which I have been asked in South Cork—as we all are in our own constituencies—to make representations on behalf of a person who comes along with a story that he was drunk, I have said, and I believe it is right to say, that we should take nothing into consideration on behalf of these people. I know we cannot go into it in any detail here. Deputy Boland has said that the Minister should consider border-line cases. What are the courts there for? My reading of the local and national newspapers is that in some cases the doctors and the judges seem to place them all on the border-line, even where the victim was left dead on the road. It has been amazing to see people getting away with it. Where there is a conviction, there is no question of border-line.

I suggest that during his term of office the Minister should do everything possible to tighten up the law as regards fair play and as to whether a person is drunk or sober. There should be no question of doubt one way or the other, or giving such a doubt, if there is one, to a person who believes that just because he or she is behind the wheel of a car they have the road to themselves. I believe the Minister meant what he said and, please God, he will continue to put into operation his policy in that respect. We want none of these people leaving Dublin City or Cork City, going out to road houses, having a good time and when they are coming back acting in such a way that no one is safe on the road with them.

I agree with Deputy Boland in regard to the Rent Restrictions Act and the Minister knows our attitude in the matter. Too long have people been suffering from injustice in this respect. It is about time something was done to give them justice and to help those who have been victims of this vicious system, which unfortunately is still in operation. I have no intention of blaming one Government or the other. All the years back this system, which should have been altered long before now, has been continued. We want something done at the earliest possible date to help the people who are suffering under this present unfair system of rent restrictions.

As my final remark, may I say there is credit due to the Garda Síochána for their work? I wonder if the Minister is aware that in various parts of the country there are rumblings going on from time to time. As the old saying goes, "there is no smoke without fire." It is being suggested from many parts of the country—not just Dublin or Cork —that if you want promotion in the Garda Síochána now you have to come from a certain small part of a certain big county. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong—I have my suspicions, and I think I have reason to have them—but I am making it clear that in making this statement I am not saying that the Minister is responsible. I leave it to the Minister with these words, that we believe that in a force like the Garda Síochána promotion must be given on merit and on merit alone and not in relation to where you come from or where your father and mother came from. The sooner that is stopped, the sooner we will have a better force.

We know there was a time when there was grave danger—some seven or eight years ago—of the police force becoming political. We do not want that to happen in this country. We want to have the police force far removed from Party politics. We want the members of the police force to be content knowing that they will get promotion on their merits and not because they come from a certain place.

Mr. Dunne

Between the persons unused to the consumption of alcohol and those who are used to some extent to consume alcohol the quality of mercy becomes strained as would appear from some of the speeches made from time to time in this House. I think the Minister is a very remarkable man for having pursued the policy he has pursued in relation to this matter of the drunken driver. I think he has done a great deal of social good. Apart from whether he has not waived a right inherent in the law or whether it is advisable for him to do an act of that kind, the stand he has taken in refusing to consider the restoration of licences which are revoked or any amelioration of the sentence imposed on drunken drivers has done a great deal of good. There is no question about that.

The Minister is remarkable inasmuch as his attitude in this matter has been at times, I suppose, to nearly every Deputy in the House an irksome attitude because all of us have had the experience of constituents of ours being in trouble of that kind. I think we all had the job of trying to change the Minister's view in respect of the particular person in whom we were interested. They all uniformly met with the same attitude on the part of the Minister. I think he deserves credit for that particular stand alone. He stood against the importunities of practically all of us in that matter. From that has flowed a social good inasmuch as people are somewhat more careful now about the amount of alcohol they will consume when they go out to the bona fides and when driving cars generally. Enough has been and will be said, God knows, about that. Drunken drivers cannot be condoned in any circumstances by those in authority and must be put down.

It is rather peculiar though to me and somewhat inexplicable that in the returns showing the incidence of fatal accidents through road traffic for the past 12 months—they were published two or three months ago — there was only one fatal accident out of about 170 directly attributable to drunken drivers. That is an extraordinary and inexplicable thing but there it is. The Minister has stated his attitude and although, as I said, at times it may irk us as individuals, we all certainly appreciate it from him. He has done a great social and national good in taking that step.

Another remarkable development and a very healthy one, I think, is that mentioned by the Minister in his speech, that the average daily prison population has reduced in the past ten years from 732 to 450. That surely is a pointer to the direction in which things are going generally. I think it can be said that to some extent, not entirely, of course, the number of people in prison indicates the condition of prosperity of a country. It indicates whether the country is improving in material prosperity or not and it reflects an advancement in the general condition of the people over the years.

As for the 450 unfortunate people we now have in our prisons, I would urge the Minister—I do not think there is much need for me to urge this upon him; I do not think there would be any disagreement among any members of the House in respect of this particular view of mine—to treat them with the greatest possible kindness and, bearing in mind the correction of the vicious elements that at all times are there, see to it that when these people eventually complete their prison sentence they will be helped back to a normal living. The old idea of putting offenders against the law in prison for the sake of prison and the old idea of vengeance of the State is gone.

In most enlightened countries the drive now is to secure that persons in prison will emerge from their imprisonment resolved to take up a normal occupation and become normal members of society and fulfil their obligations to society. I do not think we are too well equipped to secure that here in so far as our prisons are concerned. We have not given enough attention to the problem as to what happens to the person when he walks out of Mountjoy or Marlborough after serving a sentence. We certainly have not studied his mental attitude when he emerges from prison. We should have a special sympathy with those who have the misfortune to languish in prison. Indeed, very many members of this Dáil have spent not an inconsiderable length of time in jails of various kinds. They should know, and they do know, indeed, the particular problems that are engendered by the confinement of people in jail.

A great number of us have seen the position of the unfortunate person who has broken the law. Having served his sentence, he emerges from prison and finds the breath of Ishmael upon him because he has done something as a result of which the social finger is pointed at him. In other countries efforts have been made to try to do something about that particular problem and to make it somewhat easier for that man or woman to resume a normal way of life. I think we might do a little more here along these lines. I do not think we are doing enough.

I confess that I do not know how far the Minister can work towards that end, but it would be a good idea if in the coming year his Department would give some thought to the matter. It would be a good thing for the community in general if some thought could be given towards better provision for those who leave our jails, after having, to use an old cliché, paid their debt to society.

I want to refer to a matter which has been very much in the public mind recently and, indeed, over the years. I refer to the blood sport of motor cycling and car racing. It has become a blood sport. I wonder how long we will tolerate it? In my own constituency, in Skerries, I have over a number of years consistently, as a member of the county council and possibly to my own detriment so far as the votes in the Skerries area are concerned, opposed the closing of the roads for what is known as the "Skerries 100," a motor cycle contest which takes place each year. I do not know how many young men have smashed their brains out against walls and gate posts along that circuit, but it is quite a considerable number.

The same thing applies to the Wicklow circuit. Only last week we had another fatal accident, a tragic affair, on what is normally a very dangerous part of the road from the Beehive to Rathnew. As many Deputies know, it is a road on which you would need to be careful even if there were no traffic at all and you were going at a very reasonable rate of speed. Instead, we had them flashing round—for what? What good does it do? What contribution does it make to the interests of humanity to have motor cycles going at 120 miles an hour or motor cars for that matter?

We have young boys going out from their homes to the distress of parents. Broken-hearted mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters and acquaintances see these young people being killed with almost clock-work regularity every year, and it is called sport. Then there is the degradation of the individual that is to be seen—the Roman holiday idea—the crowds massing at the corners where there is likely to be an accident. Is that socially good? As far as I can see the only people benefiting from this are the combines who make the motor cycles and the motor cars. The young people are hardly to be blamed because young people are always inclined to be adventurous and to do the dangerous thing. It is the most natural thing in the world that that should be so. But how often does it end in tragedy? And are we not contributing to some extent to this foolishness by allowing these, what I describe as blood sports, for they are nothing more than that?

They are no good nationally or parochially. Some people justify them on the grounds that they bring crowds of tourists. We would, perhaps, be just as well off without that kind of tourist. Some people say that it means an expenditure of money in the towns when these races are on. I think it is a very poor mentality that is behind that sort of case where human life is concerned.

I would ask the Minister—and I know no man who would more quickly rush to sympathise with those who suffer by this activity—to consider what more can be done about stopping these things. Are we going to go on until we have something like what happened in France at Le Mans when a motor car cut a swathe through a crowd of people and when over 70 people were killed and as many more maimed? I think we ought to stop it now no matter what organised letter-writing there may be in the papers. I think the average man or woman will agree that it is a senseless, meaningless practice and there is no justification for allowing any further performances of this so-called sport throughout the country.

I want to refer to a very important matter which affects my constituency. It affects the town of Rush and I am sure the Minister has some knowledge of that area. Rush is a rather unique district inasmuch as it is famous for its small farms, famous as being one of the most productive pieces of land, it is said, in Europe—and it is probably true from what can be seen of the products. It is an area on which the City of Dublin leans very heavily for supplies of essential vegetables for the homes of the workers and for the Dublin market generally.

The people of Rush have been known to be industrious and hardworking for many more years than this House has been in existence. Many of them have worked their way into positions of relative comfort through long years of hardship. But it is the pattern of life in Rush I want to talk about. Manual workers as a class, particularly those who work on the land and are associated with land, generally speaking, have little other recreation than the public house when their work is finished in rural and semi-rural areas. Further to that it has been said, and is generally accepted, that a man who works hard with his hands, particularly if he is working on land, will get some physical good in drinking a pint as well as the social recreation with some of his fellow workers.

That is true of every area in this country, but in Rush a problem has now arisen. The people of Rush of course work on their land all the hours of daylight. They do not stop working until daylight leaves the sky. They must do that in order to preserve their economy, in order to get the fullest production from their land, in order to fulfil their obligations to the City of Dublin regarding the production of vegetables. They must follow that pattern of life which their ancestors followed for generations. There has been a general acceptance of that situation by the Gardaí and it has been possible at other times for workers, small farmers and their employees, when they finish work at ten, 11 or 11.30 at night—and that is the time they will finish working now, having started in the morning at, say, four o'clock: they work from four o'clock right through until possibly 11.30 at night—to get a drink. It was accepted that these people were in a rather special position and the licensed vintners of the Rush area were more or less enabled by the exercise of common sense on the part of the Garda authorities to allow those men to come in after their day's work and get a drink.

Not so now. The letter of the law is now being imposed on the town of Rush. For these hard-working men, any law which imposes such hardship—and it is a real hardship although it may not appear to be a hardship to those who do not drink, the saintly ones—for men who have been working hard in the fields losing a lot of the natural juices of the body and perspiring and who come in weary at the end of the day of 14 or 15 hours and find they cannot get a drink in their own town as they have been able to get it for many years before—surely, that is a legitimate grievance. I am not asking that the law should be changed in respect of the town of Rush. I hope at some future date it would be possible for us to come into this Dáil untrammelled and unpersecuted and take a free decision about Sunday opening and opening hours generally. As we all know, it is rather difficult to get in that door untrammelled and unpersecuted at present. We know that from previous experience.

I ask the Minister to direct, in the town of Rush—and there may be other similar towns where the same thing would apply—that the Garda authorities in that area should be asked to exercise common sense. If the law is being so operated in any district as to cause hardship to the majority of people in that area, surely common sense is called for. The Minister, I think, has always been a broadminded man so far as I know on this particular issue, although a teetotaller himself.

I urge the Minister very strongly to direct, in so far as lies in his power, the Garda authorities in County Dublin to alleviate the position. They should be asked to allow men who have been enjoying a certain amenity over the years to resume the enjoyment of that amenity. There was never any trouble given by these people; there was no blackguardism or fights, and they were always well-behaved. They are the only people that suffer in this respect and I think it is very wrong that that should be so. In conclusion, I wish to join with other Deputies in complimenting the Minister on the efficient way in which he discharged his onerous obligations during the year.

