Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jun 1960

Vol. 182 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 23—Office of the Minister for Justice.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £73,660 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, 1961 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice including certain other services administered by that Office.

I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle and if it is agreeable to the House, to follow the practice of previous years and to deal with the Votes for which the Minister for Justice is responsible, namely Nos. 23 to 31, as a group, so that there may be one general discussion, without, of course, prejudicing the right of any Deputy to raise any particular point on a particular Vote.

Taking the group of Estimates together, they show an increase of £209,355 of which £44,190, is accounted for by the provision that has had to be made for general increases in the Civil Service remuneration. A further £113,700 is accounted for by the increase in the provision that has had to be made for police pensions. The upward trend in the latter expenditure, to which I drew attention last year, is likely to continue for some years to come as there are over 3,000 members of the Force with sufficient service to enable them to retire on pension whenever they wish. It has been found necessary to make additional provision to the extent of some £29,000 for Garda transport and to provide an extra £14,000 to cover the pay increases that have been granted to prison officers. Thus, of the £209,000 by which the group of Estimates has increased, some £200,000 is allocated to pay increases, an increase in the burden of police pensions and the extra cost of Garda transport.

As regards Vote 23, that is to say the Vote for my own Office, practically all of the amount asked for is required to meet the salaries of the staff. It will be noted that a new sub-head has been added to the Estimate in respect of a grant-in-aid of £500 for the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting which will now be administered by my Department instead of the Department of Finance as formerly. This does not involve a new charge on the Exchequer as this sum was formerly included in No. 19, Vote for Miscellaneous Expenses.

The Department of Justice is responsible for the administration and business generally of the public services in connection with law, justice, public order and police, and has besides to administer miscellaneous statutes of great importance to the public such as those which deal with adoption, aliens and citizenship, betting censorship, charitable donations, licensing laws and so on.

To begin with adoption, during the year 1959 An Bord Uchtála made 501 adoption orders, 230 in respect of boys and 271 in respect of girls, of which almost half were in Dublin City. I wish to avail myself again of this opportunity to express my appreciation of the very valuable unpaid services of the members of this Board and also of the other voluntary bodies associated with my Department, i.e., the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests, the Censorship of Films Appeal Board, the Censorship of Publications Board and the Appeal Board and Comhairle na Míre Gaile.

The number of aliens resident in the country for 3 months or more who were obliged to register with the police was 3,073 which is slightly more than in the previous year. This figure does not include British subjects, who are not classified as aliens, in pursuance of the Aliens Exemption Order, 1935. The number of aliens who visited this country during the year was close to 50,000, most of whom came for holidays or for short business visits. I should like to mention that our policy has been to facilitate the admission of foreigners with the minimum of formality consistent with immigration requirements and that paper work and physical checks at the ports are being simplified as far as possible.

As Deputies will recall, from seeing a news item in the public press a month or so ago, negotiations have been in progress for the admission to Ireland of tourists from West European countries who are in possession of a visitor's card plus a national identity card. The visitor's cards will be supplied free to applicants through travel agencies, legations, etc., etc., on the Continent and presentation of the cards to our immigration officers at the air and sea ports will obviate the necessity for having a passport and incurring costs and trouble in the procurement of same. The number of persons granted certificates of naturalisation as Irish citizens during the year was 49. The applicants were of 15 different nationalities.

With regard to film censorship, the footage of film examined at slightly over 3,800,000 feed varied little from the footage examined in each of the past few years. The number of films certified by the censor as fit in their entirety for exhibition to the public was 1,094 and an additional 196 were passed with cuts. Of 59 films rejected 21 were the subject of appeals to the Appeal Board. 15 of these appeals were rejected and six were allowed— three with cuts. These films came mainly from the U.S.A. and Britain with a sprinkling from France, Germany and Italy. Three Irish films were presented and passed for exhibition.

As to censorship of publications, the statistics for the year 1959 show that the Censorship Board examined 797 books and 82 periodicals and made 459 prohibition orders,—402 being in respect of books and 57 in respect of periodical publications. These figures include 95 prohibition orders in respect of books already prohibited under other names or editions. The numbers of applications for variation orders and revocation orders lodged with the Censorship of Publications Appeal Board were very low: there was one application for a variation order in respect of a book which was granted and there were 3 applications for revocation orders for books, 1 of which was granted; one application in respect of a periodical was rejected.

My Department is also concerned to a minor extent with the awards for deeds of bravery made by Comhairle na Míre Gaile: that body examined 47 cases of bravery during the year and made awards of 5 bronze medals and 60 certificates.

It is regrettable to have to say that during the year under review the activities of unlawful organisations have continued along the Border although not to the same degree as a couple of years ago. These activities are the work of irresponsibles and are all the more dangerous on that account. They are a source of constant concern to the Government and cannot be too strongly condemned. There have been 18 occasions on which shots were fired and explosives used in Border areas. Four members of the R.U.C. and one member of the I.R.A. were wounded, and two customs huts and a transformer station were destroyed by explosives. The only people to benefit from these criminal activities, of which the futility must be apparent to all, are the people who want Partition to remain.

No one who has the real interests of the country at heart can approve this senseless and dangerous campaign which has been condemned by responsible opinion everywhere and not least by the spokesmen of nationalist opinion across the Border. The Gardaí are under instructions to do everything possible to prevent the activities to which I have referred and the measures that have had to be taken to deal with them are costing the taxpayer a sum in the order of £370,000 per annum. It is surely deplorable that, at a time when all our efforts should be directed to increasing productivity, so much energy and money has to be expended in this way.

I should like to refer also to the question of street collections. As Deputies are aware, persons who propose to hold such collections are required, in accordance with statutory regulations, to obtain a permit from the local chief superintendent of the Garda Síochána. A permit is usually issued provided that the proposed collection is a bona fide one and that the purposes of the collection are not fraudulent or unlawful.

The regulations have been observed by all concerned with the exception of the Sinn Fein organisation, some members of which have held street collections without permits. As a result, collectors in such cases have been prosecuted and fined in the Courts, and some of them have gone to prison rather than pay their fines. Sinn Fein representatives are aware that permits for collections for lawful purposes will be issued if they apply for them. I made a public statement to this effect on the 7th March last. Their refusal to apply is obviously intended as a rejection of the authority of the Government.

I need hardly say that this will not be tolerated and, as I have already indicated in my public statement, the question of strengthening the law in this regard has been under consideration.

I shall conclude this reference to the activities directly associated with my own office by adding that among the many miscellaneous matters of importance which received attention during 1959 were the formulation of proposals for legislation relative to the Courts of Justice, rent control, penal reform, charities and intoxicating liquor.

The next Estimate, No. 24, is for £5,275,610 for the Garda Síochána. This Estimate, as it stands, makes no provision for the pay increases granted recently to members of the Garda Síochána as a result of the acceptance by the Government of the findings of the Chairman of the Garda Síochána Arbitration Board. The Report of the Arbitration Board was not furnished until April this year, some weeks after the Estimates Volume had been printed. The pay increases which have been approved will cost about £450,000 a year, and it will be necessary for me to submit a Supplementary Estimate in due course to cover the additional expenditure involved.

The present Estimate is greater by £148,640 than the Estimate for 1959/60 and, as I have already stated, this is in the main due to the increase which has to be made in the provision for expenditure on Garda pensions and retirement gratuities. As the bulk of the present Force was recruited more than thirty years ago, the position now is that between 45 and 50 per cent. of the Garda Síochána have reached the minimum age for retirement on pension, while large numbers are approaching the age of compulsory retirement. It is inevitable that the cost of pensions and gratuities will be an increasing charge for several years to come. Other increases in the Estimate follow from adoption of the policy of making greater use of mechanical and scientific aids in the prevention and detection of crime.

It is proposed to develop further the mobile patrol system by the addition this year of 35 motor cycles to the Garda fleet, and it is also intended to equip at least another 30 police cars with 2-way radio sets which will operate in the Dublin and Cork county boroughs. Provision for these items is made in sub-heads H and N of the Estimate. Consideration has also been given to a reorganisation of the Force in Dublin, and I hope that by this time next year much progress will have been made.

Some of the sub-heads show a decrease as compared with last year's Estimate, the most substantial being that of £14,323 in sub-head B. This decrease does not mean that there has been a reduction in the rate of allowances payable to the Gardaí. It is due to the fact that the payments to be made this year, in respect of allowances claimed weekly, fall within a 52-week period whereas last year the payments covered 53 weeks. For this reason, too, the increased provision in this year's Estimate for pay is only £6,696 despite having to provide for the normal increases flowing from the grant of increments as well as for the pay of a greater number of personnel.

At the beginning of the 1959/60 financial year the strength of the Force, all ranks, was 6,493. It was estimated that during the year the wastage from retirements, resignations and deaths would be 430 and provision was made for an intake of male recruits approximating to this number as well as for the appointment of 18 women. In the event, however, the total wastage was only 358 but, because of the necessity which arose during the year to provide extra police for duty in Dublin and on the Border it was not possible to make a corresponding adjustment in intake and the position at the beginning of the present financial year was that the overall strength was 6,586. This figure is, however, 900 less than it was in 1950.

Since I spoke here on last year's Estimate, a noteworthy innovation has been the appearance on duty in the streets of Dublin of the first batch of Ban-Ghardaí. I am gratified at the favourable impression which these ladies seem to have made on the public generally and I think we can look forward with confidence to the useful part they will play as members of the Force. I hope that in due course it will be possible to have some of the other cities allotted their quota of Ban-Ghardaí.

During the present financial year about 200 male members will be leaving the Force on age grounds and taking account of the normal trend in losses from voluntary resignations and retirements, deaths, and so on, it is expected that wastage from all causes during the year will be 450. Provision has been made accordingly for such recruitment, including 25 women, as may be necessary within the limit of 450 to keep the Force at an effective strength.

I have already mentioned that it was found necessary during the past year to augment the personnel in the Dublin Metropolitan Division the strength of which in April, 1960, was 1,719, as compared with 1,661 in April, 1959. This step was necessary to deal with the crime problem in the city.

Now I come to the important subject of the prevalence of crime in the country as a whole. The information which I am about to give in this respect relates to the year ended 30th September, 1959, returns for which have just been compiled. I regret to have no better news to give the House than that the upward trend, to which I referred last year and which has been going on since 1955, still continues. The figures are the highest ever recorded for all classes of indictable crime, the total for the year being 17,865 as compared with 16,567 in 1958.

The pattern of the increase continues to be the same: the bulk of the crimes were in respect of the larceny and destruction of property, the number of persons convicted was up by more than 10 per cent. and they were, for the greater part, under 21 years of age. I am glad to be able to say, however, that according to figures which have been compiled for the six months ending on 31st March, 1960, there has been a drop of about 17 per cent. in the number of indictable crimes recorded in Dublin, excluding bicycle thefts for which figures are not available yet, over the figure for the corresponding period in 1959.

I now turn briefly to summary offences. Here the figures relate to the number of persons prosecuted and not to the number of offences committed, since, of course, as we all know there are numerous trivial offences, particularly against the road traffic code, which never appear in police statistics. During the year the number of prosecutions was 88,819, as compared with 82,876 in 1958. The number of fatal accidents which occurred in 1959 was 300, while there were a further 3,284 accidents resulting in personal injury. The number of persons killed was 306 and the number injured was 4,489.

Compared with 1958 the number of fatal accidents showed an increase of 38, but the number of non-fatal accidents declined by 59. The numbers of accidents, both fatal and non-fatal, and the numbers killed or injured in 1957, 1958 and 1959 were substantially below those for 1955 and 1956. In addition to the accidents resulting in death or injury, there were 3,066 accidents reported in 1959 which involved material damage only. This number compares with 3,621 for 1958, 3,401 for 1957 and 4,201 for 1956.

As Deputies know, crime in this country is to a large extent a Dublin problem. It is there that most serious crime occurs, and I mentioned in the House more than once in the course of the last year that the position was causing me serious concern.

I do not want to exaggerate the position. The crime situation in Dublin was at no time as bad as some of the newspaper publicity we had at times during the year would lead one to believe, and I would like to recall that in reply to Questions in the House last November, I was able to assure Deputies first of all that, contrary to some reports, there had been no increase in crimes of violence such as assaults or woundings, and secondly the Gardaí had been practically 100 per cent. successful in being able to effect arrests in the cases that did occur.

Nevertheless, as I have said, the actual position in Dublin was such that I was gravely concerned and I decided that further measures were necessary to strengthen the hand of the Garda Síochána. We, therefore, increased the strength of the Force in the city, especially the strength of the detective units. The efficiency of communications and patrols was improved by the provision of additional equipment, and an additional twelve motor-cycles equipped with radio were provided for operation on a round-the-clock basis to provide speedy attention in the case of crimes of violence and, of course, other crimes as well.

It may be premature of me to say that already these measures seem to have paid off, but at any rate there is encouragement in the very latest figures that I have obtained from the Gardaí, and which I mentioned earlier. As I told Deputies, the figures for Dublin for the six months ending 31st March of this year show a drop of 17 per cent. as compared with the corresponding period last year. I hope that this may be the turn of the tide.

In previous years I have mentioned the importance of ensuring that unattended property, particularly bicycles, is kept locked. May I once again appeal for greater care in this matter? The person who leaves an unattended bicycle without a lock is asking for trouble, and while the Gardaí do all they can, as indeed is their duty, in these cases, we must face the unpleasant fact that of all crimes bicycle stealing is one of the most difficult in which to make a detection.

This year, I wish to refer to another matter as well, and that is the question of the co-operation of the citizens with the Garda Síochána both in the way of being generally helpful to them when discharging their duties and of rendering active assistance should they be in danger of being overpowered by violence. It is plain that we still have not moved sufficiently with the times in this particular respect and it is lamentable to read in the newspapers from time to time of lone members being assailed by criminals whom they are attempting to arrest and receiving no assistance from law-abiding citizens in the vicinity. It is no less true that in non-violent situations members of the public are reluctant to give the Gardaí all the assistance they can. I take this occasion to appeal for an awakening of conscience and the greater exercise of moral courage towards giving the Gardaí the help which they need and deserve.

The Estimate for Prisons at £218,960, shows an increase of £32,380, but as there was a Supplementary Estimate passed in March for a sum of £13,130, the net increase over 1959/60 is £19,250. The increase is attributable mainly to pay increases granted to prison officers in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration, and also an increase in the number of prisoners who have to be maintained.

The increase in prison population to which I referred last year has continued and provision is being made on the basis of a daily average of 485 prisoners, as compared with last year's estimate of 385 prisoners. The increase reflects the present abnormally high level of crime but the daily average prison population is still below what it was in the early 1950's when the crime figures were lower.

Votes 26, 27 and 28 relate to the expenses of the Courts of Justice and to the salaries of the clerical staff. The increases in all of these Estimates are caused for the greater part by the general increases in remuneration. In the case of the District Court considerable attention is being given to the reduction in the number of districts in order to effect a reduction in the number of justices. During 1959 a Cabinet Committee scrutinised proposals which have been evolved in my Department for the practical arrangements for the settling of proposed new districts and indicated further lines of possible economy. The matter is being actively attended to and I hope that before the end of the financial year the Order to reduce the number of districts will have been made.

In the meantime in anticipation of economies which will be achieved in the number of justices, some of the vacancies occurring for justices are filled by temporary rather than permanent appointments. This is for the time being the cause of an increase in the Estimate for the District Court because the salaries of temporary justices are borne on the Estimate and a sum of £4,500 has had to be provided there which will be no longer required when the reduction in the number of districts has been effected.

I am glad to be able to report that the reduction in the number of the circuits of the Circuit Court from nine to eight to which I referred last year has now been effected, through which an economy equal to the salary of one judge will be possible on the occurring of the first vacancy among the Circuit Judges.

There is nothing to which I need specially refer in the case of the Estimate for the Supreme and High Courts. It remains substantially the same as last year.

On Vote 29, for the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, I wish to say that both of these Offices are functioning satisfactorily and are up to date in their work. In the case of the Land Registry we are faced with the necessity of renewing the greater part of the stock of maps which after years of service have become badly worn. This has meant an addition this year of five extra staff. This is, however, unavoidable as we never in the past employed staff or had the need to do so for this purpose.

I now come to the last of the Estimates for which I am responsible, those for the Public Record Office and for Charitable Donations and Bequests. There is nothing which calls for any particular comment from me in relation to either of these Offices, and I am glad to be able to say that they are functioning regularly and satisfactorily.

I move:—

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

Just as a brief introduction to what I propose to say later in more detail, I should state that the Minister has a very unenviable task. Year by year, for some years back, he has come in here with the same rather dreary records of increases that have to be borne by the taxpayer, and that is due to the cost of living figure over which the Minister has no direct control apart from being a colleague of those who form the Government. The second dreary record is that the amount of crime is at least still continuing to show an upward increase. He has expressed the hope that something which has happened in the last two or three months may indicate a reversal of that trend, but up to date the figures are alarming. In his own phrase, the statistics of crime are the highest ever recorded and he is now making arrangements to cater for an average daily number of prisoners, 100 more than the average daily number catered for last year.

Those are two startling facts that emerge from the Minister's statement and he does not offer any solution, nor does he indicate that any proposals with regard to an even better examination of the situation in the country will be made, which might lead to some lessening of the crime figures. There is a general belief—I do not know if it can be very closely related in a statistical way—that there is some sort of proportion between unemployment and/or poverty and crime. It may be that there is in a sense a solution, or something approaching to a solution, in respect of unemployment, but it is not a solution that people out of work here would easily accept. That is the solution of emigration, but it would mean in any event that there would be fewer idle people on our streets to be tempted by the chance they get for what they may think is a lucrative experience in crime.

Salaries are increased and it is proper that they should be. These increases have not merely been in the salaries of staff in the Civil Service, in the Minister's own Department, but in the salaries of Guards and warders and all who come under his office. Most of the increases are called for by the upward tendency in the cost of living, and I mean cost of living, not the cost of living figure. They are two different things and, in so far as these increases have been granted, they are warranted by the depreciation in the value of money, which is still going on steadily, but they impose an additional burden which the taxpayer has to carry.

The Minister's statistics with regard to aliens always cause me a surprise. He records that the number of aliens resident in the country for three months and more who are obliged to register with the police is a little over 3,000. There is, however, a great feeling in the countryside that there are far more aliens, and one would simply take it by personal observation that there appear to be more than are recorded. I do not know if there is anything in that, when the Minister speaks of people resident in this country for three months or more and who are obliged to register with the police. Does he mean that this refers only to a limited group or does he mean people who come in here for a brief period and not foreigners who are resident for an appreciable time?

I do not know how the statistics are collected but I know there is a certain amount of surprise when the figures are mentioned in conversation. The Minister's statement that the policy has been to facilitate the admission of foreigners with a minimum of formality is welcome, but I would ask again if, in this connection, he means foreigners who come here on holidays and not those who come to take up occupations. I feel the Minister is talking about people who come here for brief stays and not those who come to work. If the former, we are only coming into line with what countries throughout the world are doing in relaxing regulations for the admission of other races.

Under the heading Censorship of Publications comes a matter that has given rise to a great deal of controversy in this country. It is rather welcome to find that one gentleman who resides in this part of the country decided that when he wanted to peddle a little trash here that it was not worth his while and that he would get his money easier elsewhere. So he took his wares to the Six-County area to see what money he could get there. It is satisfactory to find that things were made difficult for him here and the fact that he had to go elsewhere is a good advertisement for our censorship.

