I can well appreciate the feelings of Deputies following my disclosure of the fact that the number of indictable offences has increased by about 12 per cent. My appreciation of Deputies' feelings in that respect was measured by my own sense of disappointment— I might almost say shock—when I first read the Commissioner's interim report on crime during the year 1957. My disappointment was not alleviated in any respect on making a closer examination of what the figures revealed. I found that the figure of 14,322 indictable offences was an increase over the previous year of 1,540.
On examining it still further I found that the figures for 1956 showed an increase of 1,251 over the figures for 1955. These figures, unfortunately, show a continuous tendency to rise over the past three years. As I pointed out in my opening statement, the bulk of these offences occured in the Dublin Metropolitan District where the offences have risen to 8,750 in 1957 from 7,120 in 1956, a rise of 1,630. The figures for 1956 show an increase of 787 over those for 1955.
That is a situation which, in my opinion, calls for considerable thought. I am quite prepared to accept the fact that the Minister for Justice is responsible to this House for the preservation of law and order, but, in accepting that responsibility, I do not want Deputies to sit back in complacency after having made their criticisms in regard to the situation with which we now find ourselves confronted. This situation is the responsibility, not only of every public representative in this country but, in my opinion, is the responsibility of every organised section of the community.
We are confronted here with the situation in which we see crime of a dishonest character developing. Thanks be to God, we are not in the situation which we see in other countries in which life is held cheaply and where that type of crime is very much more in advance of anything we have in this country. However, we cannot feel that we are doing all that is possible to prevent the development of this type of crime unless we, as a people, do something about it. The organised sections of our people can, perhaps, do more through their various societies, than can the mass of the people acting independently.
It is my feeling that I should appeal to all sections of the community to combine in making it much more difficult for this type of crime to be committed than it seems to be at the present moment. I feel that the approach to the effort to bring about a reduction of crime can be started in the home. There can be no doubt that during the child's formative years is the best time to inculcate into them the right line of conduct. That can be continued when the child reaches the age at which it goes to school. When the child does go to school the teacher can co-operate to a very great extent in furthering that effort.
I would like to point out to the House that the Ten Commandments, which are the guiding rule of all Christians, are being openly ignored by the young men who are carrying out these robberies of one kind or another. The Seventh Commandment which tells us: "Thou shalt not steal" and the Tenth Commandment which tells us: "Thou shalt not covet they neighbours' goods", which every generation of our people respected as the rules which guided their life, now seem to be held in complete disregard. It is because of that complete disregard that I am making this appeal now, not only to the ordinary member of the community but also to the clergy of all denominations. I think this is a situation which we must all take note of. We must all co-operate in endeavouring to bring about some alleviation in that situation.
Deputy McGilligan, in the course of his speech, referred to this question of the increase in crime. It is unfortunately true, as I have said, that there has been a very substantial increase in crime, crime which is being committed mainly in Dublin, and in the larger towns, but not to any great extent in rural Ireland. In Dublin alone there have been over 1,000 bicycles stolen. These are being stolen, not from capitalists, but from unfortunate men who use them as a means of transporting themselves to their places of employment. Yet there are some groups here who are organised for the special purpose of stealing bicycles. The Gardaí regard the detection of that particular type of crime as the most difficult of all they are confronted with. I made an appeal, in the course of my opening speech, to the general public to take some action in respect of the protection of their own property. Some Deputies appear to think that such a suggestion should not be made, that it is the duty of the authorities to provide that protection. However, the authorities can only provide that limited type of protection that operates after the detection of a crime. Detection of crime is not a cure for crime. The only cure is its prevention. If, for instance, motorists go around parking their cars in by-ways and leaving, as we very often see, valuable property in their cars and leaving it in such a position that it is easily stolen, then I do not see how the Gardaí can be blamed in respect of the property which has been taken away.
I did also advocate that large business concerns should provide themselves with watchmen during the hours of darkness as a further means of providing protection for the valuable property that is often contained in its premises, property sometimes worth tens of thousands of pounds, and yet it is not regarded as a good economy to provide a watchman who would be always on the premises during those hours of darkness and who would be in a position to raise the alarm in the event of any attempt being made to burgle the premises.