Mr. Traynor

It is rather pleasant to hear from the Minister in the course of his statement that the first fruits of his predecessor's policy of recruiting the Garda Síochána is now having its effect. That is understandable because with greater vigilance I am satisfied that the question of crime can be dealt with. I believe that if that vigilance is increased by reason of further recruitment to the Garda Síochána, this country can perhaps hold a record of less crime than most other countries. It is quite possible that at the present time we hold such a good record but I am satisfied that the recruitment of the young, active, energetic Gardaí that we can see now around the cities and towns is having its effect on the reduction of crime to which the Minister referred.

Most of us here who live in the city and who have down the years admired the magnificent manner in which the Gardaí on point duty carry out their task have now good reason to say that that efficiency is being handed on to the young men who are now replacing their older comrades. From every possible point of view the young men that are on view at these various points in the centre of the city must be admired by the thousands of tourists, foreigners, who pass through the city and see these men on point duty. I think that is one of the most excellent advances that have been made in regard to the Garda Síochána for some time, and I naturally hope that the present Minister will continue recruitment to that organisation.

There is just one other point I wish to make and that is in respect to the Minister's recent statement in regard to his refusal to deal, good, bad or indifferent, with any question of an appeal from drunken drivers. I am not advocating that he should grant appeals when they are made to him but what I do feel is that to ignore the legislation which this House passed is not worthy of any Minister or any member of the House. We have deliberately in this Parliament exercised our rights to pass certain legislation. As far as I am concerned, I think I was against that particular section or clause in the 1951 Act which empowered the Minister to deal with appeals from sentences by the courts. I think I am right in saying that I voted against that. But I cannot understand that, when the House passed that legislation in its wisdom or otherwise, it should be ignored by the Minister.

The right thing for the Minister to have said would be that his first act in regard to that legislation would be to have it repealed but I think it was entirely wrong to say that every appeal to him would be prejudged whether there was anything in the appeal or not. On the basis of that statement I assumed the Minister had prejudged every possible case that would come before him. I think that was wrong and that the Minister ought to make it clear to the House that at the earliest possible opportunity he will take steps to have that particular section repealed. If he does I can assure him that, as far as I am concerned, I will support him in that.

The Minister's statement in regard to drunken drivers amounts to prejudging the case. If any person who was sentenced—I am speaking now about the loss of his licence—to the loss of his driving licence, whether it be for a short or a long period, appeals through the legislation provided by this House, he at least ought to be entitled to have that case examined. Unfortunately, as far as I see from the very definite and final kind of statement that the Minister made, that is now denied to him.

Mr. Donegan

I wish to make reference to-day to one particular matter which is the concern of the Minister for Justice and which has been shown nothing but complete indifference by the members of Dáil Éireann during this debate. I refer to the matter of game. The complete indifference which the Minister seems to have shown towards it is only paralleled by the indifference of all the Governments right through the years, since the establishment of the State, to the potentialities of game and the opportunities which exist for the propagation of game birds.

The first thing to be considered, of course, is the suppression of poaching of game and the illicit taking of game. I think the Guards have been notably inactive in all areas. They have certainly been noticeably inactive since I first began to go out with a gun and that is since I was legally, and perhaps before it, entitled to be out with a gun. I have gone out on the first day of each shooting season in my own area. I am 31 years of age and in the last 11 or 12 years I have never seen a Guard on duty on the first day of the shooting season. There were times when the shooting of hen pheasants was prohibited during the season. I have never met a Guard on duty on the first day of the shooting season to ask me to show him the contents of my bag. I do not think that one fowler out of every 20 or 30 has had the experience of meeting a Guard on duty and being asked had he a hen pheasant, or hen pheasants, in his bag.

The Guards are noticeably inactive. That is the only way I can put it; but, if they are, the present policy of the Department of Justice of closing small Garda stations and replacing them with patrol cars will mean that the extreme difficulty facing the Guards, if they did try to do anything—and, mark you, they do not—would be multiplied and will in future be multiplied. As I see it, therefore, there is not the slightest chance of getting any degree of control exercised through the efforts of the Garda Síochána. The only way in which I can visualise such control is by convincing the holders of the land, if necessary in conjunction with a liaison with the Minister for Agriculture and his Department, that they must see to it that the game birds upon their lands are not meddled with during the close season and ensure that only reputable persons who will not do things like shooting hen pheasants are allowed to shoot over the land. No effort has been made up to this by the Minister for Justice to do anything along that line. Until he makes an effort there will be no hope for game in this country.

Recently, a European nobleman, Baron Konopke, arrived in this country and he made a survey of the potentialities of game stocks and shooting here. He inevitably—I think inevitably anyhow—arrived at the conclusion that we had wonderful potentialities but that at the moment all he could see from the point of view of tourism and the bringing of people here to shoot was that we had very good snipe shooting. That is all we have because snipe are not wanted for the pot. That is the only reason why we have them; most snipe are migratory with the exception of those which are more or less indigenous. Baron Konopke said that in Scotland groups of people went to shoot and paid colossal sums for the privilege of doing so. They thereby enriched the tourist industry in Scotland. Now I will be sincere and say that I do not think a man like Baron Konopke or our own big landowners have a great contribution to make towards the propagation of game because I think there are so few of them left that all they can do is preserve a certain game sanctuary in places where the game laws are naturally adhered to. The day of the titled landowner is gone.

Captain Giles

Thanks be to God!

Mr. Donegan

Thanks be to God, is right. The person whom the Minister for Justice must convince now is the ordinary small farmer, the average-sized farmer and the farm labourer; he must convince them that there will be something for them if they can keep their game from being interfered with and from being poached. I want to make a suggestion now to the Minister. There is at the moment a scheme about to be launched under the aegis of the Minister for Agriculture. In ten or 15 years that scheme will cover the entire country. I refer to the parish plan. There is envisaged in that scheme a parish committee covering three parishes. If the Minister for Justice in liaison with the Minister for Agriculture could initiate inside this parish plan schemes for the propagation of game and the destruction of vermin he could with very little expenditure do a tremendous amount to improve game stocks here.

If he does that the people who own the land will become interested. At the moment they are not interested and the son of the house when he is eight or nine years old can go out and take 13 eggs out of a pheasant's nest, bring them home and try to hatch them just for the novelty of it, and his parents do not see anything wrong. That is true all over the country. If these people could be brought to a realisation that they have something which is both beautiful and profitable for the country as a whole, and in relation to which they themselves will have the right of deciding who shall enjoy this privilege, we would get somewhere.

I recommend the suggestion to the Minister. When he does what I have suggested, if he does it, and I think it is the only way in which game can be propagated here, he should at the same time offer bounties for the destruction of vermin and offer pheasant eggs or game bird eggs at low prices or at no price at all.

About two months ago I instituted a kind of private inquiry into what was being done for game stocks here. While I discovered that very, very large sums of money were being collected through the medium of licences, etc., it is no harm to say that the total amount expended—and I asked questions of practically every Department of State which would have anything at all to do with the matter—on the propagation of game was £210 which the Minister for Industry and Commerce advanced to hotels last year for the purpose of buying pheasants' eggs. That was the total expenditure.

If the Minister for Justice will approach the people on the land, the decent farmers and their workers, and initiate through the parish plan a scheme, first of all, of subsidy for game birds' eggs or game birds themselves in certain areas and, secondly, a bounty for the destruction of vermin he will do something which will bring to this country even from a financial point of view considerable profits. I ask him to consider that suggestion very seriously.

Major de Valera

The question raised by Deputy Traynor is, perhaps, one of the most serious arising under this Estimate. I would like to add a gloss because of the personal knowledge and experience I have had in seeing how the courts work in these matters. There was at one time a certain type of offence in relation to which the Legislature for one reason or another thought it wise to remove discretion from the courts. In other words, a penalty was imposed in regard to the crime of being drunk in charge of a car—undoubtedly a very serious crime—and that meant that the penalty so imposed was not in the discretion of the judge who awarded it. If the accused was found guilty there was an automatic or mandatory sentence involving disqualification for 12 months.

That was a rather unusual thing in our law. Generally speaking, the maximum penalty is what is prescribed and the rest is left to the discretion of the judge or justice, as the case may be. The only other outstanding instance I can think of of this kind of thing is in relation to murder; in that case the death sentence is mandatory. Obviously an exceptional provision like that was not inserted without very good reason and the reason behind that provision, if my interpretation is right, was that some justices were inclined to be too lenient and others were perhaps a little bit too harsh. There was a lack of uniformity. Furthermore, there was always the feeling that in dealing with a matter of this nature, such as the licensing laws as a whole, it was very difficult for the courts to administer the law equitably. Therefore this provision was put in away back, I think, in the 1933 Act. I wonder was that wise? Was it wise to deal with the matter in that way?

It meant, first of all, as it did in the beginning, that, having found the person guilty of that crime, there was this automatic disqualification without any variation. That was originally as the law was. Like the penalty, that was not strictly equitable. A number of us have seen cases like that. We have seen where a relatively well-to-do free type of youngish person, whose father or somebody close to him has plenty of means, misbehaves himself with a car and is disqualified. It does not mean a snap of the fingers to him. On the other hand I have seen an unfortunate lorry driver—this is some years ago in the Minister's own county —who was not given the benefit of the doubt, and I think certain people who heard the case felt there was a doubt. The case was on appeal and the lorry driver lost his licence for 12 months. He lost his employment and his family were destitute.

That is a case I saw. In the two cases there was inequity. There was the case where the disqualification was not a penalty at all. For instance you have a wife or somebody well off who drives a car only for pleasure. Disqualification does not mean a snap of the fingers for her as it did in the case of the lorry driver who had two bottles of stout after a very tiring day but who, nevertheless, on his way home was held up. Undoubtedly he was a danger and the Guards acted quite properly but the judge, having found him guilty within the section, had to disqualify him as the law was and the consequences to that man and to his family were entirely out of proportion to the consequences in the other type of case of which I have spoken. I can conceive that that probably was the genesis of the amending section that has been the cause of dispute in that sense.

Mr. O'Donovan

It applies to all law where penalties are prescribed.

Major de Valera

You have a very different thing there. If it applies to all law it only reinforces the argument I am going to make where you have made an exception in regard to all law, a very great exception, because in the case of all law there is, in the first instance, discretion. In the case at the first hearing and in the case of the appellant judge there was a discretion to vary and to adjust within the maximum. Secondly, in the case of all law when these things are dealt with in a routine, unexceptional way with a discretion to exercise the prerogative of mercy—but I think the Parliamentary Secretary has been anticipating the argument I was about to make. Perhaps I am slow. An amending provision was brought in in 1951. I have not gone into detail about it which does not matter. It is the principle of the thing that is difficult. I cannot remember rightly at the moment but I think I moved an amendment to this and having been the person who opposed the provision—I want to state that again, I was the person who opposed it—I am perhaps in the strongest position to say what I am about to say now.

That Bill was passed by the Government of that time but it was not passed without qualms on all sides of the House. Some of us voted against it. What was the effect of that provision? It was, we will say, brought in to meet the dangers as already outlined but it meant putting the appellant jurisdiction in the hands of the Minister. I think that was unwise and I shall always think so. Two successive Ministers have dealt with it in two different ways and I do not think the situation is a satisfactory one from the public point of view. The present Minister's predecessor considered—and I think rightly considered—that Parliament having placed a duty on his shoulders, he was compelled to adjudicate on these cases. Parliament had seen fit under the leadership of the Minister for Justice at the time—a colleague of the present Minister—to place the appellant jurisdiction on the Minister. Deputy Boland as Minister for Justice, exercised that jurisdiction. That there was need for exercising such a jurisdiction in the particular circumstances anybody who looks at the files will have to admit at once.