I have been sent by many of my constituents copies of cheap, not terribly gross, magazines. They are not very attractive, but they still enjoy a rather big sale in Dublin. One of them is called "The Weekend" and others go by this, that and the other name. The only attraction that can be found in this cheap type of paper is of a sex kind, and it is to be regretted that the Censorship Board has refused to make any order because, they say, they are not bad enough. But when these things get grosser and grosser and a second application is still turned down I do not think it is good enough.

I wonder if the Minister could-discover—and let us know—the standard by which the Censorship Board are guided in this connection? What standard do they adopt when they say that these documents are not gross enough? It seems to me that it is time the standards of the Board were changed in order to cover such papers. I do not know whether the Board are in a special condition in this regard, but I know they are open to a certain amount of comment. The type of magazine I speak of is clearly intended to attract young people, adolescent or just adult.

Unlawful activities get a brief mention from the Minister. I do not know whether it is a fact that the Garda have been given stricter instructions in respect of those organisations with a view to tightening up controls on this side of the Border. For a time there was a lull in those activities but they are flaring up again now, and a tightening up on the part of the Garda in this part of the country is very welcome. I wondered at the cost to us of trying to prevent these activities, which is in the region of £370,000 a year. Is it not a terrible waste and a great pity, at a time when there are so many good things which require promotion in this part of the country, that this money has to be spent?

Under the heading of Permits for Street Collections, the Minister says that the question of strengthening the law has been under consideration. Does that mean the consideration given to it has ended without any effort being made to strengthen the law? The Minister makes reference to legislative proposals to make the position more difficult for people who use such permits for fraudulent or unlawful purposes. I do not know what "fraud" in this connection means. If it means that people collect money for arms and ammunition under the guise of providing funds for dependent families, I say it is then clear fraud. But if such collections are bona fide for dependants of these irresponsible people I think efforts to stop them have gone a bit far. Everybody will welcome legislation to stop the provision of money for arms and ammunition, but nobody would disagree with the collection of funds for dependants who are suffering hardships.

The Minister made mention of legislative proposals for Courts of Justice, Rent Collection, Penal Reform and Intoxicating Liquor. We have had so much mention in the House recently of the last mentioned item that I do not propose to refer to it again. With regard to Charities, however, I do not know what is impeding the introduction of legislation. Three and a half or four years ago there was quite a substantial piece of legislation formulated with regard to charity. There was only one important matter outstanding—the difficulty of finding a definition of "charity"—but surely inside of three and a half years it should have been possible to advance that matter. The legislation was well prepared over three years ago and I do not see what is stopping its introduction.

With regard to the Courts of Justice, I have already mentioned— two years ago, in fact—one thing that might help in that respect. Under the 1936 Act arrangements were made to set up four separate Rule-Making Committees. There was a Superior Court Committee, Circuit Court Committee and another committee for the District Court. There was also a Rule-Making Committee to deal with local registrations of title. These committees are manned by very eminent people—the Chief Justice presides at one, aided by the President of the High Court and there are members of both sides of the profession, Circuit Judges, District Court Justices and local Registrars, on them. They were ordered to have a meeting at least once a year. The date of such meetings was to be determined by the respective chairmen of the committees.

As soon as a meeting had been called, each Committee was to send in to the Minister a report relating to the practice, procedure and administration of whatever was the work the committee had to do. They were also to send in proposals for amendment if they thought amendment was required in the law affecting the special courts to which they were attached. I asked in 1938 with regard to these committees how many reports had been received and whether the Minister could give me an indication of what amendments of the law had been sought and the very short answer was that he had received no reports from any of these committees.

That law is 24 years old and there were four separate committees each required to produce a report by the Administration on whatever area of court work with which they dealt, to suggest amendments to the law and they were given power, of course, to make rules, such as the rules regarding fees that were to be charged, but apparently, over the 24 years not a single one of these committees ever reported. If I multiply the 24 years by the four groups of committees there have been 96 breaches of the duties imposed upon these people by the Courts of Justice Act of 1936. Surely that is something the Minister should attend to. I thought when in 1938 I referred to the matter and got a brief answer from him that no reports had been received up to that, he might have called the attention of the four groups to the fact that they were bound to send in reports.

This is not a mere formality. A case, which has attracted considerable attention in the country and has been the subject-matter of certain comments here, has raised very serious doubts in people's minds with regard to the administration of the courts. In the recent case it affected the liberty of an individual. The situation in the end was this: three judges of the High Court—and those three judges included the President of the High Court who is, of course, ex officio an additional member of the Supreme Court— reported in a way which meant that the detention of a particular individual whose detention was the subject-matter of the inquiry would have been continued but the Supreme Court reversed that by a three-two majority.

When in 1936 the number of the Supreme Court was raised from three members to five members one of the arguments used in this House to justify that enlargement of the Supreme Court was that it should never, or scarcely ever, happen that we would have a number of judges in favour of a particular procedure but that the final judgment given by the Supreme Court—although they would be fewer in number than the other group—would count. That is the exact situation that has happened at this time. Three judges of the Supreme Court are in favour of one course and two judges are in favour of another course and the minority in the Supreme Court is backed by the full three judges in the High Court who heard the case; so that the situation is that five judges dealing with this matter decided in a way that meant the continued detention of an individual. They decided against him.

I do not know—the judgments have not been reported yet except in the newspapers and the full details are not available—but it does look as if a considerable amount of difficulty has been caused in that matter by the fact that the rules and regulations are so confused that it is very hard to steer a correct path. That, I think, is a matter that the judges or committees should have attended to—the committees are only partly made up of judges.

Certainly, a situation has developed here in which—even in regard to the method of transferring a person, getting him arraigned, brought before the court, the possibility of his being sent to jail, and deciding what warrant is the right one—there is a good deal of confusion. Surely that would be the type of matter to which the Oireachtas in 1936 thought proper the judges should advert and be asked to report on from time to time, from year to year, as to what amendment of the law they thought was required in whatever was the area of court work to which their attention was directed. I am advised that a change in the rules, and certainly a change in certain regulations which could be effected by some of these committees, could have cleared up many of the difficulties which have been brought to public view in this recent spectacular case.

I should like to feel that the attention of the various rule-making committees would be directed to these things. The phrases I have used here bring in quotations from the 1936 Act. I know that the 1936 Act had certain amendments. There were certain amendments, say, changes of personnel in some of these committees, but, as far as I am aware, the power, the duty to make reports on these important matters is still imposed on them, and I feel that the Minister might quite easily direct the attention of the various chairmen—I do not know who the individuals would be, but there is a chairman of each committee—to the fact that they are supposed to report each year as to what alterations in law are required to obviate a recurrence of what happened here so recently.

The Minister spoke about proposals for legislation that have been brought before him. I understand that there is still, so to speak, a law reform section in his Department and either two years ago or last year the Minister promised that he would bring forward some of the proposals that would be considered, that he would get them into final shape so that they would emerge here in the form of legislation. Recently, he got attached to himself a Parliamentary Secretary whose appointment has been justified by the amount of legislation with which the Department is dealing. I wonder would he ever stir up those in his Department who did not need any stirring up so far as I was aware at one time? Possibly, if given a little more encouragement, they might attempt to deal with some of these matters that are causing a good deal of confusion in court work.

There have been many proposals suggested with regard to reform. There are quite a number of things that are causing our practice and procedure to fall very far behind the more effective practice in England in certain matters. There is great delay in bringing in proposals to put us even in line with proposals now operating for some years in England, particularly in this whole matter of contributory negligence. It is amazing that, in these days of motor cars and high-speed vehicles of all types, we are still, as far as contributory negligence law is concerned, depending on the case of the hobbled donkey on the roadside, the Davies-Mann case. Many cases have come back and forward between the High Court and the Supreme Court and I doubt—I said this before—if very many judges would say if they are completely sure as to what the exact situation is in the circumstances in connection with contributory negligence.

Proposals have been ventilated by members of this Party in a private piece of legislation where at least this simplification of the procedure could be achieved, that those contributions by way of payment of damages for injuries should be related to the contribution to the negligence and that the law should not be as it still is here, where as an all-out business, the plaintiff wins and the defendant loses or else the defendant wins, by balancing off the negligence in a particular way. This has been dealt with on the other side and I do not know that there is any practitioner who would not be glad to see that system introduced here. Proposals have been put in legal form and they only require somebody to look at them in order to set about rectifying the matter.

Two other matters have been referred to. One is the question of contracts under the Statute of Frauds. There possibly was a time when to prevent fraud there was a necessity to have writing of a particular type in connection with certain contracts but it is quite well recognised nowadays that a statute of frauds causes more fraud than it guards against. Quite a lot of amendments have been made in countries where the Statute of Frauds is of that type, and the results have been satisfactory.

The other fact which certainly causes a good deal of comment, particularly amongst strangers who come to this Republic of ours, is that we still hold fast to the idea that the State is not liable in many respects. There is, of course, a State liability in connection with road accidents due to the use of mechanically propelled vehicles, particularly in regard to fatal injuries, and there is a State liability in connection with matters that would arise under the Workmen's Compensation code. However, apart from that, the amazing thing is that we still hold fast to this old-time Crown prerogative that where a member of the public has been injured by some servant of a member of the Government, he can sue only the servant and not the Minister. A simple change is all that is involved there, so that the Minister, not in his personal capacity but in his official capacity, could assume liability. There are a number of other matters but I simply mention these, and I urge the Minister to give freer rein to that section of the Department which is looking after law reform so that we can get those reforms that the practitioners and, I am sure, the public desire.

The Minister in the latter part of his speech talked about injuries on the roads. There has been a good deal of newspaper writing on this matter and I was hoping we would have had the proposals from the Department dealing with road traffic so that we could find out how much attention was being paid to the causes of accidents on the roads. In order to clear up what I know to be public confusion in regard to this whole matter, I wonder would the Minister be able to give the statistics covering certain things?

In the year 1948 there was a decision given in our courts in a case known as that of the Attorney General against a man called Dunleavy which is reported in the 1948 reports and probably occurred the year before or probably earlier that year. In that case a very high standard of negligence was laid down as being required in, say, a manslaughter case. That case meant that it was next door to impossible to get a conviction arising out of death on the road through the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle. I do not say it was entirely impossible because there has been a conviction recorded in the last couple of months, but they have been very rare.

It would help if the Minister would supply statistics along the following lines. Let me take the year 1948 as the starting point; I think that meant a change. Could the Minister let us have statistics as to the number of people who were killed in accidents where the cause of the accident could be related to the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle and, year by year, show the numbers killed on the road in that way? He could then show how many cases were sent for investigation. In quite a number of cases where there is a death on the road the matter never goes beyond the Attorney General's Department because he rules there is no case to answer. I should like to have the break-down in cases of death: how many of those were sent for public investigation, say, in the district court? In how many cases, of those sent to the district court, would the district court send a person forward for trial? Then we could have the calculation as to the number of cases in which, when the matter did come before the higher court, the judge ruled there was no case for the accused person to answer. Finally, in how many cases was there a conviction recorded?

It will be found that very few convictions indeed have been recorded. The Minister might just add to the group of statistics about which I am asking and have a look back beyond the year 1948, making the one simple test: how many convictions were recorded in cases where death had been caused by the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle on the road, and give us some line of comparison between the present situation brought about by the Dunleavy decision and the freer activity, so to speak, juries found themselves able to indulge in before the standard of negligence was so very seriously changed by the Dunleavy case.

The Minister has told us recently that he hopes to be in a position soon to reintroduce the legislation relating to solicitors. I think it was he, or possibly the Taoiseach, who said that there had already been consultations with the members of the profession, that is, the solicitors, in this matter. If the legislation is to come in soon we can exercise patience a little longer but if it is not—and I understand there are difficulties still in the way—will the Minister tell us what are the difficulties which are preventing the introduction of this new part of a Solicitors Act which will give some power or control over errant solicitors?

There are also two pieces of legislation which have appeared day by day on the order paper since 22nd July, 1959. One is called the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Bill, 1959, and the other which is in double harness with it is the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Bill, 1959. The title of the first one runs this way: "a Bill entitled an Act to establish, in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Court and Courts to be called respectively the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Circuit Court and the District Court, to specify the constitution of those Courts, to provide for the vacation of judicial offices and the filling of vacanies therein, and, in pursuance of Article 58 of the Constitution, to disestablish the several Courts of Justice mentioned in that Article and to abolish the offices of the judges and justices thereof." What is the constitutional or other difficulty which has stopped the progress of these two pieces of legislation? They were reached in July last year which meant they would mark time until the long holiday was over, but we went on to Christmas, we have passed Easter and there is not a move with regard to these two measures.

Article 58 is one of the translated provisions of the Constitution, which one no longer finds, of course, in a modern edition of the Constitution because, by an Article of the Constitution itself, certain parts were to be dropped after the expiration of a certain period. Article 58 simply said that "On and after the coming into operation of this Constitution and until otherwise determined by law"—the various Courts are mentioned—"... in existence immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution relating to the determination of questions as to the validity of any law, continue to exercise the same jurisdictions respectively as theretofore, and any judge or justice being a member of any such Court shall, subject to compliance with the subsequent provisions of this Article, continue to be a member thereof..."

It is rather an absurd situation that here in the year 1960 we are still carrying on with the judges appointed and the Courts established under the Constitution of 1922. There has been no move to establish the new Courts. I understand from a reply given to a question from this side of the House that there is some hope that this legislation may soon see the light of day. We shall be able to get down to discussing it then. Meanwhile, could the Minister satisfy public curiosity at the moment by simply indicating what the position is? I presume it will have to be indicated quite soon anyway. I do not know what the difficulty is.

I do not know whether it is thought that brooding on it will make any improvement. If there is a difficulty it has to be faced even if it means some change in or some distortion of the Constitution. But we might as well face it and the public particularly, I think, would like to know what is the impediment to the establishment of the new Courts under the Constitution of 1937 instead of carrying on, as we have been doing for so many years, under the earlier Constitution.

There is one other piece of information I should like to get. Under Article 28 of the Constitution, subsection 3 of Section 3 there is provision made for the declaration of a state of emergency. Now, when a national emergency is declared, that constitutes a time of war or armed rebellion and, under Article 28, subsection 3 of Section 3, when there is a time of war, the situation that develops is that nothing in the Constitution "shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in pursuance of any such law." A time of war, then, when that period develops, becomes operative when there is a Resolution passed that a national emergency exists.

This House passed such a Resolution in September, 1939, and the period of time of war includes such time after the termination of any war or any such armed conflict or armed rebellion as may elapse until each House of the Oirechtas "shall have resolved that the national emergency occasioned by such war, armed conflict, or armed rebellion has ceased to exist." We have not passed the second Resolution. We are still in a time of war as far as the Constitutional position is concerned. Would the Minister tell me is it proposed to introduce the Resolution bringing the national emergency to a conclusion and, if not, why not? Is it possible that the Constitution ties the State to such an extent that we cannot live with the Constitution? We can live only in circumstances in which we can put the Constitution aside because, while the national emergency lasts, all that has to be done is to pass legislation expressed to be for a certain purpose. One does not, of course, inquire into that; the legislation has to be expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done under any such legislation.

It is not easy to explain to people, particularly legal people, who come visiting here why we have preserved the national emergency so long. In the end one is driven to the conclusion that this country, as I say, does not find it easy to live under a Constitution. Remember since the State emerged in 1922, we have never lived under constitutional conditions. The 1922 Constitution was for a certain number of years capable of being changed by ordinary legislation. There was no question of a referendum, or anything like that. During that time the period was enlarged from seven years to 14 years so that, as far as the 1922 Constitution was concerned, when the new Constitution came along, we were still in the position that changes could be made in relation to anything—constitutional rights, guarantees, or anything else—by an ordinary piece of legislation passed here.

Then came the 1937 Constitution. It was open to easy amendment for a brief period of years, a couple of years. Inside that couple of years we passed the national emergency Resolution and, under that, as I say, while I do not say it completely puts the Constitution into abeyance, it leaves the way open for the Constitution simply to be put aside. From 1922 to 1960, therefore, we have avoided living in a situation in which the Constitution is really a force in the land. It can be put aside at any time. That is still the position. Why we should avoid resolving that the national emergency has ceased to exist, I do not know. I do know that the administration of certain matters was made easier by the fact that the national emergency still persisted but the advice I was given, when I questioned certain things, was that it would be quite easy by a simple procedure of legislation to make new provisions with regard to certain difficulties that might arise. Simply to avoid resolving the position in order to make for better ease of administration in respect of a small number of matters, seems absurd; it seems absurd to have a situation prevail where, in theory certainly, the Constitution can be put aside by the passage of a piece of legislation.

It may not be a matter for the Minister. It may be a matter for the Head of the Government and for other Departments which might have experienced difficulty in carrying on under a rigid constitutional system, but the Minister will have collective responsibility in any event with his colleagues in a matter like this and he could at least enlighten us as to why the national emergency has been so prolonged and he could also inform us as to when it is likely a negativing Resolution will be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Minister has spoken of the aids that he is seeking in order to have crime detected and crime prevented. I am delighted personally— I have always been in favour of the proposals—to hear that it is proposed to develop further the mobile patrol system and that a certain number of extra police will be equipped with radio sets, as well as transport to take them about. What the general phrase as to the "reorganisation of the Force in Dublin" means I do not know, but, perhaps, the Minister would enlighten us generally, apart altogether from the mobile patrol and the radio sets, as to what else is involved in or covered by this phrase "reorganisation of the Force". The Force still appears to be 900 fewer than in 1950. I gather that the Minister is satisfied that the reduction in personnel is not in any way contributing to the increase in crime.

It is simply dreadful at this point of time to have the Minister still announcing that he has no better information to give than that the upward trend in crime, continuing since 1950, still goes on, followed with the highest ever recorded figure, and the amazing statistic that we are preparing to house an average daily number of 485 prisoners, a figure which represents 100 prisoners more than we were prepared to house last year. That provision has been made and that looks as if the Minister, notwithstanding his phrase about the turn of the tide possibly having come, is preparing at least to have more prisoners under his control.

The number of summary offences is still very high and the Minister says that many trivial offences, particularly under the Road Traffic Act, never appear in the police statistics. I do hope that some effort will be made to avoid the waste of time by Gardaí and other expenses which are involved in these small offences. There were suggestions made that the Minister's colleague should have decisions made on the spot by which a person could avoid the trouble and expense of going to court and the subsequent expense and trouble on the authorities.

I have spoken of the system that prevails in England under the Magistrates Courts Act, where many of these trivial offences are kept out of the courts altogether. They are still open to court procedure if a person wishes to fight it. There is no question of a person being convicted or fined on the spot by a member of the Garda. He would be warned that an offence had been committed and, if he liked to accept that, he could pay the maximum fine fixed by the law. There would then be no trouble or expense in bringing him into court, a businessman would not lose his day in court or a young person lose his pay. I understand that there is considerable trouble and travelling imposed on Gardaí in collecting even a small fine imposed for a trivial offence.

The Minister has told us that the number of deaths by road accidents is still very high—306 deaths and 4,489 people injured. I do not think that it is treating the public fairly for the Minister to set down these statistics and leave the matter there. There must be some break-down in his Department, some inquiry as to what caused all those road deaths. A conception has grown up that the greater number of these road accidents are due to drunken driving. I understand that is not the case. There is also the public misconception that a large number of road deaths and accidents are due to youthful rather than experienced drivers. I again understand that such is not the case. It is the experienced motorist who will take a chance that the inexperienced driver will not take that causes most of these accidents. There must be some statistical break-down in the Department of the number of these deaths to show us what the position is.