It is desirable that motorists, cyclists, owners of business premises and concerns of that type should do everything possible to make it more difficult for these criminals to take the public's property. If they would do that I think I would be in a position, if I was here next year, to be able to say to the House that the number of indictable crimes had considerably decreased. I do not think I or any other Minister who would occupy this position would be in a position to say that so long as this looseness in regard to their own personal property exists among members of our community.
Deputy McGilligan also asked why there was a drop of 1,000 in the Garda strength. The fall of approximately 1,000 in the strength of the force over the past ten years has been made possible, first, by reduced opening hours for the smaller Garda stations. This was initiated in 1950 and was later extended. At present these stations are open only for a limited time and instead of what was happening heretofore, when an unfortunate Garda was regarded as being on duty for a period of 24 hours, they are now working nearer to the eight-hour day than they have been in the past. That is as it should be. It is true to say, as somebody said in the House, that a Garda is always regarded as being on duty. A Garda naturally will always make himself available if he is suddenly informed in the course of the night that something is happening somewhere; he will go there and do what he can to look into and examine the situation.
Deputy McGilligan also suggested that we should endeavour to simplify court procedure. As a layman I would be prepared to agree with Deputy McGilligan in what he says in regard to the simplification of the complexities of legal procedure as well as to the reduction of costs. All that sounds to me to be pure common sense and if it could be brought about I certainly would be very glad to see it done.
The same Deputy suggested something that has been voiced on a number of occasions—I am not sure whether it was to my predecessor or the predecessor of the Minister for Local Government—the possibility of imposing fines on the spot. It has been suggested that a policeman, especially with respect to motor offences, could, in the simple cases, such as parking offences, traffic offences of one kind or another, deal with the case summarily, that is, on the spot, and say to the culprit: "You are fined 5/-" and there and then give him a receipt for the 5/- and the matter would be ended. As Deputy McGilligan suggested, much of the difficulty and expense that occurs in court would be eliminated. I could, of course, see certain dangers to that. I could see possible dangers of perhaps corruption developing as a result of the adoption of a system whereby on-the-spot fines could be operated. Whether it would be a dangerous thing to adopt or not is something that would require very mature consideration.
The question of the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1957, was also raised by Deputy McGilligan. He was anxious to know why it was dealt with in the Seanad rather than in the Dáil. I think I pointed out since, that the Dáil would not assemble at that time and that we took advantage of the fact that the Seanad was meeting to bring it within what we then believed was the limited period of time within which we could have this case dealt with.
Deputy McGilligan also asked about law reform. I can tell the House that there is no let-up at all on endeavouring to provide for additional law reform. With my very limited experience in the Department, I can see that law reform will be a very slow process and unless it is dealt with by some other means than those which are operating at present, I cannot see that we will be very much further advanced by this time next year. I do know that there are a number of proposals in the Department which are nearing completion but they have to be examined by the Government before they can be submitted to the Dáil.
It did occur to me on a number of occasions when I was looking into this question that a more expeditious manner of dealing with complete law reform would be to establish some kind of semi-permanent salaried board of expert law officers with drafting qualifications, and so on, that could sit more or less semi-permanently examining the types of law that need reform. From that point of view I believe greater expendition will be ensured because Bills would be drafted much more quickly than they are at the moment since they sometimes have to take their place in a long queue in the Draftsman's office.
Deputy McGilligan also was rather worried about the situation which has arisen as a result of the judgement recently given by the Supreme Court in relation to the Solicitors Act, 1954. I met a deputation from the Incorporated Law Society recently and I gave that deputation an assurance that, as far as I was concerned, I would make every possible effort to see that the situation which had arisen as a result of that judgment would be dealt with as quickly and as efficiently as possible. There will have to be some means of dealing with the situation from the point of view of indemnifying the society if any very grave difficulties arise. The matter is under consideration and we hope to reach a decision as quickly as possible.
Deputy McGilligan also asked if I had received any reports from the Court Rule Making Committees. I have not had any reports from them. He also put forward the novel suggestion that recording machines should be provided in the courts instead of keeping to the old system of taking down evidence in longhand. He described his own experience in that connection; he said he practically suffered with the unfortunate writer taking these longhand notes for hours at a time. He suggested that machines should be installed to take such evidence. I suppose such a record could not be disputed since the actual voice of the individual concerned would be played back, but there might be difficulties in relation to interruptions and so forth, which would not be discernible on the record. I do not know how a court would regard that kind of evidence or whether a judge would be prepared to accept it.