There were, as I have said, cases like that of the lorry driver and the other types I have mentioned and there could be considerable hardship and positive injustice. Deputy Boland when Minister came under criticism for exercising that jurisdiction and probably, as I believe, it is not a proper jurisdiction for a Minister to have. I think, from various points of view, that it is undesirable there should be any more interference with the ordinary and common law procedure than is absolutely necessary. It is a question of principle completely.

Mr. Boland

It can be delegated.

Major de Valera

It can be delegated but it would be much better to have the procedure follow ordinary practice. The present Minister seems to have met this dilemma in another way. He has simply refused to adjudicate in these appeals at all on the basis, I take it, that it was not proper — that it was not a proper matter for the Minister to have to adjudicate on such matters. Of course I may be wrong in so summarising the Minister's attitude but I am open to correction. I think the way the present Minister meets this situation is no better and no more satisfactory than the previous situation because there will always be cases which demand a review as Deputy Traynor says. There will always be such instances where a variation will be necessary.

In the case of ordinary crimes, after the initial hearing there is the machinery for a later review as Deputy Traynor said. There should be more elasticity in the beginning, otherwise the most difficult cases and the cases most deserving of adjustment may receive harsh treatment at the beginning just as the Minister has pointed out in other cases decisions may be completely inadequate in view of the circumstances. In the light of that I think the first thing to be done is to remove that jurisdiction from the Minister. But that must not be done by the Minister just disclaiming the responsibility. That is a very bad precedent—to have Ministers, particularly Ministers for Justice, throwing off their responsibility or, in effect, disclaiming it. I am sympathetic and I understand what the Minister is up against in this.

I think that the Minister should divest himself formally and legally of these powers. It is a very easy thing to do, and I think that he would have support in doing it. That would immediately restore the status quo and solve the Minister's problems, but I regret to say that I do not think it will solve the whole problem surrounding this experiment in regard to drunken drivers. It is a very serious crime and often is a murderous crime. I think that, when all is said and done, looking at it by and large, we will have to rely on the judiciary to enforce the law equitably. That is what they are there for. It is too easy an escape of your problems or of the differences in judgment, or the criticisms which will always be with us, no matter what action is taken by anybody, to try and hedge the judiciary or any other institution with formal rules to ensure absolute unanimity and an apparent automatic determination of cases.

You cannot reduce justice to, shall I say, the working of certain Departments in the Civil Service. I think that, in the last analysis, you will have to get back to the principle that judges and justices are properly appointed, that they are in their job and are competent to do it. Where you have a system where there is an immediate appeal, as there is in these cases which are decided in the first instance by the District Court, and where there is an appeal to the Circuit Court, surely that is the best mechanism to ensure justice.

We have had this experiment. We could go over all the arguments for and against it and possibly come to the same decision that was come to in 1943, and before that, but the difference in the present situation is that we have had experience in trying out this experiment of automatic disqualification, and then of trying to meet any injustices that came in its train which, I think, was something as objectionable—if not more objectionable—as what went on before.

Therefore, in asking the Minister to repeal this provision, I think we can go further and say: fix your maximum penalty, as you do in the ordinary case, but put the duty back on the courts, where it properly belongs; put an appellate jurisdiction in the courts, and put this crime on all-fours with other serious crime. In the long run, that would probably be the better thing. We should be able to stand up to the occasional criticism that there will be of court decisions. You have that in all cases. At the time, these decisions may appear to some people to be outrageous, but in the long run, if one reviews the general administration of justice by the courts, and particularly of criminal justice in peacetime, the record is very satisfactory. I think we are all agreed on that.

I think it was Deputy MacEoin, when he was Minister for Justice, who introduced the provision which is the cause of the trouble now. I think that the present Minister, in the light of our experience and equally with our experience in regard to the 1933 Act, should now tackle this problem and put it on a regular basis. So much for that. At the moment, his position is as unsatisfactory as ever, particularly as the Minister is now simply evading responsibility, if you like. He is not carrying the responsibility that has been placed on him. I would agree, if he argued, that it is not a proper responsibility to be carried, but the position is unsatisfactory. It is a position for which I do not blame the present Minister himself. In regard to crime as a whole, the position is unsatisfactory. Under the present situation you have the position where there is virtually no appeal — where there should be an appeal in all cases. Therefore, here is something that wants to be cleared up.

I should like to say a word about the Gardaí as we are going, to a certain extent, through a transition phase as regards the Garda Síochána in that we have had a large number of young men recruited in recent times. They are now replacing the older generation of Gardaí who were, more or less, all of the one age and experience. The setting up of a police force in this State was successful. The Guards with, shall I say, an appalling background and record of police work behind them, had to start very much behind scratch, taking the place of other policemen who were hated and abhorred by the population. In a relatively short time they were quite successful. As we know, in the past, the R.I.C. were not a police force but a garrison who pretty ruthlessly suppressed the population. Deputies know that the Gardaí had to take over legitimate police work with such a background.

Now, it is very much to the credit of that force that they not only did that in the circumstances in which they did it, and of the upsets of the time, but that they were able to establish themselves with the people as part of the people. They are now accepted throughout the country as part of the people and part of the nation, and there are very good relations between the Gardaí and the civil population. The people are proud of them.

There is another thing in connection with the Gardaí that I should like to advert to. It is that they have proved themselves to be the loyal servants of the people and of the legitimate Government of the day. They have been prepared to do their duty to all the successive Governments that have been here, loyally and fearlessly. They have administered the civil law, in so far as it comes within their purview, and the criminal law as fairly and efficiently as any police force that I know of. They have resisted all attempts at demoralisation, whether direct or indirect. That is a very fine tradition.

There are young men now replacing the older men in the force. So far as one can judge from seeing them, the young men now coming in are of the calibre that we want. You will find amongst them as fine a specimen of young Irishman as you will get anywhere. That is the impression left on one when one sees these young men in uniform all over the country. Let us see that the good material that we have in these young men, with the good tradition that they have behind them, is made the best use of; in other words, that they are encouraged, that they are given the facilities and the conditions of service that will ensure that they will be the best police force in Europe, because they can very easily be that—very easily—if one looks at them now.

There was a tendency some time ago, I was afraid, and some others were, that Guards were getting a little bit slipshod in their appearance. It is a grand thing to see that these young men, in particular, are proud of their uniform and are carrying themselves well. They have obviously been well-drilled and well set-up in the Depot. They are carrying themselves well and behaving well. Their discipline appears to be good. The way to maintain good discipline and good morale is to see that their conditions of service are right, that their numbers are adequate to the tasks they have to undertake, that they have the facilities to carry out these tasks and that they have the backing of the civil authorities in carrying out these tasks.

That nearly gets me back again to one of the Minister's problems, this drunk-in-charge problem. You cannot get Guards, for instance, properly to administer the very difficult traffic laws now—the situation is difficult there—or, say, to handle this question of alcohol and driving properly if they are not properly supported by the executive. There is always a problem for the Minister and for the Department in that alone. Now there is a force in existence which promises to be even better in the future than it has been in the past. You have a large body of young men whose morale at the moment is high and whose dicipline is good and who are efficient as a police force. It is the duty of any Government to see that they get the support they need in their duties and that support must be of a practical sort. They must get facilities for carrying out their duties. They must be backed when they do carry out their duties even in such small things as being unnecessarily overruled, if I may put it that way. They should have the conditions of service and all the rest of it.

On that matter, I have no hesitation in saying that a police force, particularly a well set-up police force as we have now, belonging to the people, loyal to the people, with a good sense of duty, is an extremely valuable thing in a modern State, so valuable, in fact, that there is no need to justify provisions for making that force as efficient as possible and having its conditions of service the best that we can have. I would like the Minister to pay particular attention to that.

The Guards are absolutely essential to the morale of the community as a whole and, in small things as well as in big, the conduct of the community will largely depend on the conduct of the Garda. It is reassuring, as I say, to see the men that are there at the moment, these young men coming on, and to see them as well set-up and as well trained and as proud of themselves as they are. It is up to the Minister and those who succeed him to see that that fortunate situation is maintained and, above all, to see the Guards getting the support, both in conditions of service and otherwise, that is necessary to keep that force in good trim.

Captain Giles

I am very glad to hear the tribute that Deputy Vivion de Valera has paid to the Guards. I am especially pleased to hear that tribute coming from that side of the House, particularly from Deputy de Valera. We all know that the Garda force was established in very trying times. They had their baptism of blood. They endured severe trials over a long number of years. Now the Guards have the respect of all the people. That is something that we may be proud of.

Tribute must be paid to the memory of the first Minister who established the Garda force for the fact that, in those trying times, an unarmed police force was set up. The secret of the complete success of the Garda lies in the fact that it was established as an unarmed police force.

Now that we have reached the end of an epoch and old members of the Garda force are passing out and the new Garda are being recruited, it is only right that there should be a complete review of the position. When the Garda force was first established it comprised a fine, able body of men, such as the new recruits that we see in our streets are.

It was unfortunate that the police force had to be entirely recruited at one time. Whether we like it or not, we know that over the last eight or ten years the Garda force was not as we would like it to be or as it was in the past. It was becoming an old force. The men were getting old. No new men were coming along. I think it would be a good thing to stagger recruitment over a number of years. There is no use in taking on an entirely new force and allowing them to serve their full time and then recruiting another new force. Recruitment should be staggered so that there would be always a high percentage of young men on active duty. The old force did their job very well but the stage was reached when there were too many older men in the force and in many cases they did not command the respect of the people that the Garda force should command. I do not blame either the people or the Gardaí for that.

I am satisfied that the members of the force were never adequately paid. That is one of the things that helped to reduce the force. If members of the force are not paid a good salary and if they are trying to maintain a family and keep a house they must supplement their income in some way. Throughout the country, instead of carrying on police duty as they should, many Guards had to go out as farmers or jobbers or to do some other type of work in order to get money to maintain their families. That is a bad thing. It happened to a great extent. A policeman should be exclusively a policeman. He should not have to go out to cut turf or to buy and sell hay or to graze cattle on the 11 months' system in order to make a few pounds. That is all wrong. A policeman cannot be a policeman if he has to seek ways and means of supplementing his salary. The position should be reviewed, now that we have a new force, to see if they are being adequately paid to keep them as a police force and to ensure that these men will be policemen and nothing else.

It certainly was not very nice to see Guards having to fend for their living in the way that they did, to see their uniforms becoming old and shabby, through no fault of their own, to see them having to go out footing and cutting turf, buying and selling cattle, buying and selling hay in order to earn a living. It is time for a review, now that we have a new force, to see that the men are adequately paid. If they are adequately paid, let them do nothing other than police work. There is nothing as fine as a manly, vigorous, young policeman doing his job well. A policeman should be paid a salary on which he can rear and educate his family.

It is right that these things should be said. I saw the force being established almost 30 years ago. I witnessed all that they went through. I realised the fine force they were and the courage of the men in the force. As years went on and peace was established, these men, who were not half paid, could not stand up to the demands on them on the few pounds a week that they were paid. That caused disintegration of the force and there has been a shabby-looking force for the last ten or 15 years. Much of that was caused by the fact that we had to recruit the entire force at one time and they all grew old simultaneously. Recruitment should be staggered over a number of years so that there will always be a certain number retiring and a certain number of new recruits. It would be no harm to have a full review now.

Deputy Donegan referred to the gaming laws and I should like to say a few words on that matter. Over the past 30 years, a vast amount of money has been collected by the Government on gaming licences. I think we are entitled to get some of that money back by way of the establishment of a fund for the preservation of game and for the destruction of pests. The scald crow, the fox, the magpie, and so forth, are too numerous in this country. There seems to be no concerted effort to wipe them out. As recently as 15 or 20 years ago the scald crow was very scarce in this country. I think he is the villain of the piece. There are nearly as many scald crows in the country now as there are ordinary common crows. They are very destructive. They take a vast amount of game eggs, with the result that our stocks are by no means what they should be. Some of that money which has been collected by the Government should be ploughed back into a fund to eradicate these pests. As I have said, a fair amount of money has been collected. I think there will be a big falling-off this year because, as a result of the wiping out of the rabbits by myxomatosis, there is very little to do now. In my part of the country a man has now to wait for the few months of the gaming season.