The Minister should have statistics as to the dangerous parts of the country. I know that there are certain dangerous places on the roads in Dublin and we repeatedly hear a Justice remarking in a case that such-and-such a place is a well-known death trap. I am speaking only of the accidents caused by such places in Dublin but there must be such cases all over the country, places which are dangerous because of the camber of a road, or a turn or bad lighting at night. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the number of persons killed are so many. There should be some effort to break down the figures so that we might know the causes of these accidents and that some approach might be made to a cure for this horrible slaughter on the roads.

When the Minister makes the welcome statement that he is happy that there has been no increase in crimes of violence he goes on to add that the Gardaí have been practically 100 per cent. successful in dealing with such crimes. I presume that that reference only applies to crimes of violence. They are certainly not 100 per cent. successful in dealing with crime generally in the country. The Minister used to give us the figure for the number of crimes reported, the number of arrests made and the number of convictions but he has dropped that this year. I should like to know in what number of cases arrests were made and how many of these arrests were followed by convictions.

That the detective force is to be increased in strength is another welcome statement made by the Minister. Then he goes on to this very amazing and very dangerous matter of assaults made on members of the Garda and he spoke of the lack of assistance given by the public insomuch that, in some cases, members of the public did not come to the assistance of Gardaí who were being assaulted or actually went against the Gardaí. That is a very surprising thing. We had got away from the feeling in this country that the police were regarded as the arm of a foreign power. When the State was established and our own people became the police they enjoyed considerable popularity and they still do.

Yet we have this dreadful situation where citizens actually move away from a place where the police are engaged in trying to arrest somebody or else they actually go to assist the marauder. It must be known that there are bad patches in this city where such things have happened. We are not alone in having bad patches in our city. There was a time when certain areas of Edinburgh had an evil reputation and there are bad spots in London. In such bad spots it was never the system to have a lone member of the police force on duty. They generally went in twos or threes or there might be a pair in front followed by another pair.

There must be a certain amount of information among the Garda as to where these bad spots are in the city. It would not need very much extra strength to ensure that a Garda would never have to go into such places alone. I think that doing that is asking for trouble and even the presence of a second man who can keep his eyes open while the first man is dealing with the criminal would be a deterrent. I would ask the Minister to see that where these assaults have taken place and in these notably bad areas Gardaí would have the protection of one another's presence.

The Minister also spoke of some of the efforts made to modernise court procedures. I spoke of this two years ago and again last year. The district courts are heavily crowded with work. If a serious criminal case comes on in which depositions have to be taken, and if the old time system of the manuscript deposition is still adhered to, there is a terrible waste of time. It is a dreadful thing to have to sit through while the clerk is taking down the evidence in longhand and a justice sometimes helps him. All that has to be read over to whoever is the accused person. Of course, there will be a possibility of cross-examination by his advisers. That has to be read over and signed.

At my request one of the Judges of our Courts tried out the system of recorders. That was done five or six years ago when these recorders were nothing like as efficient as they are now. His report to me—I think he made a formal report to the Department—was that on an experiment he saw no reason why the system of wire or tape recorders should not be introduced into quite a number of our courts. There would have to be a certain expertise in the use of these things because when a person was speaking a Judge, counsel or a solicitor might interrupt and there would have to be some way of indicating where the break occurred. But this could easily be done.

Certainly the Judge who tried the matter out at my request said he was quite satisfied that this procedure for recording evidence could easily be adopted. It possibly would not do for all our courts. In cases of trial before a jury, where evidence has to be taken down because there may be an appeal later, it might not be satisfactory; but on the Chancery side and also in the preliminary investigation side of criminal cases I do not see why very good use could not be made of recorders, a use that would extend over a considerable part of the proceedings and which, if it were adopted, would help to shorten the interminable length of some of these proceedings.

Incidental to that I make the remark that in this case, which has drawn so much public attention, 63 days of the district court's time were taken up last year. Now the matter has to be repeated again, although in somewhat reduced form. However, it is estimated, according to the statement of Counsel appearing for the State, that 50 days of the district court's time will be occupied by this case. Of course, it is a phenomenal case outside the ordinary run of cases, but it makes one wonder what happened in the district court last year and what will happen in the district court this year if 63 days of some district justice's time were taken up with one case last year and if 50 days are to be occupied again this year. Is the rest of the work running into arrears or what is happening to it? If there is any way in which the justices are making efforts to catch up on arrears that otherwise might be caused by one case lasting so long, one might find out what are they doing and let that be done in other cases.

There are other ways in which Court procedure could be modified so as to get issues brought before the Courts in a better way or decisions more easily recorded. I referred to these previously when speaking on the Estimate in 1958. I would ask the Minister to look at that again. When replying in 1958 he was complimentary enough to say that a lot of valuable suggestions had been made and that he would get them examined. Certainly in 1959 he never gave the results of any examination of any of these things. I do not mean results in the sense of conclusions come to and proposals made. I want to know only if that consideration has gone on and if any effort is being made at all to get court practice and procedure here brought more abreast of modern conditions.

This brings me back again to the point of these four committees. The legislation passed in 1936 was not a formality. The background to it clearly was that some improvement in the court procedure and practice, perhaps requiring legislation, would have to be contemplated. It was hoped that these four committees would report from time to time as to what amendments they thought proper. These committees were built up in an expert way. You had people from the judiciary side, people from the pleading side and some were registrars of courts.

The composition of these four committees was quite good. No doubt they were intended to play a useful part in bringing the administration of justice up to date. It is regrettable that, over the years, they have failed to report. It cannot be taken that they were complacent enough to believe that our court procedure did not require any alteration. I do not know why they have failed to carry out their duties. Until they do, the Minister might have to establish some group in his own Department to do what these committees were supposed to do. The best solution would be that the committees would be asked to report and that that side of the Minister's Department engaged in law reform would have the right to make representations and would pass on whatever their views were, that by a combination of information from both the committees and the Minister's side we would get some improvement in the very old time type of court administration from which we are suffering at the moment.

I welcome the Minister's statement that there was a reduction of 17 per cent. in the crime rate during the last six months, although the figures for crime in the city of Dublin are still rather alarming. As I said in previous years, I am not satisfied that there is a sufficient number of trained detectives at work in Dublin. It was a big mistake some years ago to break up the group of trained personnel we had in Dublin Castle. I am merely a layman, but I am comparing our situation here with the situation in other countries. In Britain, for example, they have Scotland Yard. We send our detectives out to each division and to various stations all over the city. I think the breaking up of that group of trained detectives contributed towards increased crime in the city. It happened long before the present Minister took office, and whoever was responsible for it did a bad day's work for the citizens of Dublin.

I remember when the previous Minister for Justice was in office I had occasion to speak here on the reign of teddy boys in this city. They were going around with knives assaulting boys and girls and old men and women. I would have no mercy on gangs who go around assaulting citizens at night. They should get at least five years' imprisonment. I think this House should give a lead in denouncing this type of crime. I know the Minister is doing his best. We had a case of a visitor to this country who was assaulted by a little brat on O'Connell Bridge. We want to uphold the dignity of our country and to attract tourists to it.

Another crime prevalent in the city is stealing from cars. I do not know whether it is a matter for the lady Guards or for detectives, but we should try to eliminate it as far as possible. I met a man who came up to the city on St. Patrick's Day. He locked his car and left it about 100 yards from O'Connell Street. When he returned he found that some valuable property had been taken from it. I know that will happen and is happening in every country. Special guards or detectives should be put on this work. There should be specially trained personnel in each station and specialists at headquarters in Dublin Castle who could be called at short notice. The retrograde step taken some years ago under the guise of economies destroyed a force that, in my estimation, had been doing a good job for the protection of the citizens of Dublin and those who came to the city.

I would have no mercy at all on the teddy boys and animal gangs or others who go around with knives and waylay citizens. They do not mind injuring people. They have very little mercy on their victims. I would suggest that an offender who is caught with a knife in his possession should get at least five years' penal servitude. That would have the effect of eliminating that type of crime in a very short time. In Ranelagh some time ago a youngster going on a message was assaulted and beaten in a most scandalous manner. I shall not deal with that case now as I understand it is still before the courts.

I would deal harshly with persons convicted of raiding business houses and stealing cigarettes, wines and other commodities. If the receivers could be discovered and given 10 years' imprisonment it would have the effect of reducing that type of crime considerably. The receivers are more guilty than the thieves. It is a serious matter to a man who locks up his house at night to have it broken into and his property stolen. Were it not for the receivers, the goods would not be stolen. A number of friends of mine have had their business premises raided three times. It is difficult to discover the receivers, who seem to have a protective net around them. That type of criminal is responsible for a lot of housebreaking in this city. These people, on conviction, should get sentences of 10 years' imprisonment That would prove a deterrent for that type of crime.

I want to reiterate that, in my view, the greatest contribution to the elimination of crime would be to have special personnel to deal with the various types of crime. There were specialists some years ago but, as I have said, under the guise of economy, they were taken off the specialist work with which they were dealing. What is the result? Crime is on the increase.

I heartily welcome the Minister's statement that there has been a reduction of 17 per cent. in crime during the last six months. I hope that trend will continue. I have the utmost confidence in the Assistant Commissioner of the Garda in charge of Dublin. With the help of the Minister for Justice and the Department in providing specialists and giving them every encouragement, we shall succeed in reducing the incidence of crime.

The Minister has visited a number of Garda barracks in the city of Dublin and I congratulate him on the personal interest that he has taken in the provision of proper quarters for the Garda. In this modern age everybody is seeking better accommodation. A complaint that I have had from time to time from some of the young men I have met is in regard to the sleeping quarters when they are on night duty. A man who is on night duty may have to sleep during the day in a room or dormitory which is used by five or six men who may be on day duty and who come in and out during the day. Night duty is very onerous and a man who is on night duty for a month requires to sleep during the day. Every consideration should be given to the provision of sleeping quarters for Gardaí, especially for the single men. Men who are on night duty cannot carry out their duties effectively unless they get undisturbed rest during the day.

Trivial car accidents take up a great deal of the time of the Garda. The damage incurred may be a matter of only a few pounds. A Garda should not be asked to write reports on every trivial accident. If the parties want to take action, they could do so in the civil court. The idea of Gardaí prosecuting people for trivial accidents is completely outmoded. There should be a method of dealing with such cases that would not involve a lot of trouble for the Gardaí and the parties concerned in having to go to court, losing time and money. There should be some method of dealing with these cases on the spot. Of course, in the case of major accidents, the police must come into it.

I must now discuss a matter coming under this Department which has become a hardy annual. It is the question of the itinerants and the amount of trouble and destruction they do, particularly in the city and county of Dublin. Various Deputies from all sides of the House have referred time and again to this problem. I feel that the only way we can deal with it is by setting up a Commission——

A Commission would fix it.

They would settle it all right.

It is a serious problem in Dublin. It is a daily problem with the people whose gardens and fields have been trampled and ruined by the horses of those people. When they are hunted out of Ballyfermot, they turn up in Walkinstown and when they are hunted from there they turn up in some other area within the city limits. It is all part of a vicious circle because all we manage to do now is to hunt those people from one area and inflict them on our neighbours elsewhere.

I have a lot of sympathy for those unfortunate itinerants and I really believe our only solution is to try and rehabilitate them—to try and channel them into normal lives. In country areas, I know for a fact that people living alone are being terrorised by them. From that point of view, it is not so very bad in Dublin where people live together in community. As I say, the problem is urgent and I see no solution except to try and rehabilitate those unfortunate people.

Finally, I should compliment the Garda on the job they are doing in this city in eliminating the menace of those criminals who go around with knives in their pockets. I notice we do not hear very much about them nowadays and I hope the Garda Commissioner and the Minister will continue to be ruthless in their efforts to stamp out this type of crime.

It is true that the tinkers—or, as Deputy Burke more respectfully calls them, the itinerants —are a problem in the country, but I do not think we should exaggerate the extent of the problem.

The Deputy should live in the city or the county of Dublin.

I have had visits from tinkers' animals as well as the Deputy, but I do not think they should be hounded in the way some Deputies have hounded them verbally during the last five or six years. I am not to be taken as defending their actions in certain respects. There are tinkers who deliberately open gates and put horses into gardens. There are tinkers who are careless about the care of their animals. But the vast majority of the tinkers of this country are responsible, independent people. Their chosen way of life is to travel the country in caravans, and some of those people are so independent that they are not a burden on the State or on the local authorities. I do not believe many Deputies can say that they have had many approaches from those people for home assistance or any other type of assistance which local authorities are responsible for dispensing.

They beg that from door to door.

And if you do not want to give it you need not.

They might come in the back door and take it.

There are people who collect scrap and old clothing——

And mend the old kettle.

——and do work like that. The local authorities have an obligation towards them, a responsibility which they are reluctant to undertake. I know tinkers, itinerants, or whatever you like to call them, who have tried to stay put, who have got themselves jobs in factories or on building sites and who for years have been refused houses by local authorities. I know in my own home town there are people, whose ancestors were travelling people, who have resided in Wexford town for years and for whom the local authority say they are not responsible.

It is wrong to say tinkers are on the increase. The facts show that they are on the decrease. The problem, in my opinion, will resolve itself, not in a few years perhaps, but in some years to come. There should, however, be better protection for the general public from some of the careless tinkers. I had not intended to mention this subject at all were it not for the previous speaker's remarks.

I would qualify what I have said by adding that, through carelessness and malice, some tinkers put their horses in the way of doing damage to farmers and others.

This year I again want to speak on the matter of film censorship. I do not think any Minister for Justice in recent years has been very enthusiastic about the points of view put forward by some Deputies in this House on the Estimate for the Department of Justice. It is true that the Censorship Board, and the Censor himself, do a very good job in the general censorship of films, and I think it can be said of the Board that they have never allowed any picture to be shown that would generally offend against morals, or offend any particular person in this country, no matter to what religious persuasion he may belong.

When I say I want to refer to film censorship I mean the censorship of films for children. There has been no indication that the present Minister for Justice, or Ministers for Justice who preceded him, have been concerned about the danger of the effect of films on young children. They have little or no effect on grown-up people but, as I said last year, it appals me to think that the film I see on a Thursday or Friday night will be shown at a matinée for children on Saturday or Sunday. Without going into the lurid details of such films, I think that people who have seen a number of films suitable for adults know that they are by no means suitable for children, and I do not say that any of them are immoral. Neither do I say that the cinema proprietors have the same responsibility that the Censorship Board and the Minister have, or should have. The system is such that as all films are censored and passed by the Censor they are distributed by an association, or an organisation, known as Film Distributors and, generally speaking, the cinemas have to take the films reeled out to them week after week, and month after month.

We should be concerned about the type of film shown to youngsters, and for that reason I think we should at least adopt the system in use in Britain whereby films are graded into at least three categories. I forget the actual grading used. I know that X is a bad film, X can be an immoral film, a film that will be shown mainly for adults. Then there is the film graded as U, and the film graded as A and I think the A film is one that could be shown to anybody from the age of 90 down to seven years.

Would this not be a matter for the Censorship Board rather than the Minister?

I do not know, Sir, whether you are asking me a question but this sort of discussion has been allowed on this Estimate for years and years. However, I have not much more to say on this, beyond stating that I think the Minister should concern himself, whether by way of legislation or by administrative act, to ensure that the children of this country will be protected against many of the films shown here, films suitable for adults but not suitable for children.

The Minister has also referred to the censorship of publications and he says that the statistics for the year 1959 show that the Censorship Board examined 797 books and 82 periodicals. Is that the extent of their work? I suppose any three of us might read 797 books in a whole year but I should like to know from the Minister what method they adopt for censoring books. For example, if a book by John X is deemed by the Censorship Board not to be fit for publication in this country, are all John X's books banned forever after, or for some period of time? The number of 797 books seems to me to be a very small amount and we should not close our eyes to the fact that there are books in circulation here that should not be in circulation.

In recent years there has been an influx, an importation of hundreds of thousands of paper backed books. That was particularly true in the last two or three years. I shall not say that it is continuing now but about two years ago there were tons and tons of them circulating in this country. How they got in I do not know, and I admit it is well-nigh impossible to censor every single book, especially every one of these paper-backed novels but, if it is found by the Censor that a particular paper backed book, issued by a certain company, or carrying a particular brand, is unfit for circulation, I suggest that the Minister should ban all the books of that company or carrying that brand.

I do not know whether or not I should give an example. I know that I can give an example of a very good firm of publishers, Penguin Books, who are one of the most reputable book publishers I know of but, for example, if Penguin Books insisted on sending books into this country that were not fit for circulation, I would teach them an example by doing as is done in respect of periodicals, and that is, ban them for a considerable time. Whether the Censorship Board is big enough, or has a sufficient staff, I do not know, but if their work during the year merely consisted of the examination of 797 books I think I can understand how we can get so many filthy books circulated through the bookstalls and book shops of this country.

Some people may be inclined to blame the shopkeeper or bookseller but booksellers are not censors nor do I expect that they read many of the books which they sell. I suggest that since we have a censorship the ultimate responsibility lies with the Censorship Board to ensure that such books are not made available to the booksellers and ordinary people of the country.

The Minister was quite correct in paying a deserved tribute to the Adoption Board, and I must say that in dealing with the Board I found them most human in their approach. The Adoption Act was passed in 1953. I may be wrong in that but, at any rate, it was in the early '50s, and I think it would be correct to say that the members and the officials of the Adoption Board have gained quite a considerable amount of experience over the last six or seven years.

I would urge upon the Minister that he should have his officials consult with the officials of the Adoption Board, with a view to making changes which I know the Adoption Board deem to be necessary. Deputies who have had occasion to approach the Board know that in many cases, where adoption is applied for, snags have cropped up which are not covered by present legislation. For that reason I would urge the Minister not to allow the Act to continue much longer without making the many necessary improvements which I know the officials argue should be made.

I was surprised to learn from the Minister that despite the increase in crime, despite all the new legislation we have had in recent years, and despite the increase in the car population, compared to the year 1950 we have nearly 1,000 fewer Gardaí. The actual figure given by the Minister is that we have 900 fewer Gardaí than we had in 1950, the strength of the Force now being 6,586. He did say that he had increased the number of Gardaí in Dublin city, for reasons which he outlined, but I think there is a great case for increasing the number of Gardaí elsewhere. I know that there might be objections to that from certain quarters on the grounds of increased expenditure, and that sort of thing, but I think the Minister and the Government have a duty to the public, to protect them, to ensure that law and order is maintained, and that laws will be administered and put into effect in a proper manner.

May I say, apropos of that, that if the Minister expects, as he indicated in his speech yesterday, to enforce rigidly the terms of the new Liquor Bill he will want many more Gardaí. He also says that crime in the city has not abated since he spoke here last year and that part of the reason for the non-abatement of crime, and non-detection of certain crimes, is that there are not enough detectives and members of the ordinary Garda. On this I would also like to make a plea to the Minister for better pay and better conditions for the members of the Garda.

Since arbitration and conciliation were introduced—I think by the first inter-Party Government—the problem of pay, particularly in respect of State servants, officials and civil servants generally, is not the problem it used to be. Many people think that the position of the Garda is pretty good and that the pay is good. Gardaí may be relatively well-off when compared with other sections of the community but they constitute a very important part of the community and it seems strange that some of them resign after being in the Force for only a very short period. However, I think the Minister can help in that respect, and especially in respect of the matter mentioned by Deputy Burke—the conditions in which Gardaí live in various stations with particular attention to sleeping and living quarters. I do not think I can offer any severe criticism on this point but I believe it right to say that sleeping quarters and conditions in Garda stations are not one hundred per cent. and I leave it at that.

I do not know whether the Minister has any responsibility for a matter which I am about to mention but I shall refer to it in any case. When I was much younger than I am now I had a great admiration for the Garda in the world of sport. I think the country knew and respected Gardaí for their great sporting feats especially in boxing. We do not hear of Garda boxers at all now as being prominent nor do we see them prominently identified with either boxing, Gaelic games, rowing or other sports. I wonder what has happened. When General Eoin O'Duffy was Commissioner he encouraged sport; it was good for the Garda and also for the morale of the public. The Garda brought renown to the country especially in boxing. They earned fame in Europe and throughout the world for their achievements. As a result Garda morale was very high. I do not say it has deteriorated to any great extent but it would be good for the public as well as for the Garda themselves to know that Gardaí can be champions in boxing, football, hurling and different other sports. I do not want to mention names but I believe it would not be amiss to say that the present Commissioner and future Commissioners should encourage the idea of Gardaí participating in sporting activities generally.

I do not know if the examination for entry into the Force is a matter for the Minister for Justice. It is not a very difficult examination and I suppose a big percentage of the applicants pass but are failed in oral Irish and, I think, unfairly. They try hard. I know young men from my constituency who—to use a common expression—have it in every way, in appearance, height, general physique, in courage and in education. They pass the tests in respect of all these things but come to Dublin, or wherever the examination is, and are failed in oral Irish. That is grossly unfair when one remembers that other competitors have the advantage of being born, reared and educated either in the Gaeltacht or the breac-Ghaeltacht.

The unfortunate people from the east do their best in the secondary schools to become competent in Irish but cannot hope to compete for a limited number of vacancies with those who have had the advantage of hearing a good deal of Irish from birth. Whoever is responsible should go slow on that matter for the present. The Minister for Education has done a very good thing in introducing oral Irish for the Leaving Certificate Examination. I think he proposes to extend it to the Intermediate Certificate as well. These Garda applicants should get a chance. They are not accustomed to oral Irish even though they may be pretty competent in written Irish. I would respectfully suggest, therefore, that while I do not want the Minister to exclude Irish, there should not be that preference given to it that seems to have operated in recent years in examinations for admission to the Garda.

I do not think this House has ever decided who is responsible for traffic and parking generally in this city. The unfortunate Gardaí have the task of trying to ensure some sort of law and order in the built-up areas. They have a specially difficult task here in Dublin. I suggest that the Minister should consider the appointment of authorised persons—in Dublin for a start—to deal with the general question of parking. I agree with what I think Deputy McGilligan stated that it is a waste of time and public money to some extent to have a Garda concerned for the whole of his beat for six or eight hours trying to ensure that people park in proper places.

It is not an exaggeration when I say that, as far as parking in Dublin is concerned, the general public do not seem to have any intention of obeying the regulations or rules laid down either by Dublin Corporation or the Commissioner. One has only to try to get down Kildare Street to find that the "no parking" signs mean absolutely nothing. If there is an event taking place adjacent to a park down at the end of Kildare Street——

The Kildare Street Club.

——all the cars park in Nassau street, ignoring the parking signs completely. That situation must affect the general business of the city when one regards the long delays involved in trying to get across from Leinster House, say, to the other side of the city. I often wonder why the maximum fine is not imposed on people who insist on parking wherever they like in the city. I think Kildare Street was mentioned in that connection in one of the Sunday newspapers recently. The Minister should, I think, appoint people other than members of the Garda to whom he would give authority to insist that parking regulations be observed. I certainly would support the idea mooted by Deputy McGilligan in respect of traffic generally—I think it is part of the Fine Gael policy—that there should be fines on the spot unless some erring motorist decides to contest the case in court.

Traffic is a tremendous problem, and it has a grave effect on the general business of the city. While it is a problem in the city of Dublin it is also a problem elsewhere. It is certainly a problem in my own town, and I often wonder what is the reaction of visitors who come to Ireland for the first time. One would imagine in many towns that one was in some eastern State, where there is no law or order. It must be a shock to these visitors coming from a country where there are pretty good traffic regulations which are respected by the general citizens.

In the Minister's statement we have some disturbing and also some redeeming features. We have an increase in crime as well as an increase in the Estimate; on the other hand, there is an increase in the number of convictions which is a welcome feature. I would not be very much disturbed at the increase in the population of our prisons, because that indicates that the kid gloves are off in the courts in dealing with some of the blackguards and ex-convicts who come before them. It is time to show them that crime does not pay.

In regard to my own constituency, which is a tourist centre, I am glad to note the increased activity of Gardaí in dealing with begging itinerants. We have an influx of them every year and the fact that tourists are being pestered by them causes unfavourable comment. It is a big problem and one that calls for a "summit" conference in which the Departments of Social Welfare, Local Government and Justice could play a part. The activities of these itinerants are a blot on our area. These people come from places as far down as Wexford, a town from which the last speaker, who defended them, comes.

The Minister has stated he proposes to increase the number of women police. I hope he will do so because there is great need for them, especially in tourist centres at the height of the season. In conjunction with the Gardaí, they could make certain people on our seashores conduct themselves; the unseemly conduct of such people is most embarrassing at times when one brings children to the seaside. As in the case of the itinerants, they do not belong to the area, because if they did they would not conduct themselves in that way. As is said, one bad apple in a barrel contaminates the lot.

I do not like referring very much to this matter, but the opinion has gone out that this side of the House is in favour of a certain gentleman who fooled half of this country. I merely wish to say that we hope to have no more Singers.

That matter does not arise. The Deputy is not in order in mentioning this matter at all.

I hope we shall not have any more of that type. It was very galling to realise that such activities could occur opposite the Garda Station, at the headquarters of this organisation. Poor people have been swindled——

The case to which the Deputy refers is sub judice and may not be discussed on this Estimate.

I am expressing the hope that there will be no more cases of that type. I would like to see the sale of sheath knives abolished. We can see them displayed in shop windows and even on the belts of teddy boys. It is not very pleasant to see these people coming into shops adopting a threatening attitude. Something should be done to deal with this problem.

I would welcome the introduction in my constituency of radio communication between Garda patrol cars and headquarters. I raised this matter here before and I hope the Minister will extend the use of radio to these patrol cars. Coming from a tourist centre, I would also welcome the issue of visas to continental visitors.

A matter which is causing great public concern and which I wish to bring to the Minister's attention is the fact that a child can leave this country just as easily as it can step on a bus. We should take steps to stop children of a very tender age boarding a ship at Dún Laoghaire, to be found later over in England. It may be believed that a child walking up the gangway alongside some older people is a member of that family group but steps should be taken to question children when there is reason to believe they are travelling alone. Children up to the age of 19 years should not be allowed to travel on their own. One can understand the anxiety of parents who find their children missing overnight and who are later informed that they have been found over in England.

On the question of censorship, it is about time something was done to curb the introduction of undesirable films, Communist propaganda films, and so on. The Minister says he has no power to deal with them. That very fact is just inviting these elements to extend their activities in this direction. The Minister should strengthen his hand and meet the views of the public. He should not allow such offensive films to be exhibited, possibly causing disturbance, which is what I can foresee if they continue to be admitted to the country. I agree with the leader of the Labour Party that films for children should be graded. Putting in a notice "Children under eighteen not allowed" is an excellent way of advertising something which, perhaps, ought not to be advertised at all.

Finally, I trust the Minister will deal with the problem of itinerants. Something will have to be done, though I admit the task is not an easy one.

Deputy McGilligan has covered many of the points on which I wished to comment. I believe that the public generally would expect this House to express condemnation not only of Border outrages but also of outrages in Kerry and elsewhere. People have been shocked by recent events. I trust that, by adding our voices to those of the Government and the Church, people generally will take courage and assist the Garda in bringing these malefactors to Justice so that there will be an end to this unseemly conduct. This is a time at which every right-minded citizen should speak out and express his views in no uncertain way. As far as I am concerned, and as far as this Party is concerned, we add our voices to the appeal already made to the people to assist the Garda in the maintenance of law and order for their own personal safety and wellbeing and for the honour of the country.

Deputy McGilligan and others have dealt with the increase in acts of violence. Let us hope that the Garda will be successful in putting an end to these acts. I am aware of the difficulties with which the Garda have to contend. They will be more effective in preserving law and order if the people give them more effective assistance in the discharge of their duty.

I want to comment now on the failure of the Minister to extend the service of members of the Garda Síochána in the same way as service has been extended in the case of Army personnel. An extension has been granted in the case of those who have service certificates or a medal with bar. The fact that a medal has been awarded should be sufficient evidence of service having been rendered to the State. I do not think there should be any difference between the medal with bar and the medal without it. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the position and to grant the same rights and privileges to the holders of all medals. I regret there was some delay in granting this privilege and that some had retired before the Order came into operation. That cannot be helped now, but it is nevertheless to be regretted.

There are many problems confronting the country and they are not made any easier because of the facility with which lewd books can be distributed. It is imperative that the Guards should not only enforce the law but that the Customs, and everybody else concerned, should be directed to take steps to seize these books. I have seen some of the periodicals that have been circulating and I must say they are shocking. Because they are not, as it were, continuous the Censorship Board have no authority to condemn them. However, the ordinary Police Act and the Civic Guard Act give certain powers and those powers should be exercised.

There is just one other matter. It is a rather difficult matter because it could be open to misinterpretation. I want to make it clear at the outset that I have no sympathy whatsoever with the people concerned. I believe that the arrest of a Deputy of this House—a Deputy who has not taken his seat—is, under any circumstances, very unwise on the part of the Government, or whoever is responsible. That Deputy was available on many occasions. He was billed for public meetings in Mullingar and elsewhere. No one interfered with him. He attends the funeral of a friend and, while attending that funeral, he is arrested. Could some other more suitable occasions not have been found? Why arrest him under those particular circumstances? That sort of action militates against the Garda. I do not know if they were solely responsible; if they were, it is just too bad. More reason and more wisdom should be exercised in matters like this. Further opportunities should not be provided for attacks upon either the Garda or the Administration. I hold no brief for the Deputy concerned, but I do not think the action of the Garda was wise.

Finally, the Minister should inform Deputies as to the rules or the procedure governing the reduction of fines or terms of imprisonment and, particularly, the restoration of licences. From time to time one sees notices that someone's licence has been restored. I am aware of appeals made in somewhat identical circumstances and those appeals were rejected. I would be glad to know if the Minister has any set rules or regulations governing the reduction of fines, the remission of imprisonment or the raising of disqualification of a driver's licence. If he would give us a specimen case of a remission, without mentioning names, and state the grounds on which he raised a disqualification it would be a great help. There is a feeling abroad that there is some kind of partisanship attached to it. I do not believe that but that is what is being said.

The problem of itinerants is one we always have with us. Some people say that they should be dealt with harshly and others say that they should be dealt with easily. I suggest that they should be dealt with justly. They are a survival of a period of our history and great care should be taken to ensure that the circumstances which put them on the road in the first instance will not recur. They were put on the road by injustice and it would be too bad if they were to be put off the road by injustice. Let us hope that, as time passes, they will adjust themselves to the economic conditions that now exist in the country and that they will become absorbed in the general community.

Mr. Ryan

I should like to refer to a matter which may not be strictly topical, but, nevertheless, might be properly discussed now. That is the practice of going outside the Garda Síochána to select a non-member of the Force as Commissioner. I want it to be clearly understood that my remarks are not addressed to any individual and are not a criticism of the present Commissioner or any of his predecessors who have not been members of the Garda Síochána for all their professional lives. This practice follows, I think, the example of Britain, where, for their peculiar reasons, it has been the practice to go outside the Force to get Commissioners.

In England you have various county and local police forces and authorities. Here we have a uniform, disciplined police force which has given exceptionally good service at poor rates of pay over the years. I think that, whenever again it may be necessary to appoint a Commissioner, for the good of the Force, that Commissioner should be chosen from within the ranks of the Garda Síochána.

Is the Deputy discussing something which may come under review during the present year?

Mr. Ryan

It might easily arise in the course of the year.

We are discussing only matters under review in this Estimate.

On a point of order, Sir, would it not be quite possible that a vacancy might occur in the present year?

Acting-Chairman

The administration of the past year is being discussed.

Mr. Ryan

The salary is provided for in the Estimate.

I am concerned only with the Estimate as it stands and what the Deputy refers to does not come under review now.

Acting-Chairman

There is a motion that the Estimate be referred back and that widens the discussion.

Mr. Ryan

Selecting the Commissioner from outside the Garda Síochána implies that there is no person in that Force fit for the post of Commissioner. That is a very serious inference to make. It has had a very bad effect on the morale of the Force. It makes it quite clear to the Force that the Executive has no confidence in the efficiency or ability of the senior officers because it says, in effect, that they cannot find a person with the proper qualifications within the Force. It leads to discontent in the Force, because it closes the avenues of promotion to the senior officers and by closing those avenues, it closes the sequence of promotion all down the line.

In addition to that, it means that serving members of the Garda Síochána can only hope to go to the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner and this may also lead to a certain amount of indifference in the minds of the senior officers. They are not required to prove themselves capable of promotion to the higher post. I think it very desirable that Dáil Éireann, at a time when there is no immediate need, should discuss the matter in this House because, if the occasion did arise, the probability would be that the Government would appoint a Commissioner without reference to this House. The House could not then discuss it because the appointment of the Commissioner is a prerogative of the Government.

I think it very desirable that, on the annual discussion on the Estimate, this matter should be carefully examined in the hope that when a new appointment does become necessary the Government of the day will ignore the practice in Britain which is not desired here. I believe one of the reasons for the British practice is that the Executive there feels that it provides a liaison between the police force and the authorities. I like to think that the character of the Garda Síochána or our Army is of such a nature that the Government here does not have to bother about that. I am confident that there is no fear of a coup d'état on the part of the Garda or the Army. If the Government did appoint one of the members of the Force to be Commissioner, it would vastly improve the morale of the Force.

I appreciate that there are very few people satisfied with what they get in this world. Most of us feel that we should be better paid but we all know that, in this matter, the Garda Síochána has not been fairly treated. The Government appreciate now the need for conciliation and arbitration machinery. It is a sorry thing that that day was so long delayed.

However, there is room for the Minister to do something to improve the lot of members of the Garda Síochána, in providing better stations and accommodation. It is not generally known that the beds on which members of the Garda Síochána are asked to lie are similar in every respect to beds provided in our prisons. Indeed, the furniture and fittings of most of our stations are equivalent to those to be found in cells in our prisons. Unless there has been an improvement in recent years, I know that in many stations members of the Garda Síochána have not got even a locker or wardrobe in which they can lock up their personal belongings and private papers. That is an unfair way to treat members of a police force, many of whom are far away from their homes. They at least ought to have at the end of their day a place in which they can rest in some degree of comfort.

Indeed, I was rather tickled recently to find that a prohibition order—I do not know whether it was issued by the Department or by the Commissioner's office—was issued in respect of the erection of a television aerial on a station chimney-pot unless an insurance policy covering an amount of £10,000 was taken out. The station was not worth £300. It was an extraordinary thing that the State, which would not provide the unfortunate Guards in this outpost in Donegal with a decent station, would require them to take out an insurance policy covering damage to the tune of £10,000. I appreciate they may have been considering their liability towards the public if the television aerial blew off the chimney, but, perhaps, they were more concerned with the condition of the station itself.

I have nothing but the height of praise for the members of the Garda and I think the House is unanimous in voicing that praise, but it is desirable that warning should go out from this House to some members of the Garda who, in their approach to the public, leave a great deal to be desired. The present Minister, his predecessor and the Commissioner have addressed remarks to new recruits, on the occasion of passing-out parades, urging them to be courteous in their approach to the public. But it has been my experience in my professional occupation to be informed by very many clients that the treatment they receive either on the street or in the stations at the hands of the Guards was far from gentlemanly and was more likely to provoke a breach of the peace than to preserve the peace, which the Guards are there to maintain. I appreciate that members of the Garda who indulge in this kind of unseemly behaviour are a very small minority, but the bad apple can ruin the whole basket; and any member of the Garda Síochána who behaves in that way brings disrepute on the Force in general and creates a feeling of unpopularity in relation to the members of the Force.

It may well be said that if people have complaints of that nature, they have the opportunity of voicing them in the courts. That, of course, is only theoretically true, because any wise solicitor will advise his client that the worst thing he could do would be to accuse a Guard in open court. In nine cases out of ten the district justice would not believe him but would think he was only adding insult to the Garda in addition to whatever injury had brought him before the court. This is something very hard to detect, something very hard to punish, but it is something which needs to be aired in order that the public in general may be protected from the very small minority of thugs who, because they are in uniform, think they are a law unto themselves and who know that their unfortunate victims are not in a position to air their grievances either in court or elsewhere.

Again, I wish to emphasise beyond any doubt whatever that it is only an infinitesimally small minority of the Garda who behave in this way. However, sooner or later, somebody will take the chance of publicising actions of that kind and, if that happens, the whole police force will be brought into disrepute. If any such person has his misbehaviour brought out, I certainly hope that for the sake of the Garda and the public in general he will be severely punished.

On to-day's Order Paper I asked two questions regarding the provision of guards of honour by the Garda for Ministers of State. I did not do that in order to take a cheap advantage of the existing administration because I appreciate that the practice has been in operation, I suppose, since the foundation of the Garda Síochána itself. But at a time when our police force is, if anything, undermanned, I think it undesirable that, on as many as 27 occasions in a year, members of the Garda should be called upon to provide guards of honour for the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice. I am not aware of the details of the 27 cases in question, but, if one calculates an average of two hours per day per parade, one finds the total of nine hundred man hours in a year spent in rendering an unnecessary service of honour to Ministers of the Government.

I feel that on many of these occasions the guard of honour could be provided by the Army. I am not suggesting that the Army is not serving a useful purpose. Of course, it is. But the purpose the Army is serving is not a continuing purpose. A soldier may do training on one day and not on another day, and the efficiency of the Army will not be that much impaired. But members of the Garda should be on duty all the time. It is undesirable that they should be taken from duties related to the prevention and detection of crime, duties related to traffic control and, indeed, their own recreation, to provide unnecessary service to Ministers of State. In many cases, such as in the case of the Tánaiste coming back from America, I believe the guard of honour was unnecessary. I think I should leave it at that. In many other cases, and indeed in that particular case, if a guard of honour has to be provided I think it could be rendered by members of the Army without taking away from the dignity of the occasion. It may be said that the Garda is a civilian force and the Army a military one and that a military force would not be suitable on all occasions. I think that is only a theoretical argument which, in practice, could be got over.

I should like the Minister in his reply to expand upon the reorganisation of the Garda in Dublin of which he spoke in his introductory remarks. Deputy McGilligan also asked him to elaborate on that, and I have no doubt that he will be good enough to do so. It is important in Dublin, as elsewhere, that the Garda should be in the closest possible human contact with the members of the public. While it is desirable, and indeed necessary, to expand the technical equipment the Garda have, it should never replace what will really preserve the peace in this country, and that is the human touch between the police officers and the members of the public in general.

We are discussing on the Estimates here our Courts of Justice. It is particularly fortunate that we, on this date, are discussing our Courts of Justice because, by implication, the Taoiseach, earlier today, at Question Time, cast aspersions upon decisions of our courts. I understand that in the United States of America, last year, the President of that country, being concerned with the way in which the law was being held in disrepute, declared that a particular day should be Law Day. I think it was the 1st March, but I am not too certain about that. He declared that it should be Law Day in order to impress upon the American people the sanctity of the law, the necessity for the law to preserve the rights of the people and the individual. I am sorry that the Taoiseach should by implication cast aspersions upon a decision of the Supreme Court which was to the effect that the Attorney General had failed to bring to trial a person who was returned to trial on a particular date or within a particular period by a district justice.