I come now to the subject of poaching. I would not find fault if, in present circumstances, this country were full of poachers. What tradition was ever handed down to us in this matter? All over the country there were vested interests. There were big mansions with big preserves. Most of the people living in those mansions got the lands unlawfully. They would not allow a man to look across the ditch into the preserves, let alone shoot in them. At that time, our people were right in their approach to the whole question. What right had those other people from another country to come over here and lord it over the simple people of this country? I believe that, in those times, the poacher was a manly man. He had courage, and he needed it, to stand up to the difficulties which confronted him. Now, however, there is not much need for poachers. Most of those big estates have been broken up, and rightly so. I hope that the remainder of them will be broken up as soon as possible.

I want to see in this country a manly type of people who will respect each other's property. I do not believe in a certain number of people joining together to form gun clubs here and there throughout the country and preventing anybody else from joining them. I find there is a tendency for people from Dublin—lawyers, doctors, veterinary surgeons, and so forth—to go down the country and to get a number of simple-minded farmers to give them the shooting rights of their land. I do not believe in that. There should be none of this thing of vested interests coming along and taking up the shooting rights on our countryside, to the exclusion of everybody else. Any man who has a £2 licence and who keeps a dog should be free to go on his neighbour's land and shoot vermin and game during the season. I will let any man come into my land who wants to shoot lawfully there. I would not try to stop him from doing so.

The position in this country now is that we have twopence-halfpenny looking down on twopence, just as we had in the old days under a foreign Government. I do not want that type of outlook revived in this country. Let us all be free and manly. Let us all be free to roam around our countryside and let us be content with what we can get but, at the same time, let us have respect for the rights of others. If what I see going on now in this country continues for another ten or 15 years then I am of the opinion that we shall have a lot of poachers in this country again, and rightly so. It is not just that, in any area, land should be handed over to vested interests. We now have free tenants in the country and I hope that those farmers who own their land will hold on to their shooting rights and will not sign them away to groups of persons who want them for themselves and who will not allow anybody else to avail of them. Such persons are public bounders and nothing else. They are looking after their own interests without considering other people.

I believe that the man with a licence will be manly and that he will not shoot hen pheasants, and so forth, at the wrong time of the year. I believe he will make every effort to do the right thing. Now that the old estates have been broken up, we see a new type of vested interest getting new gaming rights. The farmers are signing away those rights wholesale. A lot of people from Dublin go down to an area and, having purchased the gaming rights there, regard that area as their vested interest. There is no need to make this country a country of poachers. Those of us who keep a dog and a gun and who like a day's sport should be free to go in on other land, just as our neighbours are free to come in on our land. Let us be free agents in this matter. If things continue as they are going to-day then, very shortly, we shall have the same old trouble as regards poaching as we had in the past. Men will try to creep in on the preserves. There is very little need for those types of preserves at all. They have been handed down from an old fake aristocracy and now we find that we have people in this country once more trying to look down on somebody else.

Just as men who are fond of gambling or greyhounds, and so forth, are free to follow those pursuits, the man with a licence and who likes shooting should be able to have his day's sport and should be free to do so. When we give our word let us keep it so that no man will dare to shoot a hen pheasant at any time of the year when it is prohibited to do so. Let us try, as free agents, to preserve the stock of this country so that those vested interests will be put an end to as soon as possible. If that is not done, our people will reassert themselves once more, and rightly so. If our people are deprived of the right to shoot over bogs and ranges then I feel they will adopt the underhand way of doing things. We paid very dearly for our freedom. I hope the Minister will see to it that a good deal of the money that was collected by the Government in respect of gaming will be ploughed back so that those people who follow gun sport will get the benefit of it and so that we shall get after the vermin of all types in this country. I am sorry the rabbit has gone. Rabbits were a damn nice shot on a Sunday evening when you had nothing else to aim at. I hope, also, that the scald crow, the magpie and all the other pests that destroy game will be dealt with and that we shall have fine Sunday sport for the next two years getting rid of vermin. I would be just as happy shooting a scald crow as shooting a cock pheasant.

Mr. O'Malley

You cannot eat a scald crow.

Captain Giles

It is for the sport. I do not believe in shooting for eating; that is dirty. I believe in sport. I believe that the man who goes out with the gun and a dog for a day's sport will be a sport in every sense of the word and that if he shoots a dozen or two dozen pheasants he will distribute them amongst his neighbours and not bring them all home to be eaten there in the following days.

I again appeal to the Minister to give back some of that money which was collected to the genuine man who pays £2 for a licence and to see to it that he will be free to roam over the countryside and that no other man, whether from Dublin or anywhere else, will prevent him from doing so. We have had too much of that in this country for hundreds of years and now that we have attained freedom in this part of the country we do not want to see twopence-halfpenny once again looking down on twopence. We want every man to respect himself and to respect the rights of others and we want to leave our land open to the man whom we know to be honest.

Mr. MacBride

I am sorry I was not here during the earlier part of the discussion on this Estimate. I hope that I am mistaken in the view that I formed from a short portion of the discussion that there was a suggestion that the system whereby sentences are imposed for drunken driving should come up for review before the Minister. I hope that view is not seriously being put forward. To my mind that was an extremely bad procedure which shook the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. It is obviously not the function of a Minister to remit sentences.

We have here an elaborate system of courts charged with the responsibility of carrying out the law and of imposing sentences prescribed by law and those sentences are measured reasonably well in accordance with certain standards. It would reduce the administration of justice to a complete farce if, after a person was tried, convicted and sentenced, the sentence would come up for review before a Minister. I know that the life of probably every T.D. in this House was made miserable by this provision, while it was in operation, by people who approached him to interview the Minister and request him to remove sentences and disqualifications imposed by the courts. It is not the function of a T.D. to intervene in cases of that kind, nor, I believe, is it the function of a Minister to deal with cases of that kind. No matter how carefully or how properly such powers would be exercised by the Minister in this regard, nothing would convince the public that powers of that kind were not being exercised improperly for political considerations. I think the action of the Minister in declining to intervene in these cases is a wise one and I hope he will maintain that attitude.

I should like to say a few words in connection with the whole question of drunken driving. In my view, from experience in the courts, in the case of most accidents I suggest that not less than 50 per cent. of the serious accidents that occur are due to alcohol, possibly not to the fact that the driver is drunk and incapable, but due to the fact that his judgment has been impaired by the consumption of alcohol. I appreciate fully that in possibly 90 per cent. of the cases that occur where a Guard suspects that a driver has had a drink he may not be in a position to prove it, or even level a charge, but certainly at least 50 per cent. of the serious cases that occur are due to the consumption of alcohol. So we have the position now, a serious position, where night after night death stalks our streets and roads, particularly around the cities, as a result of drunken driving or semi-drunken driving. It is a serious problem and one which I think should not be dealt with leniently. I am afraid that we are rather inclined to have a laissez faire attitude with regard to drinking. It is extraordinary how ready we are to say, whenever anyone misbehaves himself: “The poor fellow had a few drinks in.” That should not be a justification for misbehaviour in any degree.

One suggestion I would like the Minister to consider is this—it is the suggestion which, I think, is analogous to the system which obtains in Scandinavian countries—that there should be a sentence of, say, one month's imprisonment for the first or second occasion of drunken driving. But I will say that provision should be made whereby the gaol sentence could be served at any time within 12 months or, if necessary, two years after being imposed. One of the difficulties about a jail sentence is that in many cases it may deprive the accused person of his employment permanently or semi-permanently. Hence, judges are slow to impose a jail sentence.

I can conceive of no better way of curing a person who is inclined to drive when under the influence of alcohol than to make that person spend his week-ends and his holiday time in Mountjoy Prison, preferably at his own expense. If such a form of punishment was contemplated it would be easy to work out the details. The judge, when imposing sentence, could issue a certificate providing that the sentence be served at any time within the following 12 months or two years. In that way a person who depended for his living upon the driving of a car, say a lorry driver or a taxi driver, would not be deprived of his employment. He could go in every Friday night or Saturday morning and serve two days of his sentence and also serve his holiday time in Mountjoy until he had purged his sentence. That would have a very sobering effect on drunken drivers.

I would ask the Minister seriously to consider the possibility of initiating such a scheme. I would also empower the judge to make an order whereby the person sentenced could be charged with the cost of his keep in Mountjoy or wherever he was locked up. That should be left to the discretion of the judge as there are cases in which the person could not afford it but where he could afford it there is no reason why he should not actually pay for the cost of his detention and his upkeep during the week-ends and holiday periods.

There is another matter in regard to drunken driving which, I think, will require the attention of the Minister. To a certain extent it is purely a legal question. It is the definition of "driving". This question has given a considerable amount of difficulty not merely to our own courts here but to the courts in England. In some cases, the word "driving" has been interpreted to mean being in charge of a car, even remotely in charge of a car, and that creates a number of difficulties. A man who realises he has drink taken decides not to drive the car but to sleep in the back of the car, which is probably the safest course to adopt, but it has been held that he is still liable. By reason of various interpretations of the word "driving" as including being in charge of a car, he remains in charge of the car.

It has even been held in England, I understand, in some recent cases, that to be in possession of the key of the car, though you may be some distance away from the car, sitting in a house, still makes you liable. I merely mention the point; I do not think the matter is an immediate problem, but I suggest that the Minister might follow the difficulties that have arisen in England in regard to the matter where I think some new legislation is being introduced in an effort to clarify the position. I do not know whether the new legislation deals adequately with the position or not. I understand that there are some doubts as to whether it does or not.

There is another matter in connection with the administration of the Garda which I should like to mention. I join with other Deputies in paying tribute to the good work they do, but I do feel that here in Dublin the Detective Branch, the Criminal Investigation Branch, needs to be strengthened for the investigation of what I would term business crimes. There are many cases where infringements of the law probably take place, but the public investigation of these offences is rendered difficult by reason of the fact that the members of the Garda who carry out the investigations are not qualified accountants and not experts in business dealings. Therefore, it would seem to me that it would be well if the Minister could consider the appointment of, say, one or two special business investigators.

Possibly the Minister would have to go outside the existing members of the force, and preferably special investigators of that kind should be men of considerable business experience, men well versed in accountancy and company law. I think it is obvious, even from newspaper reports of different matters that have arisen in regard to companies in recent years, that some form of special investigators to deal with business offences or with offences under company law are required. The Detective Branch, as at present constituted, may be, and I am sure is, quite an efficient instrument for the detection of ordinary crime, such as burglaries, robberies and so on, but I doubt whether they are in a position to deal with the more involved type of fraud which no doubt occurs from time to time and which remains undetected by reason of the lack of persons with sufficient experience to pursue the proper investigation. I make that suggestion to the Minister and ask him to consider it.

Mr. A. Byrne

I join with other members of the House in tendering our congratulations to the Minister on the success of the new members of the Garda. From what we have seen of them in the performance of their duties, they are a great credit to the country and to the Garda Síochána. I have heard, however, that there is a little grievance amongst them, that, in the case of young men thinking of getting married, there is a difficulty in getting housing accommodation in the city. Some few years ago, it was put up to the Minister that the Garda Síochána might get an organisation to build their own houses which could be let to the Gardaí on the basis of the wages and the rent allowances given to them at present to ensure that they will not be charged extravagant rents for inadequate accommodation. If that suggestion were followed up and if it resulted in having a contented body of Guards, the country would benefit greatly from it.

There is another point which has worried me somewhat during the past year. I occasionally get papers sent to me from America and England in which some of our usual critics seek to belittle this country by drawing attention to the type of begging that goes on, especially in the City of Dublin. In the case of these journalists, somebody evidently approached them here in Dublin. Children in the city, if they see an American sailor or soldier, say to him: "Have you any chewing gum, sir?" and groups of children collect around these American soldiers, with the result that other people get the opportunity of saying that our children are begging in the streets of Dublin.

I always held that these charges were unjustifiable, but, at the same time, if a uniformed Guard—I intended to make a case for more uniformed Guards in the city—were seen in the distance his presence would act as a deterrent on these children and might also act as a deterrent to some types of visitors—not the type one often sees —who are inclined to encourage that kind of thing, with the result that we find our country being accused of permitting begging in the streets and making it appear that there is poverty in the city. I go out of my way to tell visitors that there is no poverty in the city and no need for children to be barefooted in the city because our Governments and public assistance authorities have provided a system for the past few years under which children can get boots or shoes, where they are definitely in need of them, free of charge and can get boots and shoes at half-price, where their parents are lowly paid.

There is no need for anyone to be sympathetic to barefooted children in the City of Dublin. Sometimes people are played on in that respect. The population of Dublin has increased very much, but I do not see that the police patrols have increased accordingly. I would ask that the patrols be a little more frequent and more plentiful. Some of our main thoroughfares at busy times are inadequately policed. I remember days gone by when there would be a patrol from the Parnell Monument to College Green, three or four Gardaí constantly patrolling on one side and a similar number on the other side going in the opposite direction. I know the Gardaí have been very busy and that traffic regulations have taken up many of them, and it may have been difficult to get new Gardaí, but the Minister has told us that serious crime is on the decline in the whole country. We are glad to hear that and congratulate him and the Gardaí and the Garda executive.

On the outskirts of the city there are new traffic arteries, new roads on the canal side from the Pigeon House to Ballyfermot. There is heavy traffic on those roads but no Gardaí are put on them to protect the public. People are finding how convenient these new traffic arteries are and the time has come when the Garda Síochána also should find them and give adequate protection there. There are many busy areas on the outskirts of Dublin beyond the canal bridges where Deputies have seen the need for either traffic lights or traffic Gardaí. I put it to the Minister that he should continue his recruiting campaign and give us more Gardaí in the city for the general protection of the public.

I am glad to congratulate the Minister on his statement that serious crime is on the decline. It may be due to the fact that the Gardaí are more plentiful. I would rather see one Garda in uniform than half a dozen detectives. The Garda in uniform acts as a deterrent to one type of person and shows the other type that there is protection there for him. I would ask for more Gardaí in the city for the purposes I have mentioned.

Deputy Giles has talked about the inadequate pay of the Gardaí. That is the case we can always make—the inadequate pay for our splendid services such as the Gardaí. I put it to the Minister that in some cases benefit could be conferred on them by the housing proposal I have put to him. A young Garda who gets married and goes outside the city and looks for a room has to pay 45/- for a single room in the city or on the outskirts. That is the rent being charged in many cases at the present moment. He becomes very discontented if his conditions are not improved.

Again, I wish to congratulate the Minister on the men's appearance, the men's ability and sobriety and on everything else that concerns the force. It is a force he should be proud of, as we all in the City of Dublin are proud of it.

Mr. O'Malley

I would ask the Minister to give me information on one of the more important matters of the few I wish to refer to here to-day. On Monday night last in the Limerick Corporation a question was discussed which concerns other parts of the country as well—it is that of horses wandering on the public thoroughfare and the damage they do to private property. We have an amazing statement from the city manager, that evidently, to the best of his belief, there is no constructive suggestion as to what could be done to safeguard people's property, to keep these horses off the public streets and to avoid serious accidents. We had a lot of talk here to-day about drunken driving and I think Deputy MacBride suggested that 50 per cent. of these accidents could be avoided or could be traced back to the effects of alcohol. From the remarks of coroners and district justices of late, as may have been observed in the papers, some of the more serious accidents have been attributed to wandering animals, horses and cattle.

Every Deputy will agree with me when I say that the law at present is lax with regard to these animals. I understand it is so archaic that, first of all, some hours' notice must be given to the owner to remove his animals from the person's land in question, irrespective of the damage that the animals are doing. Further, if the owner of the land in question—which is being trespassed on and damaged by these animals—puts them on the public highway, he himself is responsible for any accident or damage they may do thereafter. I know the Minister may not have time to go into the merits and demerits of the legal difficulties and implications of amending legislation. I am not advocating amending legislation: I am advocating the clarification of the position as it applies to the whole country.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has been very active of late and they might take it upon themselves to see if anything could be done. The ordinary man in the street cannot drive these horses to the pound. The members of the Garda Síochána have enough to do—if they did it, and they do in most cases—without hunting ten or 15 horses to the pound. That is an impossible task for a couple of Guards. In some places there is no pound at all. The position in Limerick City about these wandering animals is appalling. It has been going on down through the years. Representations have been made by the Limerick City Council and other local authorities in the country to successive Ministers for Justice to see if anything could be done about this matter.

Another thing applicable to Limerick City and other built-up areas is the matter of a speed limit. I wonder would the Minister once and for all give us clarification on the matter. Our corporation and various local authorities receive letters from the Department of Justice or the local Garda authorities saying one can apply to have a speed limit in respect of such and such a built up area. Evidently, there are many difficulties attached to this simple task.

We have heard a lot of talk about accidents. Yet we can see cars careering down the main streets of Limerick, Cork and Dublin at fantastic speeds of 60 and 70 miles an hour. All these accidents cannot be attributed to drink. There is a matter to which the Minister did not refer in his speech as far as I can gather. I do not think Deputy Boland got a copy of the speech. I was not here but I do not think the Minister referred to a matter which he promised me last February he would investigate—the question of free legal aid. That is a very big question. There were two enlightening articles in a daily newspaper recently.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think that would require legislation.

Mr. O'Malley

I am not advocating legislation. I would like to give the Minister a case in point if it comes under his Department.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think we should enlarge the scope of the discussion. The Minister would have to introduce legislation to do what the Deputy suggests—the giving of free legal aid.

Mr. O'Malley

Perhaps the Minister would clear up a point in his reply. Recently a workman working for a local authority suffered very serious injuries when a drain collapsed. One of his key witnesses was a prominent Dublin surgeon. I saw the communication from this surgeon to this man's solicitor saying he would only come to Limerick to give evidence in the Circuit Court if he got 50 guineas.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is endeavouring to try a case and that the Dáil cannot do.

Mr. O'Malley

I bow to your ruling. In any event, perhaps the Minister will refer to the question if it comes under his Department.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think he will.

Mr. O'Malley

He might. He promised last February to look into the whole question. I did not want to touch upon this matter of the drunken driver at all. I am afraid that I never saw such a display of hypocrisy. I am not suggesting that the Minister is hypocritical in his outlook on this matter. Some of the Deputies in this House who have been most vehement on this subject are the people who have little or no knowledge of alcoholic beverages. Twenty minutes ago we had a Deputy citing the case of a lorry driver who was up in court and got into serious trouble. It was suggested that he drank two bottles of stout and if one could get drunk on two bottles of stout——

Mr. Boland

He should not take any at all.

Mr. MacBride

What limit would the Deputy suggest?

Mr. O'Malley

It varies in different counties. I think the Minister should be impeached, if we had the power to impeach him, because a decision was arrived at here. I am one of those people who think that the rights of this House should be respected and I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he is not taking cognisance of a decision of the House. He is turning a blind eye to the matter and setting himself up as an authority saying: "The Government are great fellows; Gerry Boland was pulled, but we will not be pulled." That suggestion was made in the daily papers and from political platforms. When you analyse the matter you find that neither Deputy Boland nor any member of the former Government was ever pulled. Representations were made to Deputy Boland when he was Minister for Justice and to the Government by members from all sides of this House and from all political Parties in regard to certain cases. I do not wish to refer in a derogatory manner to a body that cannot defend themselves in this House but it is a well-known fact that some district justices——

Mr. MacBride

The Deputy says he does not wish to refer to a body that cannot defend itself, yet he proceeds to do so.

Mr. O'Malley

——some district justices—I am not mentioning any names —have given appallingly severe sentences and it is a well-known fact that others are lenient. I know one particular county—I will not refer to it by implication or otherwise—where if a man is up on one of these charges he tries to wait until the district justice goes on holidays so that he can be dealt with by a man with a more lenient outlook. It is all very well to say that if a person feels aggrieved in the District Court he can appeal to the Circuit Court. How often have I seen in the county I have mentioned the learned Circuit Court judge not only not allowing the appeal but doubling the sentence. The unfortunate individual was availing of a right given to him by this House of placing his facts in as clear a manner as possible before the Minister for him to consider them. I cannot see why the Minister is going to divest himself of that function because there have been many cases in the past of miscarriages of justice and the power which the Minister held made everything all right. Deputy MacBride mentioned that it was not the function of the Minister to remit sentences. Did not the Deputy say that?

Mr. Boland

It ought not to be.

Mr. MacBride

To administer justice.

Mr. O'Malley

Did the Deputy not say that it was not the function of the Minister for Justice to remit sentences? I wrote that down just after Deputy MacBride said it. Is it not a well-known fact that the Minister for Justice has remitted sentences? Does he deny that sentences have been remitted since this Government got into power? Let us be clear on that. I challenge him to deny that.

We heard Deputy Giles referring to matters that were more relevant, I think, to the Vote on the Tourist Board and Deputy Donegan referred to the question of abuses in game licences. Unfortunately, he made no reference to the poaching of salmon. I do not know whether the Minister has anything to do with that. If he has, I suppose it is just as relevant as is the question of game. Perhaps he might refer to that.

With all the craw-thumping in this House and with all the talk there is about what good fellows the Government are and with other fellows backing them up, would the Minister tell me why this Government turn the blind eye to unlicensed arms which are being flaunted openly in this country to-day? I have a letter here from which I will read an extract to the Minister:—

"In a restaurant the other night there were two young fellows, one of whom you know——"

that is, one whom I know,

"——flaunting two Webley .45s and live ammunition."

That is true, and the Minister knows it is true because he has reports on his files to that effect. It is all right to say I am a member of the House but it is none of my duty to be "the poacher turned gamekeeper". We had a few of those already. I am not going to give full details to the Minister. I do not see in the first place that it is my job, but I am challenging the Minister and the Government to deny, if they can, that arms are being flaunted openly in this country by young fellows of 16 and 17 years of age. This is a case in point and I do know one of them, as the letter said.

Mr. MacBride

But it is all right to kill people with motor cars when one is drunk?

Mr. O'Malley

I hoped Deputy MacBride would see and appreciate the analogies I mentioned here. The point I am making to this House is that the whole reason that the House gave the Minister that power was not that for a second they approved of drunken driving as such or that they approved of any legislation which would suggest an amelioration of the penalties or anything like that. The function of the Minister and the power he was given was purely to avoid a miscarriage of justice where he thought such would occur and I would not like to see him divested of that function. You will always get suggestions of political pull. That is inevitable in any country, and are we not saints here when we look at other countries? Human nature being what it is, we will always have suggestions of abuse from one side or another.

I think I heard a Deputy here to-day speak of that appalling phrase so prevalent in this country: "There is no smoke without fire." That expression is the start of scandals and slanders in many cases.

Deputy A Byrne referred to the housing accommodation of the Gardaí. I have raised that in this House by way of question with regard to Limerick City, and I am sure the same position exists in other cases. The rent allowances of the present time do not give these Guards, young or old, married or single, a chance of meeting the prevalent prices sought by landlords for property. I would suggest to the Minister for his consideration that he should take a leaf out of the book of the Minister for Defence and consider building adequate married quarters, or using his good offices in liaison with the Minister for Local Government to make representations to the appropriate local authorities that a certain section of a new housing scheme—the percentage would be infinitesimal—would be set aside for married members of the force. I think that could and should be done. After all, we are all agreed we want to have a happy police force; we are all agreed that members of the Gardaí, those young lads who are being turned out now, are deserving of the greatest praise and we are all very proud of them while visitors have commented favourably on them also.