In a case where a district justice returns a person to trial, having heard the depositions, he is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of a crime having been committed against the people, and the courts and our law officers and the Garda Síochána should do everything in their power to have tried the issue of whether or not a crime has been committed against the people. No amount of legal verbiage will get away from the fact that, in relation to that case which was terminated last week and was no longer sub judice, our courts and our whole legal administration failed because the Attorney General failed to act upon the warrant of a district justice.

The office of the Attorney General is not one of the offices which is being debated at the moment. It is a separate Vote, under Law Charges, and cannot be discussed now.

Mr. Ryan

I appreciate that, Sir, but it is very difficult to discuss this matter and to stop at the point where responsibility passes over from the courts to the law officer as such.

I shall return directly to the field of our courts and court administration. There is no doubt that it is high time that we in this country did away with this outmoded system of taking depositions in longhand because (1) it is not accurate; (2) it is too slow and (3), having been taken, there is a further delay in the copying of the depositions. Indeed, in the copying of depositions, from the notes of a clerk to a typist's keyboard, there have been errors in many cases, not critical or substantial errors, but, nevertheless, there have been small errors.

I do not think it is generally understood by the public that, in the taking of depostions in longhand, what the clerk takes down is really only a paraphrase of the questions and answers which pass between counsel, solicitors and witnesses and, indeed, in the paraphrase of what a witness may say, the depositions may not convey to a superior court precisely what a witness said in the district court, notwithstanding the fact that the district justice and the solicitors for both State and defendant may endeavour to have amendments made in the depositions before they are actually signed by the witness and later by the district justice.

The present system is antiquated; it is inefficient and, in some respects, it is inaccurate. I appreciate that our law at the moment requires that the depositions shall be taken in the presence and in the hearing of the accused and that is advanced as a reason for not bringing in a more speedy and more efficient system such as is now available by means of wire recording. I appreciate also that there is a fear that there might be tampering with a tape after the hearing of a court, in between the hearing of the case in the Circuit Criminal Court and the Central Criminal Court. To my way of thinking, there is a simple solution to that. Not one, but two or, perhaps, three tape recorders could be used simultaneously. One of them could be sealed and kept in the custody of the district justice and kept apart from the tape which would be held by the court clerk and yet a third tape could be held by the defendant or by the defendant's solicitor. This would ensure that comparisons could be made if any party believed that the final depositions as presented to the Circuit Court were not accurate. There is no doubt that what other countries have done successfully can be done here and it should be done for the good of both the citizen who is accused of the crime and the working of our courts of law in general.

I should like to know whether the depositions in the case of Mr. Paul Singer, which were completed last week, were in fact ready and available to the sitting of the Circuit Criminal Court to which Mr. Singer was supposed to be returned for trial. If the depositions were not ready, the Minister must take the blame as, indeed, in all cases if depositions are not ready on the date on which a person is returned for trial the Administration must take the blame.

I appreciate that in the case we are mentioning there was a tremendous amount of depositions but that is no excuse. Throughout the length and breadth of the Civil Service there are ample stenographers available for the purpose of copying depositions and that should have been done. But, I would not like this House to think that my remarks relate only to events of the last few weeks. It had been my intention when the Estimate came up to emphasise this unfortunate aspect of our court administration. It is happening week in and week out in relation to every criminal case or quasi-criminal case which comes before the district courts.

I am not too sure of the figures, for instance, in relation to the manslaughter charges arising out of fatal accidents on the roads but I suppose it is fair to say that in 95 per cent. of cases where a fatal accident occurs on the road the Attorney General takes the precaution of having manslaughter proceedings instituted but it is in less than five per cent. of manslaughter charges arising out of fatal accidents on the roads that conviction is subsequently secured, which means that over 80 per cent. of the people involved in fatal accidents on the road find themselves spending anything from three to six months of continuous worry and fear, involving themselves in considerable legal expenses. That is mainly due to the inefficient, outmoded and inaccurate system that we have of taking our preliminary hearing in the district court and later of copying the depositions for the circuit court hearing. This matter is an extremely urgent one and should be tackled by the Department of Justice without further delay.

On the civil side of the courts, things are every bit as bad. I know the general public think that there is only one thing slower than a snail and that is a solicitor or a court case but it is not understood by the general public that we are administering our courts here in a most inefficient and most ridiculous manner. For instance, if somebody sues another person for a debt of £60 in the Circuit Court and the person who is being sued does not put in an appearance or a defence and is prepared to admit the sum, the solicitor has to procure six different court forms and fill in on those six different court forms, before he can do any more, the title of the case, although it is all related to the one case. One form is an affidavit of the debt; one is a certificate of non-appearance; one is a request for a judgment; one is the judgment itself; one is a request for an execution order and the last form is the execution order itself. All these have to be filled in in relation to each puny debt that arises.

They are taken down to the Four Courts where they have to be brought along to one room in order that a number of stamps of different value may be impressed upon the documents. Then the messenger or the solicitor has to climb three staircases to go to another room to lodge those forms and again, some days later, to collect them in order that the person who is awaiting the money may get it, when all of those forms could be incorporated in one and the necessity to move from room to room avoided. All this could be achieved if there were a little more efficiency and some reorganisation of the work in the Courts of Justice.

Bad and all as the situation is for practitioners in Dublin, it is infinitely worse for members of the profession down the country who must send the forms to Dublin to have them stamped. Members of the profession have to queue up as though they were drawing the children's allowance in a post office on allowance day. This may seem particularly tedious to most Deputies but it is ten times more so to the members of the profession, to their staffs and to the general public. It is also ridiculous and wasteful.

I believe the Minister must tackle this problem once and for all. Very fortunately the Incorporated Law Society has a committee sitting now for this purpose and it is to be hoped that when the Society makes suggestions to the Department of Justice they will be met with a little more co-operation and courtesy than the suggestions of the Society have got in the past. I fear there is an obsession in the Department regarding the legal profession, and a feeling that any suggestions from the Incorporated Law Society are for the benefit of the solicitors themselves and not in the public interest. These suggestions are in the public interest and, from that point of view, those fantastic delays should be eliminated.

It is the public who gain by such a move, because solicitors would then not have to charge special fees for work which is really unnecessary in this twentieth century. There are some offices in the Courts of Justice which would really provide wonderful material for any person with ability to wield the pen. He would not have to enter into the land of fantasy; all he would have to do is to write about the facts in the Four Courts where the Bankruptcy Office is administered in such an outmoded method without sufficient staff, equipment or imagination to meet the requirements of this modern age.

I appreciate that the staff are hamstrung by the fact that our bankruptcy laws are in need of radical reform. Such a reform is not confined to the Bankruptcy Office, which is, in the main, in the hands of one individual who has, very fortunately, a particular facility for this kind of work and has given magnificent service in some of the recent reform Bills passed by this House. But there is so much to be done urgently that I hope the Department will do more about reform work than to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary. Two senior law officers could have been appointed at the cost of the Parliamentary Secretary's salary and would, I feel, do more to expedite the work in the chamber stage. The main work in relation to law reform is what I would term cloister work, not at Parliamentary level.

If the Department of Justice produced to the House 20 law reform Bills in one year I have no fear that the House would pass them in quarter of the time it took to deal with the Intoxicating the Liquor Bill. There are, very fortunately, on all sides of the House lawyers who can make valuable contributions to any reform Bill which comes before us. Many reforms are urgently required at the moment. The main work in such measures arises at the drafting stage. Again, I say, there is so much appalling waste because of our outmoded laws that I sincerely trust the Minister may do something in relation to the staff attending to law reform at the moment.

The Department of Justice is, very fortunately for this country, one of the Departments which has not lost its sense of proportion over the years. While others have added considerably to their staffs, this Department has kept within bounds. The only additions we see in this year's Estimate are in the higher grades. One wonders why the necessity has arisen to appoint a new Assistant Secretary in this Department and why, instead of taking a principal officer from this highly-specialised Department, did the Minister go outside to the Department of Finance? My criticism is not directed against any person's ability or integrity but to the practice of going outside a Department to select people for the higher posts.

In addition to that post, we had another appointment of assistant principal. If we look through the remainder of the appointments we find, however, that there have been no additions to the junior staff. I should like the Minister to explain the functions these two new officers are performing. If they are carrying out duties which could not otherwise be carried out, I would be only too glad that the appointments have been made, but appointments which entail expenditure of £4,000 should be explained by the Minister in some detail. He said that the main increase in the Staff Vote this year was in respect of increases in salaries. In fact that is not so; it is in respect of those two officials. If their duties were performed previously, I should like the Minister to explain what was wrong, if anything, with the manner in which the work was performed.

Under the heading of Film Censorship, I notice there is a provision in the 1923 Act which permits the Censor to grade films. It is a matter of some curiosity to me to know why that principle is not generally availed of. I have some reason to believe that the reason that has not been availed of is because it was felt that to grade films would direct more attention to them. If you had a grade of adult films you would have larger audiences than for films which children only are permitted to see. I can see the sense of that. The Censor has a system of generally passing all films and only on the extremely rare occasion does the Appeal Board require that those attending films shall be of a particular age limit. I am not sure of the number of occasions on which that has happened in the history of the Film Censor's office and I would be glad if the Minister could give me the figures when replying to the debate.

I fancy, however, we could count on one hand the number of occasions on which that has been done. I believe a practice, or an understanding has been arrived at, between the Film Censor and film exhibitors under which the latter undertake not to admit children under 18 years of age. But, immediately they use the great advertising gimmick: "Nobody under 18 years of age admitted to this film," nothing is more likely to extend the length of the queues in O'Connell Street for a first-run film than the fact that there is such a caption on a newspaper advertisement, or displayed in the porch of the particular cinema, denying admission to children under a particular age limit.

It has happened on many occasions that with a first-run film, particularly in Dublin city, where children are excluded from its showing, once the same film went out to the suburbs, or whenever it went down the country, children were admitted without any restrictions whatsoever. In that case you have the extra enticement given to children to go and satisfy their curiosity at a suburban cinema because they found themselves excluded at a first-run cinema in the centre of the city. I think this is an abuse which has arisen out of the operation of the system, and I believe it would be better if we had a universal application of the grading system. If we had that it would not be a nine days' wonder that a particular film was limited to people over 18 years of age. I appreciate the reasons why it has not been used before but I think the ends have not been achieved, and that they could be achieved if we were to adopt a universal system of grading.

A problem which has been discussed on many occasions on this Estimate is that of itinerants and wandering horses. Indeed that is a matter that can be raised on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government and, for that matter, on the Estimate for the Department of Health as well. It is unfortunate that the Department of Justice is a Department which has to insist on administering the affairs of several different Departments but, be that as it may, there is no doubt that itinerants are a nuisance, and a very serious nuisance at that. I always understood that it was a basic principle of our law that a person was free to do what he liked so long as he did not interfere with the liberty of another, but there is no doubt that tinkers, and tinker encampments, severely limit the enjoyment of life of others, and that simply should not be tolerated.

It is not sufficient to say: "Oh, there is no easy solution to the problem." If people are persistently interfering with their neighbours, there is one way to cure them and that is to show them the effect of the law. If people were continually prosecuted for setting up itinerant encampments on the sides of roads, and for begging and making nuisances of themselves, they would soon discover that it would be better to settle down. It will have to be brought home to these people that they will have to settle down and stop interfering with the enjoyment of life and property by other people.

It may be said that I am being ruthless, savage and inhuman in saying this. I am no such thing. All I am saying is that the law should be applied to tinkers. Indeed, it may also be said that I am impolite in referring to them as tinkers rather than itinerants, but I am not one to avoid unpleasantness merely for the choice of a spoken word. At one time we had what was referred to as the "wasting disease". Then it became "consumption" and now it is referred to as "T.B.". Sometimes these people are spoken of as tinkers and sometimes as travelling folk——

Or God's gentry.

Mr. Ryan

——or as God's gentry, and we all hope that we shall be counted amongst God's gentry in our time, but that certainly does not give any of us the right to make nuisances of ourselves and that is what these people are doing. It is quite clear that the Garda are failing in their duty, and the State generally is failing in its duty in handling these people, because the number of itinerants has almost doubled over the last ten years. I think that is a clear indication that they find they can get away with it. They are living on their wits, on the charity of others, and on the fear they strike into the hearts of decent people who should be protected by the State.

In the city of Dublin no action was taken by the Garda in relation to tinkers until the people took the law into their own hands and that is something which the guardians of the peace should not allow. They should act before people are driven in desperation to take the law into their own hands. We shall probably have it offered to us by way of defence or excuse that many of these encampments are on private property. The tinkers, however, do not stay on private property. They have to leave it in order to make their living, and they seldom behave in such a manner all the time they are away from that private property as not to give the Garda an opportunity of prosecuting them. This is not a question of persecuting people. It is a question of compelling them to live with their neighbours, whether they be their neighbours for a short time or neighbours in the sense that the Gospel speaks of neighbours. The law will have to be rigidly enforced against these people in order that decent people will be able to enjoy their lives and property.

I am not a ruthless person. I am not as ruthless as I may appear to have spoken but, for the greater good, I believe we shall have to be more ruthless in the enforcement of our traffic laws. I suppose this is the first occasion for many years in a debate on the Department for Justice that it has gone on for the first few hours without a reference being made to the enforcement of the licensing laws. Fortunately, I hope, we have exhausted that topic, and likewise I do not think there is any necessity for me to labour the topic of traffic laws because I hope that, in the not too distant future, we shall have an opportunity of discussing proposals in relation to road traffic legislation. Meanwhile, however, we cannot tolerate the chaos that exists particularly in the city of Dublin.

It is not just a matter of the convenience of motorists, of people who might be regarded as well-to-do. It is a matter of the convenience of people who pass and repass one another on their way to work every day in the city of Dublin. There is a fantastic amount of money and productive effort wasted on the streets of Dublin every day because of the congestion that exists in the city. This is not completely a matter for the Minister for Justice but I think it time for me to say that I believe that the problem is so grievous in the city of Dublin, and is so serious in the larger provincial cities and towns, that it will have to be tackled as a national problem, as a problem needing urgent Government intervention and assistance to solve.

Obviously the parking problem will not be solved simply by banning cars from particular streets. They must find somewhere to park and, if you ban them from some streets, they will only go to others and park there. One could go on to the last resort and carry the prohibition on parking out to the suburbs. This would mean that many motorists would leave their cars in their own garages, but that is reducing the thing to a ridiculous point.

I believe that the Government will have to provide capital for the provision of parking space in Dublin. In relation to the space available to the State, for instance the old barrack square in Ship Street at Dublin Castle, there is a large area overrun with weeds which could be used for parking. I feel that the State are not doing their part in helping to provide a solution, to some extent, of the traffic problem in Dublin. I appreciate that the members of the Corporation, the Garda Síochána and the Department of Local Government are sitting in committee on this but I believe more expedition is required to ensure that the time of the working people of Dublin shall not be wasted while going to and from work.

We very frequently forget the simple arithmetical fact that six people, each driving one motor car, take much greater space than 60 or 70 people on a bus. We must bear that in mind because the important thing is to allow traffic to pass and repass along the streets. I am not among those who decry Gardaí with note books who take down the numbers of cars blocking the streets. These car-owners are blocking the streets just as much as if they were lying down on the thoroughfare themselves. A person who parks a car six feet wide might as well lie down on the roadway himself for the whole day. That must be got into the minds of the people.

Some of the blame in regard to traffic chaos must be laid at the doors of the Department, the Garda and the Department of Local Government. For instance there is the chaos and uncertainty that still prevails in regard to zebra crossings. One of the main reasons for that is that a half-hearted effort was made at first and it was decided to avoid the expenditure of having winking lights put up at these crossings on either side. The result was that for a long time people could not distinguish which were zebra crossings and which were normal crossings. Uncertainty developed and, despite the arrangements since made, that uncertainty continues, resulting in many accidents on these crossings. There is only one way of enforcing traffic regulations and that is to be ruthless in treating persons disobeying the regulations as public enemies. Unless and until that is done, we shall not have the order on our streets that we should have, and much time and effort on the part of the nation's labour force and much money will be wasted daily on streets and roadways.

There are many other aspects of this Vote on which one would like to comment. Although it is one of the smallest Departments—except in relation to the Garda force—it covers a vast multitude of different topics. Generally speaking, I think the situation in regard to parking is not unhealthy but there are many things that could be improved with very little effort and I hope this effort will be made. It is not, as many people believe, purely a lawyers' Department —far from it. It is the Department which looks after the affairs of even the humblest citizen and that is why it is very important that the efficiency of the courts and of the Garda should be improved so that people may be protected against the undesirables among us and also in order that an innocent person who is charged may have his innocence proved with all possible speed.

That is why I return in my final remarks to the request made here that immediate steps be taken to modernise and improve on the whole system of criminal administration in our courts of justice. If and when it is found by a district justice that there is sufficient evidence against a man to justify his trial on a charge of a crime against the people, the people should not be denied the opportunity of having that trial take place and, on the other hand, if a person is innocent he should be freed without the delay of three to six months which happens even in the simplest cases at present.

There are very few remarks I wish to make on this Estimate. Not being a solicitor, I shall not go on similar lines to Deputy Ryan. In the course of his remarks about a certain Garda appointment he said his statements were not directed against any person's ability or integrity. I should just like to comment that many of his statements, to my mind, were solely aimed in that direction.

I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of providing a mounted police force in the city. Ours is one of the very few cities in the world that has no such force and in view of the great reputation of our bloodstock throughout the world and the fame of Irish horses, I think such a force would help to benefit our bloodstock industry and would also be a tourist attraction. Perhaps the Minister would examine the possibility of having such a force in this city, at any rate, and possibly in Cork and Limerick also.

Another problem I have in mind is the lack of power of the Gardaí to enter a corporation park. A policeman on the beat cannot go into a corporation or municipal park unless invited to do so by the city manager or by a responsible official appointed by him. Even in some of the newly-developed parks—and I am glad to say park development is going ahead now with greater impetus than heretofore—we have had cases of assault, attempted robbery and so on. The Corporation, in trying to cope with the problem and also with the problem of dangerous, immoral practices in parks, have appointed park rangers but park rangers have no power of arrest.

If the park ranger finds somebody committing an offence in a corporation park he may phone the Garda and ask them to come and apprehend the person which is ridiculous because the person would be a long way away before Gardaí could arrive. If the Minister for Justice is not prepared to end what I regard as a very silly situation, at least more power should be given to park rangers, or there should be easily accessible telephones in every municipal park so that if an offence is committed, or about to be committed or suspected, the park ranger can request the police to come and assist him in the proper administration of that park. This is a very serious matter in view of the increasing development now taking place under relief grants in the city. I imagine the same problem arises in other urban areas but it is certainly a big problem here.

There is only one other matter on which I should like to hear the Minister comment. Under present regulations a Garda superintendent with I.R.A. service is entitled to two years' extension of service. This applies only to superintendents or, shall we say, ranks above.

That is not true. That has been extended.

To inspectors?

Yes, down to the Gardaí.

I understood it had not been extended, that superintendents had a two-year advantage over other ranks, but if what the Deputy says is correct——

Yes, it is the same for all.

Then, I was misinformed but that might have been the position heretofore.

I am very glad to hear that has been dealt with.

One must have the medal with bar.

That is correct because there was a number of inspectors with the medal with bar who felt they were not being treated fairly in this matter. I hope the Minister will find the time to comment on the two matters I raised, that is the possibility of providing a mounted police force and of providing police protection for our citizens in the municipal parks.

I note that Deputy Lemass regrets the passing of the old system of mounted police patrols. I suppose this is a case of an old custom dying hard. I am sorry Deputy Ryan has left the House. Having listened to his contribution this evening, we realise how erroneous were our views in regard to people complaining to Deputies of the terribly long delays which occur in deciding their cases. Little did we realise how terribly hard are the lives of members of the profession who have very much to do with the Department administered by the Minister for Justice. From what he told us, it seems it is not a very pleasant occupation. However, I am sure many of us cannot agree that very much of their time is occupied in looking up the outmoded laws mentioned by him.

Again I am sorry Deputy Ryan has left the Chamber, because I wish to congratulate the Minister on having appointed a certain person some months ago to the position of district justice. I can recall a few months ago a series of questions on the Order Paper under the name of Deputy Ryan questioning this appointment.

As a Deputy coming from Cork and as one who has experience of the person appointed by the Minister, let me say here and now that the man he appointed as temporary district justice is an honourable and sincere person.

I endorse every word of that.

And so do I.

It was very bad that any Deputy should come into this House, a representative for any part of Dublin, to try to cast a reflection on the Minister making the appointment and the person concerned.

I am particularly interested in the provision of suitable motor cycle transport for members of Garda patrols. I am convinced that the provision of motor cars, particularly in country areas, has not been as satisfactory as would be the provision of an adequate number of motor cycles of sufficient horsepower. In Cork county we have seen during the last few summers one policeman doing his utmost, with a miserable two-and-a-half horsepower motor cycle, to chase after wild people driving motor cars. The provision of sufficiently high-powered motor cycles equipped with radio would give much more satisfaction that the system we have at present. Therefore, in providing extra motor cycles for these patrols, as apparently the Minister intends, I would ask him to consider whether it is feasible to continue providing the low horsepower cycles instead of the higher powered vehicles.

Deputy Burke this evening bewailed the fact, according to him, that all the miseries we have been facing during the last couple of years have been brought about by the reduction of the police force during the term of office of the inter-Party Government. He suggests apparently that all the crimes that have been committed can be traced back to the decision of the inter-Party Government in reducing the numbers in the Force. That of course is not correct. If the position were so serious at the time, the Fianna Fáil Government of 1951 to 1954 would have righted it. I believe the Minister for Justice, regardless of whether he was a member of an inter-Party Government or a Fianna Fáil Government, acted wisely in striving to reduce the number in the Force. The difficulty, as I see it, is not due to any reduction in the number of police, and I shall deal with it later.

Before developing that point, I should like to refer to the enormous number of vehicles of every description on the roads today. That brings about the extraordinary situation of seeing registered number plates of all kinds on the roads. There was a time when one knew from the registration plate what county a vehicle was from. Nobody knows now. That multiplication must add immensely to the expense of the local authorities in keeping records of new registration numbers and transfers where there is a trade-in or a sale to another person. I have been informed that, in America, the person buying a motor car, or any other mechanically-propelled vehicle, is given a registered number and a plate and that is his property afterwards. Should he transfer or sell the vehicle involved and buy a new one, the old number is transferred to the new vehicle. That system would be much easier to operate and would be a great advantage to the Garda. Particularly in country areas where the police get to know the numbers of the vehicles, and there is an inquiry into an accident, for instance, it would be much easier for them to check. It might not be feasible to operate that system here but I do not see why, when it is in operation in some parts of America, something like it could not be put into operation here.

I should like to refer to Vote No 29, Land Registry and Registry of Deeds. All I wish to say on this Vote is that, through the Minister, I offer my sincere thanks to all the officials in this section. I have found that each year one gets more help and cooperation from each and every one of the officials in this section of the Department than in any other section of any other Department of State. It is only fair that at a time like this, when we are discussing the annual Vote, we should take the opportunity of informing the officials concerned how deeply we appreciate their cooperation and help.

Deputy Burke expressed certain views here today on a certain matter. My views possibly differ from his. I do not believe, even in Dublin city, that the direct consequence of reducing the Garda personnel has been an increase in crime over the last few years. Much of the difficulty arises from the treatment meted out to criminals in our courts. The law has been too lenient altogether. One reads day after day of offenders let off under the Probation Act. There is, too, the practice that names are not published in the Press. Apparently, the idea is to protect children. Actually it is the parents we are protecting. We are protecting parents who have no consideration or respect for other people's property. Neither do they seem to worry in the least about the destruction their children do. While we would not wish to expose the young people concerned it is time that the parents were made to realise that, by sheltering behind a law which protects their children, they are leaving their children to continue in vandalism and destruction.

The Minister mentioned that fatal accidents increased during the year by 38, making a total of 300 for the year. Surely Deputy Burke cannot maintain that that increase is contingent upon the reduction in Garda personnel. Very often those responsible for fatal accidents fail to remain at the scene. They are "hit and run". Very often there seems to be no excuse of any kind for these accidents and what is upsetting people is the fact that those who are responsible for such accidents are invariably acquitted by the Courts. I do not think the Minister should concentrate on increasing the number of Garda. Neither should he go out of his way to bring the law up to date, as Deputy Ryan seems to think he should. Indeed, if he does that, I am sure there will not be so many pickings for so many people. I think the Minister should approach the matter from the point of view of ensuring that those who are responsible will give decisions in favour of the public generally and against drunken drivers, drunken drivers who are so very often the cause of fatal accidents or very, very serious injuries to quite innocent victims. If the problem is tackled from that end we may get better results.

The Minister hopes for more cooperation from the people. The people will not co-operate unless they can respect the law. So long as the law appears to be administered so unfairly, so long will people hesitate to co-operate with the Garda. So long as the present position obtains, neither the Minister nor his Department can hope for a change of outlook because people will not help when they see the law administered in favour of a few rather than in justice to everybody.

When one finds, on the one hand, that the number of Gardaí has decreased and crime has increased there is an almost inescapable inference that there is a connection between the two. In Cork city it has been found that the reduction in the number of Gardaí has led to an increase in crime, not perhaps serious crime but crime by a certain section which some are pleased to describe as "juvenile delinquents"—the most obnoxious phrase ever coined in our time. So-called juvenile delinquents are rowdies and blackguards. No matter what we may call them, fundamentally that is what they are; so long as society inclines to the use of the euphemistic term "juvenile delinquents" or "problem child" so long shall we find juvenile delinquency—blackguardism and rowdyism and cowardice—prospering.

I agree entirely with what Deputy Desmond said about the punishment for crime when the criminal comes before our courts. We might ask ourselves then: "What is the remedy?" I do not believe the psychiatric approach is the remedy at all. I do not subscribe to the sympathetic approach to the so-called juvenile delinquent. I believe the remedy was provided by nature at the rear of every man's body. I believe that if we made it mandatory upon the courts to apply corporal punishment for certain defined crimes of violence the juvenile delinquent would very quickly begin to look upon himself as a rowdy and a blackguard and many of the complaints we hear in this House and from the pulpit would cease.

In my constituency this week there was reference in the Cork Circuit Court to the fact that young people in a certain suburb of the city were responsible on two occasions for actions which could have wrecked trains and caused great loss of life. In one case they rolled a bogey on to the track and, in another, they put a sleeper across the line. These things would not have happened, in my opinion, had there been an adequate Garda Force. It is a well-known fact in Cork that this particular railway line is a playground for blackguards.

The Minister was pleased to tell the House that crime is mainly a Dublin problem, as if the rest of the country could feel quite happy. Crime is not mainly a Dublin problem. There is more crime in Dublin, because there is a greater density of population, but there is relatively just as much crime in the other big centres of population. Above all, there is just as much violence and disrespect for the rights of others. In Cork City in certain areas people going home at night, over the week-end, in the last or the second-last bus, find it almost impossible to travel without suffering grave affront sometimes to their very persons.

Now that the Minister has the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary and the Department has the assistance of another Assistant Secretary, one may hope that provision will be made to alleviate the position of jurors in Cork City. This is a peculiar problem and, when I say peculiar, I mean it is peculiar to Cork city. On the jury list in Cork there are some 800 jurors, 200 of whom for various reasons—ill-health, over-age, etc.—are not available for jury service. The entire work of jurors for the whole of Cork city and county—it is the biggest county in the State—has to be done by the remaining 600 jurors.

On one occasion not so long ago these jurors, who are craftsmen, traders and professional men, had to attend every morning for a month at the courthouse. Many of them lost an entire month's wages as a result. I have been pressing the Minister for three years to say what steps he intends to take to alter this situation. I have been told that he realises the difficulties and the hardships and that he is inclined to treat this as a matter of urgency. Now, I feel that the matter has arrived at a stage where something should be done about it, and I would again ask the Minister if he is ready to state when something will be done about the juror situation in Cork.

We have been talking about criminal trials and in that connection I want to deplore the growing practice of the State in criminal trials of availing of Section 54 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 to have criminal trials transferred from the local Circuit Criminal Court to the Central Criminal Court in Dublin. The State is entitled, on application, without showing any cause whatever, to have a criminal trial transferred from the local Circuit Criminal Court to Dublin. All the machinery is available in the local Circuit Criminal Court. You have a judge there and you must take it that he is competent to try a criminal case. You have jurors there and you must take it that they are as intelligent and as capable of serving on a jury as are Dublin jurors. Nevertheless, cases which need not be transferred to the Central Criminal Court have been transferred there or efforts have been made to transfer them. We can well see what that means. It could mean an immense amount of expenditure for the accused person and it certainly means expenditure for the State. In my submission the State should not be entitled, unless it can show cause, to have a case transferred from the local Circuit Criminal Court to Dublin. An accused man is entitled to have his case heard in the most economical way possible.

I should like also, as we are dealing with matters of that nature, to point out to the Minister, as other speakers have done, that the present situation in regard to legislation generally is largely out-of-date. Not alone is the legislation out-of-date but some of the most important documents necessary to the ordinary legal practitioner, and which should be available to him, are out of print. I understand that the Rules of the High Court and the Supreme Court of 1905 are out of print. The Cork Local Bankruptcy Rules of 1888 are out of print and unless a practitioner is lucky enough to have legal books which contain these Rules, and which may also be out of print he cannot get them.

The Rules of the Cork Dock Admiralty of 1887 are out of print and are available in only one legal volume which is also out of print. It could possibly happen that a citizen of this State in Cork might want to arrest a ship for a matter of thousands of pounds and he would find himself in the position that he would be unable to do so because he could not get the Rules of Court under which he would proceed. The ship could be on the high seas long before the necessary documents could be prepared.

Now that we have a new Parliamentary Secretary, I hope that the Department will bestir themselves in this matter. It is quite possible that the Department may have the intention of producing new rules but they have been intending to do so for a long time and it has now become a matter of urgency. Deputy Ryan has already referred to the hardship imposed on practitioners in Dublin who seek to secure impressed judicature stamps on court documents and who, he said, have to queue up to have these stamps impressed. The same situation exists in other centres where there is a large number of practitioners. Solicitors in Cork, Limerick and various other places cannot have these stamps impressed at all and the documents have to come to Dublin to be impressed and then go back to the local centre.

A sensible approach to that problem would be that the Minister would make it possible for adhesive stamps to be used or make representations to the Revenue Commissioners that a stamping machine be made available in the various centres. These matters are of great importance to every person who avails of the machinery of law provided in our courts of justice.

Another matter is the transfer of High Court actions to local venues. At the moment a notice of motion has to be sought in the High Court which may or may not be granted. It has impressed itself upon legal practitioners that this is an unnecessary procedure and that the litigant should have the right of applying to the local Court. I ask the Minister to look into that matter.

In regard to courthouses generally, in certain centres outside Dublin they are a charge on the local corporation although they serve the entire county attached to the city. The courthouse in Cork is a charge on Cork Corporation although most of the work done there deals with county matters and that part of the county that comes under the county council. The Land Registry, Probate and many other sections are housed in Cork courthouse and the ratepayers of Cork Corporation have to pay for them although they apply more to the county than to the city. That is inequitable. If it is not made a central charge, it should be divided between the city and the attached county.

I should like to say a word about the manner in which county registrars are being treated. They do the court office work, land registry work, probate work, preparation of voters list and other such matters relating to elections. Yet I understand their basic salaries were fixed over 20 years ago. They do not seem to be getting very far with the representations which, I understand, have been made to the Department although district justices, judges, High Court Judges, and indeed Principal Officers in the Department and various others have received increases in the interim.

There is also the case of district probate registrars. There were six of these before the establishment of the State and there are still six of them. They have to be either solicitors or barristers. Before the State was established away back in 1922 the six got, I understand, £350 each. Under native Government they have paid the price of their freedom because they now get 31/6d. a week, I think, for work which has not decreased but, on the contrary, has increased enormously in the interim. There is very little justice in that.

There are two other matters to which I should like to refer. They have been referred to already. I should like if the Minister would read, if he has not already read it, the speech of the President of the Incorporated Law Society last week when he had occasion to deplore the fact that much of our legislation is outdated and antiquated and suggested the setting-up of a law reform committee. There is no doubt that we have done a great deal to codify our laws and, as Deputy Ryan has said, a great deal has been done in that respect by the officers responsible for that particular aspect of the Department's duties. But enough has not been done and we still are in the situation in which we have antiquated laws completely out of touch with modern circumstances.

Again we have the situation in which legal practitioners and ordinary citizens who want to have recourse to law find there is a complete lack of up-to-date text books on Irish legal problems. Certain self-sacrificing members of the legal profession, such as Mr. Shillman, Mr. Justice Crotty and Judge Deale——

And Justice Coghlan.

——and Justice Coghlan have at their own expense—because I am sure none of them made any money out of their publications— added to the science of law in this country. In a society such as this, where people get grants for putting additions to their houses and putting new pillars on their gates, some provision should be made for a scholarship of some kind which would be given, say, each ten years for a work which would be accepted by a committee set up by the Chief Justice, the Minister or some such authority.

Finally, Deputy Corish spoke about the film censorship. I think to a great extent that ties up with what we were discussing earlier today—the growth of juvenile crime and rowdiness. The manner in which films are censored here is evidently strictly in conformity with the powers given to the Film Censor. One of the happy things about politics is that it leaves you with an excuse for not going to the films every week, but when we do go to the films most of us find that violence is turned into a virtue. Deputy Corish spoke with a great deal of reserve about what he would not like his children to see in the films. I think it regrettable that only people like us show reserve in matters of that nature. Certainly the people who produce the films show no reserve whatsoever. They not only assault the susceptibilities of the younger people to whom Deputy Corish referred but they disgust most of us. One of the predecessors of the present Film Censor used to cut whenever he came to what he called "the seccotine kiss". His successor apparently does not do that, judging by what we see in the films. Our young men and young women are attending these films and they cannot have a good effect.

Finally, I should like to add my voice to those of Deputies who have asked for better conditions for the Gardaí both in regard to their barracks and in regard to their pay.

This is usually a lawyer's debate, but not being a lawyer I shall put the layman's point of view or, if you like, the view of the man in the street. First, I want to deal with the question of the administration of justice. I argued before in this House that there should be free legal assistance for people before the Courts. Many people lose their cases in the District Court because they have not the means to engage a solicitor. Solicitors now will not accept a case unless they get a certain amount down and some guarantee that the rest is coming. Perhaps it will be said that these are not serious cases but any case in which a person finds himself before the Courts is serious. In a great many cases these people take a chance. They do not know procedure. They do not know when to open their mouths and when to keep them shut. Most of what they say is irrelevant and they are told to sit down. It usually ends up by victory going to the other side because the person there, be he a Guard or somebody else, has some little knowledge of the law.

Therefore, as the law is now becoming expensive—solicitors talk in terms of guineas as if they were shillings and ask for "fivers" and the kind of money that ordinary working people cannot have—I hold that poor people take a chance and offer no proper defence. In some cases the justice may come to their assistance but I cannot see how a justice can help in respect of evidence if the defendant does not know what is relevant and what is not. There ought to be— and I believe there is in certain countries—free legal assistance for people without means or with a limited income.

I think Deputy McGilligan referred to the point that the State should pay costs. I want to develop that. If the State fails in their prosecution of a person, that person has to pay his own costs. I do not think that is right. The onus is on the State to prove their case. It is bad enough to be hauled into court and to be suspect, because even your neighbours will say there must be something in it. Even if you do get off, you have had a few nightmares. Lots of people dread the Courts. Then they have to pay "fivers" or "tenners" to some solicitor. That is not right. The State should pay their way the same as any ordinary citizen. They should pay costs where they fail to prove their case. There might not be need for free legal assistance if legal terms were simplified.

Legal language is like medical language. A doctor may write out a prescription for which the chemist charges 10/- or 7/6d., whereas if the patient understood what was written on the prescription he could get it for 6d. I do not know why all the rigmarole has to be used in legal matters. The Minister admitted to-day that, for the benefit of Deputies, he simplified the explanatory memorandum in connection with the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. If that was necessary for members of the House, it is more than necessary for the public. Two and two are four in any language. If the law were simplified, people could go in and make a case at least in the district court and, if necessary, in the appeal court. They could understand what it is all about. There are too many lawyers in politics and they all seem to be agreed on mystifying the public so that they will do good business.

People should be allowed to defend themselves in court when they want to. That is discouraged and there have been cases where justices refused to hear them unless they had a solicitor. Why should that be? A man should be allowed to go into the Supreme Court, if necessary.

So he can.

God help him if he did.

Singer went a great distance.

I know a woman who asked a solicitor to do something. The solicitor engaged junior counsel without her instructions and she got a bill for £12 12s. which she refused to pay. He held on to her documents. She went to another solicitor, who said he would not touch the case. She went to a further solicitor who would not do anything. The woman became almost a mental case. It is all right to say that people can do it but when faced with the rigmarole that is used, it is not so easy to do.

What does the Deputy want to have done?

I want the law to be simplified. Let people buy a 6d. pamphlet so that they may know what they can do and what they cannot do. Let them know where to go. They do not know.

The Deputy may not advocate legislation on the Estimates.

He is advocating unemployment.

I am talking about the administration of justice.

The Deputy is asking for revision of the laws.

He is criticising the Acts we put through this House.

They can be criticised. In regard to the administration of justice, there is another matter to which I should like to refer. From time to time we get lectures from justices from the bench which are very often irrelevant and have nothing to do with the case. They take advantage of their privileged position. It has been questioned from time to time.

The Deputy may not criticise district justices or judges.

I thought I could. I thought their salaries are involved in this also. I thought the whole administration of justice could be criticised.

Decisions of the Judiciary are not open for discussion.

I was told at one time that if I were very nice I would win and if I were not I would lose. Why should that be the case? If a person treats a judge with contempt, he should be punished for it but it should not be a question of being nice to him or not.

There is another matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the Minister. I had experience of it in regard to a simple school attendance case. Where a case is adjourned the defendant should be given some notice when the case is to be heard. On one occasion a case was adjourned for almost six months. The person concerned, who has enough to do to earn a livelihood and to look after his affairs, was supposed to remember, six months from the date of the adjournment, the day and hour he was to be in court. On one occasion I had to pay 10/- because I was not aware that the case was coming up. That could happen to anyone. I am not complaining for myself but for the public. Notice should be given that the case will be heard on a certain date so that the defendant will be there to defend it. The matter could be more serious than a school attendance case.