I was in this House—perhaps I am wrong—when the Minister promised that he was having an investigation and a report which he would place before this House on the whole circumstances surrounding the alleged kidnapping of children some months ago. So far as I know we heard no more about that. I heard the Minister definitely state that in due course a report would be presented to this House. Perhaps there is some explanation for this.

I understand at the present time that the High Court on circuit deals only with appeals from the Circuit Court — perhaps Deputy MacBride would know if that is correct.

Mr. MacBride

No——

Mr. Boland

Outside Cork, it is the case.

Mr. MacBride

No, it is open to any High Court action being tried on circuit provided a litigant applies to the High Court in Dublin.

Mr. O'Malley

Is it not a fact that Limerick, Galway, Ennis, Sligo—all these other towns where the High Court on circuit goes, is it not a fact that they deal, outside of Cork, only with appeals from the Circuit Court?

Mr. MacBride

That is so. There have not been any High Court actions tried in other centres but so far as I know there is no reason why they should not be.

Mr. O'Malley

I am putting the matter to the Minister for his consideration.

Mr. MacBride

Unless I am mistaken it is open at the moment for any litigant to apply to the High Court in Dublin and to say: "I want my case to be tried in Galway, Limerick or anywhere else."

Mr. O'Malley

Unfortunately, in Limerick the position is that the High Court will only take a case appealed from the Circuit Court and if a person wants to delve into litigation he will have to come to Dublin. We know that justice is not being served in this country due to the lack of finance and due to the risk involved. We hear a lot about social welfare and social security but this is only common justice, and I think the Minister might see that in the major centres—we have it in Cork—such as Limerick and Galway and, say, Tralee or other places like that, the High Court would take other cases besides appeals from the Circuit Court.

The only other matter to which I wish to refer is this: the Minister for Industry and Commerce has thrown the onus on to the Minister for Justice regarding the licensing laws as they exist at present at Shannon Airport. It is like a shuttlecock; the Minister for Justice is shaking his head now indicating that it is not in his Department. What I want to point out is that if one goes to Shannon to see a visitor off after 12 o'clock, the person one is seeing off can drink all night— frequently a plane is delayed due to fog or mechanical defects—but the local or the Irishman has to sit watching. Anyway, it does not appear to be a function of the Minister and he would want to know Shannon Airport very well. I could talk all day on that but I think I shall write to the Minister and not delay the House.

Mr. Manley

A good deal of this debate has hinged around the power vested in the Minister for Justice of restoring licences to those who have driven under the influence of drink. The former Minister, Deputy Boland, and Deputy de Valera were very emphatic in stating that no such power should be vested in any Minister and the present Minister is all the more to be complimented in that he did not exercise that power. It is not the exercise of the power at all that becomes objectionable; it is the exercise of the power in one case. When it is done in one case the Minister is liable to be charged right away with partiality.

I admire the Minister for being absolutely adamant on that point, that, in spite of the representations that have been made to him in the last 12 months, he has not in one instance restored a licence taken from anybody found drunk or under the influence of drink. A person on the road nowadays must have all his faculties; even when in possession of all his faculties and in a state of complete sobriety he is still in danger. But the person drunk or under the influence of drink is a potential danger at all times on the road. If, as the Minister has shown in the past 12 months, there is no hope of having the licence restored, then there will be no grievance among those from whom licences have been taken that there was an exception made in any individual case. I compliment the Minister on his wisdom in that respect.

This Estimate deals largely with the Gardaí. They are one of the most important bodies we have. The position to-day is analogous to the position that existed in 1922, when the Gardaí were first recruited, except in this fact, that the men coming into the Gardaí at that time came in from the ranks of the national movement. Although some of them might have come in purely from the material point of view, most of them came in from patriotic motives. However, inexperienced as they were, they grew up to be a magnificent force. They got the respect of all the people although they had to encounter the anti-policeman mentality that had grown up here over generations when we were under an alien Government. They have emerged with glory and command the respect of all. They reached a high standard in the late 20s and early 30s. They took a great interest in athletics, breaking records in that sphere, and they were all the more to be complimented for that.

The position to-day is that we are recruiting a new body of Gardaí. It is not entirely analogous except in this respect, that we are going to have a good number of inexperienced young Gardaí coming in now, but the stage has been set for them. I do not see the wisdom of this Government or any Government retiring men at such an early age, retiring them on limited pensions and at a time when they have heavy family commitments. They cannot live on those pensions. I think in respect of these men provision should be made for the extension of the age limit and they should be given an increase of pay as an enticement to continue their services so long as they have unblemished records. Otherwise their experience will be lost to the younger men coming in. These older men would not then be faced with housing problems and with family problems such as they must face when they are forced to retire at an age when they are physically fit and have amassed great experience. We must bear in mind that a Garda must be trained, and experience is the greatest asset to any Garda. He must be a model of tact and shrewd judgment. He must be a psychologist, above all things, and he cannot be a psychologist unless he is taught in the hard school of experience.

I regret that the present Government and previous Governments have done nothing with regard to the extension of the age for retiring Gardaí. Of course, the case has been made that it would slow up promotion, but those people who would suffer from the slowing up of promotion would get the same privilege with regard to retiring age limits if the extension were given. I know there is dissatisfaction amongst the force in regard to promotion for sergeants. Those who are called up for interview and to do the examination must pass a very high standard of test. So long as these men have unblemished records they should be graded up very considerably for their experience, because otherwise there will be dissatisfaction through having younger men officering older men who have given valuable service.

Mention has been made here by the Minister for Justice of the closing down of Garda barracks in the country. No matter how remote a rural area is, I think it is entitled to have its little Garda barracks. I agree that one or two men in a station in these remote areas would be sufficient. Where efforts have been made to close barracks the people were up in arms right away. They were in a state of nervousness because nothing will ensure safety in a locality so well as the existence of a Garda barracks, just as the presence of a Garda in any assembly will ensure safety. I think it would be wise if the Department went slowly in that respect because you can have crimes of various kinds and unpleasant visitors in an area at all times, no matter how remote.

Mention has also been made about straying horses on the roads. I remember just three weeks ago passing a road within four miles of Cork City and counting over 20 horses on the roadside. Granted they have plenty to eat at this time of the year on the roadside, but they are a danger there. However, it is in winter time that they are bound to be found in some farmer's field. My greatest objection to the people who own these horses is that they leave their venues littered with all sorts of rubbish. We are bringing visitors to this country and the rendezvous of these itinerants are unsightly. Some provision should be made in law to compel these people when they leave an area to leave it in as good a state as they found it. Surely that is no great hardship on them.

I do not believe at all in these squad cars. I notice in the Book of Estimates, mentioned here to-day, that for the purchase of transport, for motor taxation, drivers' licences, allowances for officers using their own cars, cycling allowances, and so on, there is a sum of over £140,000 provided. I believe myself that there is no method of policing as effective as the patrol method. Outside Dublin City I cannot see any utility in a squad car. I believe that it will be abused in time, that the people will devise a method to circumvent the activities of the squad car. It may be necessary in an industrial area like Dublin but, generally speaking, we are too prone to base our institutions on what happens in the neighbouring island where you have a different set of circumstances. I think that the presence of a policeman on the street is far more effective than a squad car going through the city, making public announcements. If there is anything that is reprehensible it is the use of a loudspeaker from a car, whether it be a Garda car or a car used during election times. It is a disturbance of the peace in our streets and should not be tolerated. We should build our institutions according to our own traditions, our own requirements and particularly according to our own economy. Many Gardaí are free now for duty in the cities because of the introduction of traffic lights and these men could be always available for patrol duty. I am convinced that if we had Gardaí on duty who would patrol all exits from the State we would not have the situation we had here 12 months ago in the kidnapping cases.

Those are the few points to which I wished to draw the Minister's attention. In my view he is a very generous and fair-minded man and I hope he will be hightly successful in the administration of his office. I hope also that he will play fair with the Garda force which has given such service to our people.

Mr. P.J. Burke

One of the first matters with which I want to deal is the menace in the city and in portion of County Dublin created by the travelling knights of the road, as they are called. They are a menace in my constituency. There are horses strolling into the gardens of new houses that have been built right round the verge of the city and in the county. Every place they go, as the last speaker and other speakers have said, they cause a lot of trouble. It is about time the Government took some strong action in this matter. People telephone to me from Drimnagh, Walkinstown, Ballyfermot and other areas stating that their gardens are being broken up by horses wandering into them at night. If anyone says anything to these people they try to terrorise him.

The same thing happens in lonely country districts. I think this matter needs to be handled in a decisive fashion. Legislation should be introduced or we should consider doing something which will prevent or deter these people causing destruction. They are no credit to the nation. They are rearing illiterate families. Everybody is afraid to say anything to them. I suffer enough persecution from them because of the number of people continually reporting to me. The city manager in Dublin puts them outside the city boundary. The county manager tries to put them somewhere else. The Guards remove them from one place and this kind of game of shuttlecock goes on. That does not save our people from being annoyed or save the little gardens planted by industrious men from being damaged with these strolling horses during the night. If the ordinary people object the possibility is that they may be beaten up. I think the time has come when the Minister for Justice must examine the position. I urge that such an examination should take place.

The Minister for Justice is responsible for the Garda Síochána. Last Sunday in North County Dublin there were thousands of cars trying to reach the sea and thousands of pedestrians. On numerous occasions I have pointed out the lack of co-ordination between the various Departments of State. The Gardaí in my own area have often raised the lack of parking space with me. We are only a few miles from Dublin City. There are co-ordinating committees consisting of Dublin Corporation officials and the Gardaí within the city area. Such committees should be extended to the county area. Conditions at Donabate last Sunday were positively chaotic and the Gardaí were helpless. I have tried on numerous occasions to get adequate parking places. That is why I am urging now some co-ordinating machinery as between the Department of Justice, the Department of Local Government, and the various authorities around Dublin. These conditions exist week after week. If the coming week-end is fine we will have a recurrence of what happened last Sunday. The unfortunate Gardaí are trying to do the impossible. They are overworked. Traffic jams take place because of lack of coordination and the people who are responsible do nothing. In the city area weekly conferences are held to deal with this matter. There are 600,000 people living in the suburbs and county and nothing is done about conditions there.

I want to raise another matter. I am sorry I shall have to raise it here. I have nothing personal to say about any member of the Garda. They are a fine, respectable, decent body of men. There seems to be a new approach in County Dublin, especially in relation to the young Gardaí coming out of the Depot. I think this approach is all wrong; the young Gardaí, it is alleged, are being told that the old Gardaí in the district were too lenient and their first duty will be to raid the pubs night, noon and morning. Is that really police work? If an unfortunate publican opens five minutes too early or closes five minutes too late his place is raided and the Gardaí run upstairs into his rooms. Surely there should be some tactful way of dealing with publicans who commit breaches. I do not wish to deter any Garda from doing his duty. Neither do I want to see the Gardaí leaving any house open when it should not be open. I uphold the law. What I object to is the approach made by certain Gardaí in a matter of this kind. I object to this picking on one publican just for the sake of hounding him. I think the Gardaí should concern themselves with trying to eliminate crime. I was in Ballina prior to a by-election and I went out to a place in Sligo. A sergeant and two Guards came in there at half-past ten.