Some time ago I mentioned the case of a solicitor who drew up a will under which he inherited the testator's home. The niece of the testator and her husband and children got notice to get out of the home as it was being put up for sale. I do not know what the law is in respect of such a matter. It is an extraordinary thing if the solicitor who draws up a will for a dying person can profit from the will, apart from his costs to which he is entitled. The costs were fabulous. I have a copy of the will here under which the person who drew up the will inherited the home of the testator. I was asked if that was the law.

Surely the Minister has no responsibility for the manner in which a will is drawn up?

Or for the free will of the testator.

If laws are passed by this House under which that can be done they require to be amended. In regard to election abuses, the Minister has responsibility. There will be a municipal election in a few weeks' time and perhaps a Dáil election next year. It is my experience that nobody takes the Electoral Act seriously. It is well known that there is wholesale personation everywhere. One rarely hears of a case being prosecuted—perhaps one or two in the whole country. It is a serious state of affairs. It may be that the Guards are not instructed. Even if there is collusion between sides to forget all about it, it is the Guards' duty to intervene because while Parties, like thieves, may agree among themselves to fight it out among themselves, there are individuals, apart from Parties, who are getting the wrong end of the stick. If two Parties decide to personate to the extent of 100 each, that is all right for them but an Independent has not enough people working for him to be able to deal with that. At the last election there were ten election booths in my constituency but I had only two people working for me—my wife and someone else. It is the duty of the Guards to do something about personation, not just await the Parties' instructions.

It is a very extraordinary fact that in the general election I lost by a few hundred votes but in the municipal election I headed the poll. There were 500 personations in the general election in my constituency. It is a very funny thing——

It does not seem to be relevant.

It is the Minister's duty to prevent personation. After the last general election I reported to the Gardaí in Store Street about damage to a lot of my election material. It was a midnight raid and all my big signs, on which I had spent a lot of money, were collected, broken up and thrown into the Royal Canal. But I heard nothing from the Gardaí about it. That is why I say that this Electoral Abuses Act is not being taken seriously by the Garda.

Some time ago I drew the Minister's attention to certain practices of landlords and he promised me that in the new Rent Restrictions Act he would keep my points in mind. I told him about the practice of landlords refusing to take rents and of the poor tenant falling into arrears, because of that practice, of anything between £20 and £30. That is an old dodge of landlords. There is another clever one. I know the case of a woman to whom a landlord let a room and a basement. He made it clear to her that she was caretaker of the room and a tenant of the basement. Later when she sought relief from the fabulous rent she was paying and succeeded in getting a reduction he evicted her on the grounds that she held the property under a caretaker's agreement only.

These are points the Minister should consider very carefully. I would also draw his attention to the question of sheriffs' notices. Sheriffs should be obliged to give at least five days' notice. Recently a woman got her notice at 10 o'clock in the morning and was evicted at 11 the same morning.

The Minister should also consider the present position in regard to prisoners. I suggest that all prisoners should be graded. It is not fair to put a man who has been found guilty of some misdemeanour such as being drunk in with a man who has committed some immoral crime. Great care should be taken in this respect if the desirable principle of criminal reform is to be achieved. Shortly after the Civil War I happened to be in Mountjoy; I should not have been there but I was put in with a man who had been found guilty of a very serious immoral charge. I was an innocent child of 16 at the time. I hope that practice is not still in existence. It is the Minister's duty to encourage prisoners, particularly first-timers, to reform and this can be attained only by grading prisoners.

I very rarely criticise the Garda. Unfortunately, earlier this year I had occasion to offer some criticism because of an incident to which my attention had been drawn. I am always delighted to pay them a tribute when it is deserved and I speak as a person who was often glad to have their protection. I was in the dance business for 20 years and had to contend with all sorts of ruffians. The unexpected always happens in the dance business. But one must be tactful, particularly with drunken people, because a crowd of drunken people do not care what they do. The best way in that case to avoid trouble is to rub them down and be tactful. If the Garda handled such situations with tact there would be far fewer rows.

Deputy Burke, I think, talked about giving too much power to Gardaí and in this connection he mentioned the figure of one per cent. Maybe he could have said five per cent., or three per cent., but he did not want to criticise Gardaí. There is no body or group perfect on this earth. There is the odd Garda who sticks his chest out too much and who provokes and annoys people, but that does not condemn the body to which he belongs. All Gardaí should be firm, tactful, but courteous, and if they are not helped by the public it may be due to the fact that an odd one of them provokes the public and gives the rest a bad name.

I know that the public are funny and this reminds me of one occasion when I saw a person who admittedly resisted arrest. The Garda arresting him drew his baton and hit him, but he hit him two or three times and that was not necessary. The people who saw it did not say anything at first but they cried "shame" when they saw the man being struck again. That is human nature. You can go so far but not too far, and that is why I say that the odd man may provoke people and give the Garda as a body a bad name. I am just as anxious as anybody else to see that they have a good name.

I remember a few years ago attending a little function in county Dublin. It was a sing-song place and I dropped in with my wife and there was a row. I do not drink myself but it would appear that the fellow in charge was a newcomer. He fancied himself and he tried to get rough with a crowd of people who had drink taken, and they lit on him. Still, the same place was always well handled by another party who was not present.

Was the Minister responsible for this?

He might have been in control of this place.

The Minister has a lot to do with the handling of crowds and maintaining public order. That is what he has to do with it. I have not much more to say. I have had my say. The solicitors will have their say but this is the say of the man in the street, and I am sure the Minister will give it as much consideration as he will give to the say of the legal profession. I want him to know that, in spite of the fact that I had a few words with him some months ago, I can understand his determination to protect his Department. I have always held the view that he is a very just Minister. That is no flattery; I know him a long time and, while I might have had a difference with him, I want him to know that.

Perhaps this is an Estimate that should be left to the legal men in the House but, nevertheless, I wish to speak on one particular aspect in connection with applications made by different Garda barracks seeking the installation of water and sewerage services. Throughout rural Ireland there are several areas where Garda barracks are built on the sides of main roads along which public water supplies run. Everybody knows that such barracks are usually built on approximately a rood, or a couple of roods of ground. That area is very small and, in such a hemmed-in area, married quarters are provided. I feel that it is unfair to the sergeant in a barracks, where there are married quarters, who is trying to bring up a young family if he is not provided with the facility of sewerage and water.

In many cases applications have been made for these services down through the years. Nothing much has been done about them beyond bringing an engineer to inspect them and then, after twelve months, two years or three years, another engineer will arrive, look around, and return to Dublin or elsewhere. In particular I have in mind a Garda barracks that I pass daily, Gortmore, Rosmuc. I am open to contradiction by the Minister, but, to the best of my knowledge, there has been an application on hands from that Garda barracks for at least six years. There is a public water supply on the main road and I would point out that the area extending to the back of the barracks is very narrow.

If applications of that sort are to be dealt with they should be dealt with immediately. The same situation obtains in the Garda barracks in Letterfrack, in my constituency, but I am glad to say that at the present moment arrangements are being made to have a water supply installed there. However, I should like to see the Minister arrange to have a survey carried out of all such barracks in country areas. I feel they are entitled to running water in all cases, and a bathroom as the case may be.

A practice has grown up in the Department of Justice within the last couple of years whereunder when new Garda barracks are being built, a dwelling house is provided for married quarters. I think that is only right and I believe that in future when barracks are being built, one house should be set aside for married Gardaí because, in certain country areas, it is very hard for a married Garda to get a house to rent.

With regard to traffic regulations, I should like to point out that people coming into the city from the country, who are not very conversant with the traffic regulations, may oftentimes make slight mistakes. If they are turning to the left at a particular junction, theirs may be the second car from the left, and oftentimes I am afraid they are abused. I feel that a little bit of advice in a case like that would be better than abuse. I shall conclude by saying that I sincerely hope that all Garda barracks in country districts will have running water laid on and, if possible, bathrooms provided.

As many Deputies have said, the Minister has got a Parliamentary Secretary now and one of the first things I would appeal to him to examine is the question of juries. In the bad old days when juries were first introduced in this country we had a foreign Government and they took good care that no Irishman would serve on a jury. Their method of ensuring that was to make the qualification for a juryman that he must be a ratepayer whose poor law valuation was not less than £10. That is the qualification for a juryman at present.

I thought it was £20.

I understand it is £10 and he must be a ratepayer. We have moved on since those days and we now have a number of Irishmen with poor law valuations of £10 but we have many more Irishmen who are not ratepayers at all. They may be tenants in a house, occupiers of flats, or they may be in professions where residences are supplied to them. These are all debarred from becoming jurymen. We have extended the franchise in local government to all adults over the age of 21 and I do not see why we could not devise some method by which we could extend the privilege of serving on a jury to all adults over 21.

As it is at the moment, in 99 cases out of 100 women are debarred from sitting on juries; their husbands are usually the rated occupiers, the persons to whom the poor law valuation is attached and they themselves are therefore debarred from jury membership. That throws a greater hardship on the remaining few who may exercise the privilege of sitting on a jury. In my own county if ratepayers from a certain part of the county are empanelled on a jury they have to travel a distance of 55 miles where there is no public transport unless they stay overnight. I am referring to parts of Inishowen where jurymen are called for service in Letterkenny. Very often these men are called for Tuesday; they have to arrive in Letterkenny on Monday night and possibly remain until the following week if there is a number of criminal jury cases. That being so, the solicitors—a much-maligned body by some of the Deputies here —refrain from seeking juries in civil actions where the plaintiff or defendant would be entitled to a jury, knowing the difficulty involved for the county registrar and the difficulty and expense that would be placed on a juryman by summoning him to attend these Circuit Court centres.

Very often county registrars are human and if they find only one or two criminal cases for trial they endeavour to procure a jury, the members of which may reside convenient to the locus of the trial. One can imagine what happens in such cases particularly in rural Ireland where you know neighbours for five or ten miles from the court town. If we could extend the jury right to more people—I am not saying to what class it should be extended—or if the Minister's advisers could devise a system of extending it then we would have more people eligible for juries and less expense and less travelling over long distances and a greater panel from which to choose jurors.

I do not think we would have the same outcry for payment of jurymen as there is at the moment if something like that could be done and litigants in civil actions could take advantage of their rights to demand juries. It is done here in the city of Dublin. We have juries in the Circuit Court here but a jury in a civil action in rural Ireland is absolutely unheard of at present. Perhaps with the assistance of his new Parliamentary Secretary the Minister would look into this matter. It is important and I know that it would be a very welcome change in the law.

There is no doubt that the law is administered with dignity and decorum in this State but unfortunately the premises in which it is administered sometimes take away from any dignity or decorum there may be. I refer to the courthouses. I know the Minister is not responsible for courthouses and that the local authority is, but I think that, perhaps, the Minister could create some liaison between his Department and the local authorities to ensure that courthouses are properly decorated, cleaned and heated. Heat should be supplied for court sittings so as to give litigants some amenities when they travel long distances and possibly wait long hours for the hearing of their cases.

We still depend in this country for the enforcement of court orders on the antiquated system of seizure. Unfortunately, we are now left in such a situation that if a county registrar who is the acting sheriff, seizes stock he finds no place in which to impound them. With transport what it is today, I think if we had one or two pounds situated in each county it would suffice for animals so seized until such time as they are disposed of by auction or claimed by owners. The lack of pounds in which Gardaí can impound animals found wandering or straying on the road tends to make things most difficult for the Gardaí in the enforcement of the law. I know of cases where Gardaí found cattle wandering on the road—what were they to do? They might seek the owners of the cattle and prosecute them but what about the cattle in the meantime? Were they to let them stray or leave them on "the long acre"? I think pounds should be provided so that animals found straying could be impounded; that is the law. It is no wonder that the law in many respects is a laughing-stock because, while we expect Gardaí to enforce it, there is no means whereby they can do so.

Some people detest pounds. They think the idea is reminiscent of the old landlord days but while the law stands as it now is and while animals must be impounded we must do something to see that the law is enforced.

It is a tragedy that there should be such a wide divergence of opinion on the interpretation of the law by district justices. In some court areas you will find that district justices limit, say, the hours of dancing under the Public Dancehalls Act to twelve midnight but across the river, in another area, you have a different district justice and there the people may dance to daybreak, until the cows come home, if they want to. We should have some uniformity in that respect. Again, under the same Act some district justices welcome the erection of modern dancehalls at seaside resorts while others refuse to license them on the grounds that there are sufficient facilities for dancing in these localities already. Again, it is a matter of interpretation of the law.

When the Tostal was held, local Tostal Committees welcomed suggestions for festivals, for the brightening up of rural life and the attraction of visitors to small country towns. Many people undertook the hire and erection of marquees for dances during Tostal week and that custom has continued. Some district justices now refuse to license these marquees. I am not criticising them for their decision —they are quite within their rights— but what I am criticising is the divergence of interpretation of legislation. I know it is most difficult but if we could get some directive from the Minister or the Department it would be of considerable assistance. I know justices may tell Ministers to go to blazes, that it is their duty to interpret the law and they are possibly within their rights in saying so. However, I feel certain that if they were approached in a proper manner by a Minister or his officials, they would agree on some standard interpretation of the law as it stands.

Might I refer also to what some gentlemen refer to as itinerants or tinkers? I have a sneaking regard for the tinkers. Some people would tell us they are the last descendants of the old clans.

You are back to "God's Gentry" again.

We are not. We are told they are the last descendants of the old clans. I do not know who the tinkers to Clan Moher were but I know that the tinkers to Clan O'Donnell were the McGinleys and the Wards were the bards to Clan O'Donnell. I would be sorry to see——

This is terrible snobbery.

——these old retainers wiped out. I have a sneaking regard for them but, on the other hand, we must find some method of keeping track of them. Speaking from personal experience I have a number of decrees against tinkers for trespass on local farmers' crops. The tinkers move on and we have no method of executing the decree. If they were made to register at the Garda barracks when they come into a district and, when they move out of it, to register in the barracks in the district to which they move, say, once a week, it might be possible to keep track of them. Otherwise it is very difficult for Gardaí, in enforcing orders made in the courts, to trace them. The suggestion I am making to the Minister is not the ideal one but it is one into which, to use a common expression, the Department might get their teeth to find some method of controlling the activities of tinkers.

Deputy Noel Lemass intervened in the debate to ask the Minister to reintroduce into the cities of Ireland a mounted police force. He said the Irish horse was known in many foreign fields. Let us keep him in the field; let us keep him off the streets and off the roads. Any person who has experience of mounted police knows that horses are only useful in controlling pedestrian crowds. They are absolutely useless in vehicular traffic or in any congestion of vehicles. They are very useful at the approaches to football grounds but the rare occasions on which we have such very big crowds going to Dalymount Park, Croke Park or Lansdowne Road do not create a big problem. In vehicular traffic they are only a nuisance and a dangerous one at that. Therefore let us keep them in their proper place, namely, the field.

There has been much criticism here about the reduction in the personnel of the Garda Síochána. I am all in favour of a reduction in personnel in rural Ireland but I certainly would not like to see the force impoverished numerically in the cities. I think it was Deputy MacEoin who, as Minister, inaugurated this scheme of one man and one sergeant in the station. If I am giving credit in the wrong place I withdraw, but I think it was in Deputy MacEoin's time as Minister for Justice that the suggestion was made.

I should like to congratulate the Commissioner on the saving which he has effected to the State by his successful implementation of this scheme in rural Ireland of one man and one sergeant, and I think the Minister is following it up by placing a Garda car in each Garda district. I should like to see, and I think it would be an ideal method of administration in the country areas, a sergeant and a Garda in small stations with four or five Guards for car patrol at Garda headquarters. The local Garda and the sergeant could do what could be considered routine work—dog licences, a very important duty in the west and the north-west, the witnessing of dole forms, and other routine matters. The mobile Garda could do spot checks for tax on cars, for breaches of the road traffic regulations and spot checks for breaches of the intoxicating liquor legislation, and so on.

We all know what life in rural Ireland is. If a man wanted a drink after hours and he was in the local— I am not referring to recent years but to the time when the law was enforced —he had his pint in one hand and his right eye on it and his left eye on the door of the Garda barracks; if there was a movement made at the door and his left eye detected it, the right eye concentrated on the consumption of the pint and he escaped by the back door. If there is a mobile control such as the Minister and the Commissioner is setting up, the law will be strictly enforced and enforced in a manner which will not allow an evasion such as I have just mentioned.

I should like also to congratulate the Commissioner and his officers on the high standard of the personnel of the Garda Síochána. There is a small number of the older hands still there and these new recruits have been very quick to learn. They are a credit to the force, a credit to their older comrades, comrades trained under the late General Eoin O'Duffy who made that force the force of which we are all so proud to-day and who had the foresight to refrain from making them an armed force in those days when, owing to certain things, one might have been tempted to make them an armed force which possibly would leave them, in the opinion of the public, what their counterparts in other areas are to-day.

I should like to congratulate the Minister and the Commissioner on the introduction of the Ban Gardaí. The public have taken to them, and I hope that this small force will shortly be expanded. There are many duties they could take over thereby relieving the young men for duty elsewhere. For instance, it would be a good thing if we had Ban Garda in the precincts of this House. We know the duty of the station sergeant. I think the Ban Garda would make ideal station sergeants. The duty of a station sergeant is, after all, that of a clerk. We have, too, in the city of Dublin Gardaí on duty in the courts, calling witnesses and swearing witnesses. I think the Ban Garda could move in there. I am not trying in any way to throw the Fir Garda out of jobs. They could be moved on to more active duties. I hope the Minister will continue to expand the Ban Garda. I am sure that the percentage of resignations—resignations other than on marriage—will not be as high as it is in the Fir Garda.

I notice the Garda have been reduced numerically by 900 since 1950. That is due entirely, I think, to that scheme of having one sergeant and one Garda allotted to each station. I agree with other speakers that we should not understaff the force. Neither should we leave the Garda under strength in the City of Dublin. I am sure the Minister will pass on the interesting lecture given by Deputy Sherwin on the manner in which the Garda should conduct and deport themselves. I am sure also that it will be of considerable benefit to them.

It is a good thing that £29,000 extra is to be expended on transport for the Garda. I do not know if our courtesy cops were the success we should have liked. Certainly they were an ornament on the streets and were the cause of very favourable comment. I should like to see more of them throughout the country. I think they serve a very good purpose. More mechanically-mounted police might be a considerable advantage in enforcing the Road Traffic Act.

I notice also that we will add another five to the staff of the Land Registry for the purpose of copying maps which are now becoming tattered and torn. I wonder why we have not taken more advantage of the photostat. Even in the taking of depositions the photostat could be availed of. The depositions at the moment are either hand-written or typed. It would be more economical, and certainly more expeditious, to have photostat copies made of these depositions instead of all these carbon copies. If the Minister experimented in the Land Registry with photostat copies that might help to cut down expenses and we might avoid the necessity for employing these five additional mappers. That is something the Minister might like to examine. I make the suggestion as a possible economy and also from the point of view of dealing with the matter more expeditiously.

Deputy Sherwin referred to legal aid. We have a type of legal aid, but only on the capital charge. It may surprise the House, and particularly those gentlemen who harp on the fees charged by members of the legal profession, to know the fees paid to counsel and solicitors in assignments on the capital charge. I have never yet known a junior or senior counsel or a solicitor who refused a case, but I have known very many where the fees would not even pay the hotel bills. Before we can proceed further with legal aid we need to know something about the fees paid in the legal aid we have got.