Mr. Lindsay

That is terrible. The Deputy obviously was not doing his work.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I went down to a seaside resort about eight miles from Ballina. There were a sergeant there and two guards at about half-past ten at night to clear out the locals, and that was during the tourist season.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is advocating——

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am not advocating anything except discretion.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is referring to officers of the law who cannot defend themselves here. He has clearly indicated where they are and who they are. Somebody must protect people who are not here to defend themselves.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy might as well have given the names.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must pass from that method of dealing with the Estimate. The Deputy has indicated certain members of the Garda Síochána. They are not here to defend themselves.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I have nothing to say to any member of the Garda Síochána at all.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy has said a nice lot, anyway.

Mr. P.J. Burke

There is such a thing as discretion. I am asking the Minister to see that some of the Gardaí —they are few in number—use what is known as discretion. I have heard a good deal about drunken drivers. It is a good job that some of the people speaking here about drunken drivers will never be on duty at the Gates of Heaven, because none of us would have a chance of getting in at all.

Nobody has any sympathy for drunken drivers; nobody should have sympathy with a man who deliberately goes out and gets drunk and then drives his car around the roads. Nobody has sympathy for such a man if he gets jailed. But there is the case of the driver who may be compelled to take a few drinks for health reasons. There are very few men who do not slip by the wayside. I have often myself done so—not through drink. Before now we had the position where we could go and see the Minister. I have often approached the Minister myself, as has nearly every other Deputy in the House, to try and get leniency for a man or a woman. When approached, the Minister may be as harch as he likes but he will find that there are certain cases where mercy should be exercised. Such a case would be one in which a man, if allowed off on that occasion, would never touch a drink again. There are human characteristics which should be considered in cases of that type.

When the law has been administered I think the discretion should be left to the Department of Justice and as far as I know the circumstances of appellants to the Department have always been very closely investigated and I have never known leniency to be exercised by the Department except after close examination of all the circumstances, even to the extent of consulting with the local Guards and district justice.

I want to come back again to the case of the young Guards. I know several young Guards about to get married who are not in receipt of sufficient salaries to get loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act and who obviously are not able to build houses themselves. Of course, the local authorities concerned will not provide them with houses unless they are married and have families, perhaps living under shocking conditions in one-room apartments. This is an instance where there might be co-ordination between two Departments in order that these young Guards might be helped out, and I want the Minister to consider that.

I should like to make reference now to a matter which concerns the Minister's Department, even though it may be only indirectly. I am still reading Press reports about the condition of our courthouses. District justices and judges have, on numerous occasions, referred to the appalling conditions of these courthouses. It surprises me that a number of our district justices have not died from pneumonia as these courthouses are so cold and so dreary. If they had been built especially for the purpose of keeping people out of them the job could not have been done better.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has nothing to do with that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

He has, indirectly.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are no funds available to him.

Mr. Blowick

It is a matter for the Local Government Department.

Mr. Moher

It is for the local authorities.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am continually talking about the situation we have in this country where one Department works independently of the other. I do not say that should not be the case but I think there should at least be some co-ordination between two Departments in major matters which concern them both such as the question of the courthouses. I should like also to refer to the question of the squad cars. I think the system is an excellent one and that it has done more work to put drunken drivers off the roads than any other system has done. It has also succeeded in keeping the roads safe from other points of view. It is a system which badly needs to be retained. It will certainly compel the careless driver, who has no respect for himself or for anybody, to become more careful.

Mr. Colley

On this question of the drunken driver, I should like to say that, from what I heard Deputy Manley say, I think he is under a misapprehension regarding the attitude of my Party. None of us wants in any way to do anything that might encourage the drunken driver. Let us be clear about that. I, on my part, hold very strong views about it and I should like to say that when this question of allowing the Minister for Justice discretion to deal with cases after they had been dealt with by the courts came before the House we, on these benches, actually moved an amendment aimed at leaving such discretionary measures in the hands of justices.

The first Coalition Government in their wisdom passed an Act providing that the Minister could deal with this question. In these circumstances, we hold that the Minister should deal with it and that he should not take the line that he is not going to consider any such cases. He should deal with them or else amend the legislation. This side of the House will not, I feel sure, oppose any such amendment which would aim at taking the power away from the Minister and having it left in the hands of the justices. I think it is a very bad principle that the Minister should take the line that he will not operate certain provisions of an Act. If he feels it is wrong, he should bring in legislation to amend it.

There are only one or two small points left on which I wish to speak. I want particularly to refer to the growing practice in Dublin of cars overtaking and passing out on the left lines of traffic. Around Amiens Street in particular, it is becoming very common although it is prevalent in other streets as well. For instance, where you have ten cars proceeding in line, you will always find some fellow to come along, driving along the line on the left and suddenly trying to cut in on the line which he left previously. Very often such a practice involves accidents. One morning last week I saw a driver arrive at Amiens Street. He drove up along the left of the line of traffic. At the Talbot Street lights, the line of traffic was held up by some obstruction and when it moved on again it turned out that this man wanted to turn into Talbot Street right across the whole line of traffic.

Could the Guards not do something to stop that practice? Could there not be some system introduced that would help to remedy that, because I believe there are a lot of the younger drivers who, in so acting, do not think they are doing anything wrong; I have seen several near accidents because of this practice? It is really becoming a menace. I urge on the Minister to try and get the Guards to produce something that will enable a situation of that kind to be controlled.

Again, there is the question of the cyclists. I know that this is an old story. My opinion is that cyclists cause nearly as many accidents as drunken drivers. On the North Strand, one can see them cycling five and six abreast. It is quite a common thing to see them travelling four abreast. I have seen myself, in a case where cyclists were travelling five abreast, two more come from behind, apparently in a hurry, and try to pass out. These two cyclists did that without looking to see if there was a car approaching from behind. In the process they pulled out right in front of the car that I was travelling behind. The driver had to stop at once and, in doing so, nearly crashed into my car. I think something should be done to try and get cyclists to observe the rules of the road. They are a real danger to the travelling public, especially during rush hours. Anyone who happens to be travelling along the North Strand or Amiens Street can see that clearly for themselves. The same applies to other parts of the city.

I know there are different views held as to what should be done to overcome the menace that is caused by cyclists. I have come to the conclusion myself, from what I have seen going on, that a licence and an insurance policy are almost as necessary in the case of cyclists as in the case of motor cars. I think a small licence fee should be put on them, even if it resulted in a loss to the State. Cyclists should also be required to take out an insurance policy. I say that because, in my opinion, they cause as many accidents as drunken drivers. When they are the cause of an accident nobody knows who they are because they are always able to get away immediately. Therefore, somebody has to suffer and pay for the accident which they have caused.

Mr. Moher

I should like to say a few words as regards itinerants in the rural areas. I know that practically every rural Deputy has referred to this menace. About 12 months ago a resolution was introduced at a meeting of the Cork County Council in an attempt to control itinerants. What amazed me was—it was a thing that I could never have anticipated until this resolution came up for discussion—the division that existed on the question. One member went so far as to say: "How dare anybody interfere with or attempt to control or restrict these people; they are the ancient Irish and, as a matter of fact, some of them are descended from the native ‘princes.'" A short time afterwards the resolution was passed and referred to the county solicitor.

In the meantime, a decision was given in Limerick which, so to speak, nullified the resolution and rendered it absolutely ineffective. Therefore, so far as the existing law is concerned, it would appear that the Guards have no effective control in regard to this problem. The law, as it stands, seems to be defective. The Guards are put in the position that, when they receive complaints locally, they have no power to deal effectively with these people. The only way, I think, in which they can deal with them is by harassing them, by getting them to move out of a locality by the use of harassing tactics. The existing law does not appear to give the Guards any more power than that. The result is that these people play ducks and drakes with the Gardaí authorities.

I live in an area which is a county boundary where, very often, the problem arises of the Guards harassing an encampment over the county boundary. These people then move on a quarter of a mile when they find themselves in another county and in another police district. There is then a repetition by them of what went on in the other district, so that they are able effectively to evade any attempt by the Gardaí to move them out of a locality. The Guards are placed in a most unenviable position. About a year ago Deputy Manley referred to the condition in which a locality is left when these people move their encampment. Just over a year ago, in North Cork, there was a serious outbreak of typhus in an encampment there. The county medical officer of health was notified of it and he had considerable difficulty in inoculating and in treating these people. The Guards had to be brought there. That should give Deputies some idea of the danger which these people can be to public health in an area.

Then, of course, we have the indiscriminate selection of camping sites. Travelling along our roads, one may find these encampments at a bend on the road. One will find their horses wandering within half a mile of the encampment. The horses wander along the road by day and are a menace to passing traffic. At night-time one will find them in the fields of a local farmer. In many instances, one will find the horses in a farmer's cornfields. I myself, coming back late at night during an election campaign, saw where these people had smashed up a wooden gate and made a camp fire of it, thereby leaving a farmer's property wide open to trespass from their animals. We know ourselves—we have seen reports in the newspapers—of cases where farmers have been so exasperated by the conduct of these people that they have taken the law into their own hands, and, in some cases, have suffered in the courts for defending themselves against the menace of these encampments.

I think myself that some method of control should be introduced. We will have to introduce common camping grounds, and ultimately we will have to ensure, in certain specified areas, the provision of camping grounds and so force these people to go into them, thereby making it illegal for them to camp on the roadside or on the highway.

Again, I can see that, ultimately, some Minister for Justice will be forced into the position of compelling the registration of these people. I think that is the only effective way of controlling those who lead a nomadic existence—first of all registration, and, secondly, the power to compel them to camp in certain specified camping grounds. I know that in England they have camping grounds which are known as commons. These people are compelled to move into them and they even have to pay tolls. But here they are a law unto themselves. They do what they like, they go where they like and they camp where they like.

I do not know whether any census is taken of their numbers but I should say from my observations that the number of itinerants has increased very much in recent years. I would say that, during the last 12 or 15 years, the numbers who have taken to the roads, judging by the number of caravans that one sees, have increased considerably. I think that, no matter how we may try to get away from this problem, we will have to face it and put in the hands of the Gardaí some authority and some effective means for controlling this menace. Otherwise, the menace will become much more acute, and the problems arising from the multiplication in numbers of these people on our roads will become much greater.

Much has been said of drunken drivers and of the various other problems that arise from road traffic. Deputy MacBride, I think, said that he believed that 50 per cent. of the accidents occurring on the roads were caused mainly by people who had taken too much drink. I am inclined to disagree. I do not know whether there are any statistics available segregating the various causes that are responsible for accidents on the roads. I think myself that many accidents are caused by people who have decidedly bad manners on the road, people whose use of the road and whose discretion on the road is controlled by the horse power or the number of cylinders which they can sport under the bonnets of their cars. Again, we have the problem of fast and slow traffic. Much has been done by the removal of bends on our roads, but even that does not seem to lessen the number of accidents which occur. As a matter of fact, the indication is that there are more night accidents on streets, caused by dazzling, than there are on roads which have a number of bends.

In a number of towns, in particular in towns where there is a main thoroughfare running through the main street, there is the problem of lack of effective control of speed. There is no method by which, under the existing law, in an un-urban town, speed can be effectively controlled in a built-up area. In my home town, Mitchelstown, which has a straight street, the public street has become a speedway. Interested people in the town have erected notices indicating that motorists should slow to 20 miles an hour but the motorists are well aware that these signs have no legal effect and that violation of the warning carries no legal penalty. Under the old method, the local authority could, by resolution, seek control of speed in a built-up area. There was a decision in the court—I think it was in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire—that was set aside and, as the law now stands, there is no effective control of speed through an un-urban town. As a matter of fact, there is no control of speed, as far as I know, through urban towns.

A great deal could be done if the co-operation of the teachers and the religious in the various schools in the country were sought in educating children in the "do's and don'ts" of road safety. Three or four times a year time should be devoted to advising children on safety on the road, at least to educate them to save themselves. We know how unpredictable a child is and we know that it is only by continual emphasis of the "do's and don'ts" as to conduct on the road that we can save our little children from being knocked down, gravely injured and, in many instances, killed.

The Minister, in co-operation with the Department of Education and the Garda authorities and teachers, should try to get a campaign afoot whereby children would be more effectively educated to save themselves on the roads from injury or death.

I would like also to bring to the notice of the Minister the ineffective marking of cross-roads and intersections. Something should be done in regard to this matter. As far as I am aware, road signs are being reviewed at the moment. I hope that a better attempt will be made to give some indication of danger ahead to those coming from a side road on to a main road.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That, Deputy, would be a matter for the Department of Local Government, I feel.

Mr. Everett

Local authorities.

Mr. Moher

There is a danger created by heavy lorries and heavily laden lorries with trailers. The trailer should be outlawed completely. In the interim, some indication should be given to a motorist travelling behind a vehicle pulling a trailer or approaching such a vehicle that the vehicle is pulling a trailer.

Mr. Everett

I wish to compliment the House on the manner in which this very important Estimate has been discussed. I will try to give my views on some of the criticisms that have been hurled at the statement I made in connection with motoring offences.

Deputy Boland has asked me about the reorganisation of the Circuit Courts and the District Courts. I would inform the Deputy that it is only quite recently that the Rules of Court have been agreed to and, pending experience of the working of the District Courts with the higher jurisdiction, I am prepared to wait for some time before deciding on a change or reorganisation of the courts. At the time Deputy Boland made his statement we had expected that, with the higher jurisdiction, a larger number of cases would be brought into the District Court. The Rules of Court were not made at the time. Hence, the lawyers brought most of the cases into the Circuit Court. Now the rules have been agreed to and, in 12 months' time, when we see how they work, we will be in a better position to judge reorganisation.

Deputy O'Malley asked a question about a plaintiff in Limerick or Galway who wants to have his case heard before the High Court sitting locally. He wants to know if that can be done. The plaintiff can apply to have his case transferred to the local venue and the matter will be decided. The reason for not having sittings of the High Court in Limerick or Galway was that no applications came in. In Cork, people applied to have their cases heard in the High Court sitting in Cork. It is a matter entirely for the people concerned.

Deputy Dunne raised a very important question about the after-care of discharged prisoners. Seventy-five per cent. of prisoners, mostly convicted prisoners, are in prison for only a short period of ten weeks or less. The State allocates over £1,000 a year to a very charitable organisation which takes an interest in discharged prisoners. Deputy Dunne will agree that, for persons who are only ten weeks in prison, it is very difficult to provide training. In the Borstal institution in Clonmel, boys are given a trade. There is a system of parole. They can come out at night-time and go to the pictures. They are on their word of honour to return. Very good employment has been found for these men in other countries in the trade that they learned.

Deputy Dunne and Deputy O'Malley referred to the housing problem in respect of members of the Garda Síochána. I am a member of a local authority that always allocates a number of houses in their building schemes for members of the Garda. If the Limerick and Dublin and other public authorities allocated portion of the land or houses in the big housing schemes for the Gardaí it would help to solve the problem. It has given my predecessor and myself some worry in connection with the lack of accommodation for Gardaí as a whole. Deputy Byrne pointed out the serious position in Dublin and said the difficulties can be overcome if the Dublin Corporation will give facilities similar to those which other public bodies are giving throughout the country. He spoke of the Gardaí and of the Gardaí in Dublin. I should just like to put these facts on the record. In 1953 there were 1,424 Gardaí on duty in Dublin. On the 1st July, 1955, that number was increased to 1,619. I am sure that when Deputy Byrne hears of those increased figures he will be satisfied that we have endeavoured to meet the situation.

I hope that drunken drivers will not be encouraged by some of the speeches which were made here to-day. They may not understand the niceties of the phrases which were used. There will be headlines that the Opposition—and I do not think it is their intention— have criticised me in this connection. I am afraid that people generally may not understand the niceties of what the Opposition are trying to suggest when they say I am failing to exercise the powers which I possess under the Act. It is all very fine for Deputy Major de Valera and Deputy Traynor to point out the great hardship that is involved for these people and to condemn me for things I never said. After investigating every claim and every petition that comes before me, where there is no extenuating circumstance and no other evidence than that given in the District Court, I will not restore the licence.

A man is prosecuted in the District Court. When he is charged, a medical officer is brought to the barracks. The evidence of the medical officer is given in the District Court. Then the man appeals to the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court will probably make a change or may modify it in some way but may not restore his licence. Then the Deputies of all Parties—it is not confined to Deputies of one Party— appeal to me as Minister. We send back to get information from the Circuit Court judge and from the Gardaí. I investigated every one of the 110 petitions that came before me in the past 12 months and no evidence was submitted to me other than what was submitted to the two judges. Were the judges right—the two of them—in their decision or were they wrong?

It is no use for the Opposition to say that, by an amendment, they opposed the power given to the Minister. Certainly, I would say that the powers were a bit too generously used in some cases. Deputy Traynor will be interested to know that I have the support of all the trade unions in the country in the action I have taken, that is, that where no evidence is available other than what is given in the court I will not interfere with the court's decision.

Mr. Traynor

I do not think anyone on this side of the House advocated that the Minister should.

Mr. Everett

The ordinary member of the public will not understand the niceties of the phrases used by members of the Opposition. I was informed that I refused to exercise my functions and duties as Minister for Justice in considering appeals. I have already told the House that 110 appeals came before me and that we got reports from the Gardaí and the last judge who decided the cases and no evidence other than what had already been given—except that the man was out of work—came before me and that, therefore, I refused to interfere with the decision of the court. The drinker might think he has a number of friends on all sides of the House and he is prepared to make his appeal. I refused 110 appeals for the reason I have already explained—that there was no evidence other than what had already been given in the courts.

I have been asked why I do not bring in an amendment to change the Act. I think it was promised, in relation to the Road Traffic Act, that a section would be introduced to enable the driver to appeal to the court. Most of the cases that came before me went before the appeal court. It must be borne in mind that two judges have already decided not to restore the licence to a man who has been found guilty of driving while under the influence of drink. Instead of impeaching a Minister—Deputy O'Malley suggested I should be impeached—I should receive the support of every member of this House in carrying out my duty and in refusing to allow myself to forget my duty to this House and my duty to protect the public. Surely no Deputy should disagree with me for protecting the interests of the public. Nevertheless, the charge is made against me that I have not exercised the duties conferred on me under the Act. I hope the House will accept my statement that I have carefully considered every case. Having given very careful consideration to every case, I had to consider also the public. Like Deputy Traynor, I am a trade unionist and, if I could err on the side of sympathy, my sympathies would naturally be with a trade unionist who had lost his employment. I had to ask myself who deserved the greater sympathy—the man who had lost his licence or the relatives of somebody who had been injured or of somebody who had died as a result of an accident.

If we get the co-operation of every member of this House then fewer men will be brought to court for drunken driving. Furthermore, I am trying to save the Deputies of all Parties, because we know that, when a man is brought to court and found guilty, he asks Deputies to make an appeal to the Minister to restore his licence. If the man feels that I will listen to the appeal of a Government Deputy he will ask a Government Deputy to get in touch with me and if that Deputy is not successful he will go to some other Deputy. I am saying, in an endeavour to protect Deputies, that, no matter what Party a Deputy may belong to, if there is no other evidence than that given in court the person who has lost his licence will get no sympathy from me.

Mr. MacBride

Hear, hear!

Mr. Everett

That being so, I hope it will lessen the burden and the worry of Deputies who are asked to appeal to me in the matter. The position is now clear. People now realise the seriousness of driving while under the influence of drink and they know what the consequences will be. They need not go to any Deputy for sympathy and they need not come to me because I will refuse to interefere with the decision of the courts.

I agree with what Deputy Dunne said on the matter of racing. However, it is not my function. It is entirely a matter for the Minister for Local Government who gives authority to a public body to close the roads in a particular area. Deputy MacBride has made some suggestions on the question of staggering the sentences imposed on persons found guilty of drunken driving. I will give these suggestions to the Department. They are very good suggestions and well worthy of consideration.

Some other Deputies raised questions but I want to refer in particular to Deputy Burke. He made a statement that some of the younger Guards have received instructions to keep on raiding the public houses. I want to assure him that the very first opportunity I got of speaking to the Guards I asked them to try and recognise that they are of the people, and for the people and working with the people. I asked them not to be looking for the most frivolous cases of cars parked a few feet away from the side of the path or of children getting into trouble. There were no instructions issued from my Department to the young Guards that they should go on making themselves busy at raiding the public houses.

I know that drinking after hours is against the law, but in the country places there are many more serious things than that. I see nothing criminal in five or six men sitting in a country public house at night-time after a wet day or talking about the threshing. They would not spend 10/- in a whole night while there would be £10 spent in a club in Dublin. I see nothing criminal at all in the instance I have mentioned and I ask the Guards to use their common sense and if they do so we will have a better country and better respect for the law.

Of course, there will be the young or the old Guard who will take advantage of the law as it stands but it is my own personal opinion that the less trouble they cause the better. I will make inquiries and have the Deputy's report sent on to the Commissioner. I am sure he does not want the Guards to be over-anxious and to be annoying the people and I do not want the Guards to work under the old English code that they must have so many cases before they can get promotion. I am satisfied that where there are too many summonses in a district the Guards are neglecting their duty; where there are less summonses it shows that there is respect for the Guards and that the Guards are doing their duty. I will communicate some of the points made to the Commissioner but I want to assure the Deputies that all they have said will be given very careful consideration.

Deputy O'Malley made certain suggestions but I am sure that the members of his Front Bench do not want me to mention them to-day. He did mention a case where I exercised my prerogative to release some man. If you were ever in jail you would know what it is to be in jail and you would like the House or the Minister to exercise the prerogative and release you. I released a member of his constituency at the Christmas period. He had a very few months of his sentence unexpired and was offered a very good job if he was released before Christmas. He had six children.

The Deputy raised that matter by way of parliamentary question and I thought from the answer I had given him that he was satisfied and that he did not want to have that man detained for another fortnight and so deprive him of his job. Any Minister or member of this House who makes representations to me on behalf of any poor man in a position like the one to which I have referred can be assured that I will do anything I can to rehabilitate that person and make him a good citizen.

I do not think I have anything more to say except to thank the House for the manner in which they received this very important Estimate and I will endeavour to give matters raised by the Deputies fair play and impartial consideration.

Mr. Traynor

Lest there should be a misconception in the minds of the general public as to remarks made from this side of the House with regard to drunken drivers, I want to state that no member of this House or no member of the Opposition would sympathise with any person convicted of driving a motor car while under the influence of drink and incompetent of using the judgment necessary in the control of such a vehicle. What I did refer to was the statement made by the Minister. I was in the position of not having before me the remarks of the Minister so that I could quote them but the impression made on my mind at the time was definitely that the Minister was not going to consider any case—in other words that all appeals were closed. I am glad to hear that the Minister has given examination to a number of cases on appeal. I think that is in conformity with the legislation which we passed in this House. If that is so, I am not suggesting for a moment that on examination of the appeal the Minister should reduce either the sentence or the loss of licence. I am glad to hear that the Minister has been examining these appeals. The impression created was that the Minister had closed his mind, once the decision of the court had been given.

Mr. Moylan

As the Minister has dealt with drunken driving, I may perhaps play the part of devil's advocate and say that the drunken driver is not almost the most dangerous. The lack of courtesy and concern for others is a greater cause of all the damage that is being caused on the roads. I would like the Minister to draw the Guards' attention to the speeding motor cyclist. At the present moment the Clontarf road is full of cyclists and children on their way to the seaside and every night I have seen speeding motor cyclists going along there at the rate of 60 miles an hour and nothing being done about it. I think it is most dangerous.

Vote put and agreed to.