I have considerable experience of legal aid in Scotland. Many of my clients have had to partake of it. There, there is a means test. Secondly, there is a test as to the validity of the claim and the chances of success of the plaintiff's case. There is, in other words, a preliminary trial by a legal aid committee which decides whether in certain circumstances the plaintiff should be assigned legal aid. If the plaintiff's financial means are not sufficient to warrant his employing and paying for legal advice, that advice is supplied to him on condition that, in the event of success, he refunds any sums paid.

There is a good deal to be said for that system. First of all, it does not cost the State very much. There is a kind of preliminary trial by a panel appointed for that purpose and that panel decides the reasonableness of the claim and the chances of the plaintiff's success. They will not advise the provision of legal aid unless there is a reasonable chance of success. In other words, frivolous actions will not be entertained. The system applies to plaintiffs in civil actions only; it does not apply to defendants. I think it is an excellent system though, as I said before, I have never known a lawyer to refuse an assignment, either on the criminal or the civil side, because of lack of finance on the part of the plaintiff. I suggest the Minister should consider the matter. It will not cost the State very much because there will be a preview of the case and an undertaking, in the event of success, to recoup the State any funds paid out by way of advance.

The Minister has had a very heavy session. He has steered some very, very important legislation through this House. I should like to congratulate him on the manner in which he has done that. Compliments have been paid to his staff. I should like to join in those compliments and I should like to bracket with them the Minister himself. I have found him to be one of the most courteous gentlemen who has ever adorned a front bench in this House.

In any order of society, such as we have got, the Estimate for the Department of Justice of that society cannot have its importance over-stressed. It is from that point of view that I propose to address myself to the House this evening, namely, the importance of the Department of Justice relative to the prestige it must occupy in the minds of the people, to the dignity with which it must carry out its work and, above all, to the preservation of its overall function—the enforcement of the rule of law—so that the constitutional provision that all men are equal before the law will be upheld.

On the office of the Minister for Justice, and I take these matters in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper, I have no comment to make. There are comments that I could make and that could be made by others but I do not propose to make them at this stage. It is true that the Minister has had a difficult session, a busy session. It is also true that to aid him, and possibly to spy on him in his efforts to get through this busy period, he is to have the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary who, we are told, is to occupy the position in a temporary capacity, whose present functions are unknown to us with the one exception that he is to make a special study of itinerants. We have now reached a stage in this country where we are to have a special person, second in command to the Minister for Justice, to deal with the tinker situation.

The question of the itinerant has been an annual one in this House. Ever since I became a visitor to this House, long before I became a member, I can remember listening in the Gallery to a former Deputy whose name was O'Donnell, and who was from some part of Tipperary, who spoke in glowing terms of the tinkers and what they represented. He said that they came from the old times.

I think that what people now describe as the menace of the tinkers has become more accentuated with the changing pattern of the lives of our people down the years. In former times people indulged more in the giving of clothing and food than they do now. I am not suggesting that that is due to any fault of the Government. It is a change in the people themselves. There is a certain stream of materialism that has become more rapid in its course over the years and families, whose fathers gave in the past, do not give any more and the people now in control of the households turn the itinerants away and talk about them in such a manner that public opinion has developed against them from a material point of view.

It is true that some of them can be particularly destructive both by themselves and through their wandering animals. It is equally true that those who are destructive do not take up their encampment in quarries or other suitable places but pitch their camps close to growing crops which can be damaged by themselves and their animals. As Deputy MacEoin said here today we shall have that problem with us all the time. Some kind of social injustice or social conditions drove these people on to the roads and their descendants and their descendant's descendants have gone on in that way.

Some of them, indeed a few of them quite distinguished families in this country at the present time, have left that pattern of life and now live in our towns and cities and occupy positions of considerable substance in different parts of the country. Proscription or prescription in any shape or form is not the answer to the itinerant problem. If it is a problem, it must be approached from the simple point of view of enforcing the existing law in exactly the same fashion as it is administered in relation to others, namely, not to accept that, because they are wandering people, they have any more privileges than people who are in possession of fixed abodes.

There is something to be said for the suggestion of Deputy O'Donnell for the compulsory registration of these people at the Garda station nearest to their encampments and that they should be expected to give an approximation of the length of time that they propose to remain in a particular area. So much for this itinerant problem which is now being adequately covered at the highest possible level.

It is comforting to know that the Council of Law Reporting is to be assisted but it is equally discomfiting to learn that from the point of view of the provision of legal text books something more is not being done. I do know that assistance may yet come from the funds of suitors. However, that is only a pious hope at the moment. What is being done about law reform? In the last Administration there was a very excellent piece of work done in the matter of law reform. That particular section of the Department appears to have gone into liquidation or else we do not hear anything of any worthwhile activity. That is a pity, not really so much by reason of the necessity for law reform as by reason of the very necessary continuity of the high standard of the work to which we had become accustomed.

Prisons come next on the Minister's list of responsibilities. I understand that several reforms have been effected over the years and are being effected with a view to making the life of the prisoner an easy one, and in so far as the main prisons are concerned, prisons such as Mountjoy and Portlaoise, I do not know of any adverse criticism of them. But I want to say something about the treatment of first offenders and younger people, some of whom are in the charge of the Department of Justice and others in the charge of the Department of Education. I often find it difficult to distinguish between these two charges. There is a case to be made for the segregation of the first offender in these respects from the hardened offender who has a record before he is sent to any of these institutions. There is also a distinction to be made between the type of offence which has been committed necessitating detention. In my view, a further and very necessary distinction should be made between the city offender and the rural offender, particularly if the rural juvenile offender has come under the notice of the authorities for the first time.

The problem of juvenile delinquency seems to be with us as strongly as ever. Apart from that, the general situation with regard to crime would seem to be that the prosecutions brought have increased this year by slightly over 6,000. That is commendable from the point of view of police work. But I want to say, in passing, that I think the police work has been seriously impeded. I am merely expressing a point of view based on my own personal experience in dealing with the police in my professional capacity, on occasion as prosecutor and sometimes as defender. I think the effectiveness of police work has been negatived or rendered less effective by the breaking-up of what I would call, for want of knowledge of its technical name, the detective unit in Dublin Castle.

I understand that the system now is that that detective unit which was concentrated in Dublin Castle has now been scattered over the various stations of the city. In my view, such a procedure can have one very serious deleterious effect, and that is to destroy the community value of detective consultation. In that situation each man had ready access to another in their common room in Dublin Castle for the purpose of eliciting necessary information concerning a particular crime brought to their notice. At once, when notice of the commission of the crime came to the Castle, they could always say "So-and-so or so-and-so would have knowledge of that. Ask him while he is at hand." It is true that the phone is available to them if they want to get to that particular person at any one of the outlying stations, but the person might not be available at that end and consequently a delay might be caused that might really impede the course of justice. There is probably an argument for the other side of the question. If there is, I would be very interested in hearing it.

It is not really the function of the Minister, but Deputy Sherwin referred to the question of providing free legal aid. As Deputy O'Donnell mentioned, there is free legal aid in regard to the charge of murder. It might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing, or there might indeed be an in-between course in this matter of legal aid, namely, the provision of legal aid for certain types of offences and indeed certain types of offenders. But it would not be correct to accept the picture Deputy Sherwin painted here this evening: that an offender or an accused who comes before the Court without legal assistance will fare any worse than the person who comes adequately defended. In fact, I know of cases in my own personal experience where the presiding justice or the presiding judge, as the case might be, went out of his way, and properly so, to see that this person, unversed in legal phraseology and unversed in the various intricacies in the list of counts in the indictment, had all these things fully explained to him in the simplest language and was given the greatest possible measure of fair play, which is only consistent with the Courts which we set up in this country and which, thank goodness, operate on that basis in all respects.

We now come to the district court. As Deputy O'Donnell pointed out, not so much in the interpretation of the law as in the measure of punishments or degree of punishments meted out, there can be indeed a very wide divergence as between a justice in one district and a justice in another. That is not the fault of the law, if it is a fault. Who knows which justice is right in any particular case? Each justice may well be right, according to his own lights and according to the conditions in which he is well versed and which he knows. In the older-days the then resident magistrates sat with two J.P.s and all three had an equal voice in reaching the decision.

I often wonder if it would not be a good thing to introduce that system whereby local peace commissioners, if they so wished, could sit with the district justice, certainly on certain types of cases. I have no doubt that in any area, and particularly in rural areas, their advice and knowledge of local conditions would be of considerable help. It would help, also, to a great extent, to promote the dignity which we properly associate with the law.

The district court is an extremely important seat of justice. In criminal matters it is the first court to which an accused is brought, that is, unless it is necessary in the first instance to have an accused remanded to the next sitting of the district court by the nearest available Peace Commissioner shortly after the time of the commission of the offence.

I have doubted for some considerable time if it is fully appreciated what the exact functions of the respective courts are. I am firmly convinced now that it is not, having heard the Taoiseach reply to a question today and just count heads of judges in order to prove his illusory idea without reference to the relative importance of the heads of the judges he was counting at the time. However, we will come to that in due course. When the Taoiseach either fails to appreciate the functionings of the different courts and their respective authority or, appreciating it, chooses to put a false complexion upon it, then the matter is in need of clarification somewhere, either here or outside.

The district court is the court to which persons first accused are brought. It has, of course, two jurisdictions, summary and civil. As far as the civil jurisdiction is concerned, certain types of action up to a certain value can be brought there and there is the usual appeal to the circuit court judge, whose decision is final in such matters. On the summary side, where people are returned to trial to the circuit court judge the matter need not rest there. It can go to the Court of Criminal Appeal; it can go to the Supreme Court.

There are certain types of appeal, for instance of the quasi-criminal kind, like motoring offences, which can be brought to the district court, appealed to the circuit court and the circuit court's decision is final upon them.

In any event, on the criminal side, the preliminary investigation is held before a district justice. The State has its own particular function in regard to that investigation, namely, to bring all possible relevant information necessary for the courts of justice without fear or favour, without heat, without passion, coldly and factually, before the presiding justice and, having heard all of that evidence, the district justice is then empowered to take one or other of two courses. One is, he finds that a prima facie case has been established and, on so finding, returns the accused for trial to the next sitting of the circuit criminal court and there, of course, on the choice of either side the matter can be transferred properly and by law to the Central Criminal Court. If he does not find that a prima facie case has been established, it is then his function to discharge his duty by refusing informations and discharging the accused. The State can at any time in the course of a trial enter what is known to the law as a nolle prosequi, meaning that they are unwilling to proceed and amounting, in effect, to a withdrawal of the charges. It is no function of the State to apply to have informations refused without withdrawing the charges and it is a usurpation of the function of the district justice so to apply.

I know of only one case where the State took it upon itself to take that unusual course and the unusual course was taken in order to prevent the possibility of an accused being returned for trial on charges which the State failed to withdraw on being requested by the district justice to say whether or not they were withdrawing the charges. Such interference with the functions of the district justice is an abuse of legal process; it is an abuse of procedure known to us that should be as supreme as the rule of law.

Is the Minister for Justice responsible?

Of course, the Minister for Justice is responsible.

How is the Minister for Justice responsible? I fail to see how the Minister for Justice was responsible in the particular case that the Deputy cites. It seems to be outside his province. It lies probably with some other person but not with the Minister.

The Attorney General is not on this Vote.

That is just the point.

He will be on the Law Charges Vote, and the Minister for Finance.

The person responsible——

I am discussing the district court and the functioning of the district court.

The Deputy is endeavouring to discuss the alleged activities or inactivities of an officer, who is not responsible to this Minister.

The Minister is responsible for the functioning of the district court.

No, Sir. The Deputy will not get by the Chair in that way.

With respect, has not the Minister responsibility for the district court? I see it here before me— 26.

I say the Minister is not responsible in the case that the Deputy is making.

The Minister has taken upon himself the responsibility in this House.

I am not discussing what the Minister has taken upon himself. I am discussing the relevancy of what the Deputy is saying to the motion before the House in respect of the Minister's Department. It is not relevant to it and I am just indicating to the Deputy, quite clearly, that he must pass from that.

Before I pass from the discussion of your ruling, I want to submit that the Minister is responsible for the district court and its functioning and if the Minister, in derogation of that responsibility, allows the functioning of the district court to be interfered with in any way he is not discharging his function properly to look after the district court.

I suggest that the Deputy pass from the case he has endeavoured to make.

I now pass to the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justice. These are really the Courts that form the bulwark between the Executive and the people. They are the guardians of the people's liberty. The High Court is a court of first instance where important matters, civil and constitutional, or matters affecting the liberty and the freedom of the individual, are brought and where important matters such as habeas corpus motions and other things of that degree are decided. From the panel of High Court Judges there is formed a divisional court. From many decisions of that divisional court there is an appeal to the final court in the land—the Supreme Court. The Taoiseach to-day sought, in contravention of the Constitution, in contravention of established practice, in contravention of what the facts are in relation to these courts and their personnel, to equate the importance and authority of Judges of the High Court——

What the Taoiseach said to-day was merely in reply to a question. What the Minister is responsible for is an entirely different matter.

There is a collective responsibility.

We are not discussing collective responsibility in connection with the Minister in this matter. The Minister for Justice is responsible for the conduct of his Department in connection with this Vote.

May I submit again——

The Deputy is submitting certain matters in order to endeavour to wrap up a discussion on this Estimate with certain matters outside the control of the Minister for Justice.

I do not wish to intervene but it does seem to me to be questionable that the Deputy's motives should be questioned by the Chair or anybody else.

The Chair is not questioning his motives. The point is clearly visible to anybody without any question of motives.

That surely is a matter of opinion.

The Chair cannot give any more than an opinion.

I do not think the Chair can decide upon what it thinks is in the mind of a Deputy before the spoken word makes that clear.

The spoken word has clearly indicated what the Deputy is endeavouring to do and the Chair has indicated that the Deputy will not be allowed to do it.

I want the Minister for Justice, who is in charge of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, to state in his reply here this evening whether judges of the High Court, in giving a decision which is afterwards reversed by the Supreme Court——

That is surely outside the competence of the Minister for Justice.

I want to keep the Courts separate——

It is clear to the Chair what the Deputy is endeavouring to do and the Chair points out that the Minister deals with his Department and only with his Department and the Deputy will not get past the Chair in the manner in which he is endeavouring to do.

Under this Vote are not the Supreme Court and the High Court clearly the responsibility of the Minister for Justice?

They are administration. Asking a question as to what the Minister thinks is quite a different matter altogether.

In administering justice, I want the Minister to tell us whether a decision of a High Court Judge or three judges in a divisional court, on being reversed by the Supreme Court, administering justice——

That is purely asking for an opinion of the Minister. It has nothing to do with the act of administration of the Department. The judges are responsible for the conduct of the Courts.

Perhaps then the Minister might tell us in his reply whether it is the policy of the Government, in the administration of the Department of Justice, to regard Judges of the High Court as equal in authority and prestige to the Judges of the Supreme Court.

If the Deputy is still endeavouring to put questions of that kind, which I have already ruled out, I shall not allow him to proceed any further. I do not wish to ask the Deputy to resume his seat, but if he persists along those lines I shall have to ask him to do so.

Very good. The Minister is responsible for the police and the duties of the police as they carry them out, and I want to know from the Minister whether he stands over the action of the police, and if he does not, will he say who gave the instructions whereby a five months' old baby, in violation of the baby's rights under the Constitution, was taken to the Bridewell as if it were a nursery one day last week? I am not concerned with the guilt or the innocence of that child's mother or father, but I am concerned with the child and the child's rights, just the same as the child of any other parents who might be unfortunate enough to come into conflict with the law. I want to know who was responsible for that.

I am not to be taken as speaking in defence of any of the parties involved. Everybody is innocent until proved guilty, but a child of five months of age is certainly incapable of the commission of crime. There will be another time in the same place to discuss these matters under another Estimate, when people in high places will not have the same protection as they have under this Estimate.

There are some things I should like to say on this Estimate. I was not here for the Minister's statement but I have read what the Minister had to say to the House and I hope he will not regard what I am about to say as being in any way personal to himself, but it does appear to me that the statement which he has had to read is one which is as dull a statement as could be read by any Minister reviewing the work of his Department. His statement ranges from the details of his Department, film censorship, the Garda Síochána, the number of motor bikes in the Garda Síochána, the uniform that Ban Garda have, how important it is that people should lock up their pedal cycles, and what is the cost of running our prisons. This, a Cheann Comhairle, is the report to Dáil Éireann by the Minister in charge of a very important Department of State, a Department concerned very intimately not only with the administration of justice but also with the manner and the quality of the laws and conventions which should govern our society.

In that report there is no evidence that the Department of Justice is in any way geared in its administration to face up to the problems which arise in our society now. Time and time again on this Estimate I have referred to the question of law reform. I know that it is not in order to advocate any change in the law on an Estimate, but I suggest it certainly would be proper if, in view of the many appeals made in relation to law reform, that in the Minister's report there would be some evidence of consciousness on his part of the desirability of setting up some machinery in his Department for systematically considering that important question but, not at all. In his report we are concerned with the number of motor bikes the Garda Síochána have, the type of uniform the Ban Garda have, how important it is for people to lock up their pedal cycles when they leave them, and there is the end of it.

I want to know what the Minister has been doing about this. Is any real effort being made to put the question of the modernisation of our laws on a proper footing? I know the Minister has excellent advisers available to him, men of ability, men who I know are eager to get on with the work. Where is the bottleneck? Why cannot this Dáil be given the opportunity and be told of the machinery whereby law reform can be considered? We know well that there is an important law officer, the law adviser to the Government, who in my opinion, unfortunately, by virtue of his office has no right of access to the Oireachtas. That is another matter I wish he had but, whether the responsibility for law reform is in his office or in the Minister's, nobody seems to know precisely. Certain it is that the only means whereby questions on items of law reform may get to the Government is through the Minister, and I had thought that, in view of all that has been said so many times on this important subject, the Minister on this Estimate would have been able to announce some measure of reorganisation in this Department, in co-operation with and with the understanding of the Office of the Attorney General, whereby law reform would be considered more realistically.

I shall make some suggestions on this which I think are administrative suggestions. I suggest that the Minister might invite the approval of the Government for a proposal that the broad question of law reform should be made primarily the responsibility of the Attorney General and that, secondly, there should be established a standing advisory committee, representative of practitioners in the law and members of either the Minister's Department or the Attorney General's Office. That committee should be a standing committee, not an ad hoc one brought together to consider a particular problem, but there continuously to consider the many problems that arise, and are arising all the time, and which should be reflected in our legislation here.

It is worth while for Deputies to consider the fact that the Parliament of this nation has operated for the last 40 years quite content with the fact that an English Parliament, under an English King, has legislated and passed the laws which our people are content, or made, to live under. We have not changed them. We are far too busy doing other things and, even though the English themselves, in the last 15 or 20 years, have pretty well scrapped most of these out-dated laws we have not time to do it. We are far too busy. We, in this small country with 3½ million people, are too busy doing something else yet the British, with 50 million people, can drastically alter their domestic laws.

The Minister now has a Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether that represents more than the addition of one person to his Department but I hope that, when this annual report is made by the Minister next year, it will be possible for him to report some substantial progress on this important matter. When I mention law reform I must refer to one particular matter, if I may have one moment's licence. I hope I shall not be out of order but I should like to know what has happened to the assurance given by the Minister to this House on the 28th October, 1959, —by the Minister and the Taoiseach— that the measure dealing with the modification and reform of the law of contributory negligence would be introduced into the House before the financial session of this year.

Who said that? Which of us said that?

The Taoiseach.

And what did the Minister say?

The Taoiseach took over from the Minister at that stage. I am referring to Volume 177, column 464, of the Official Report, when apparently the Taoiseach had to intervene. I said:

We all know what happens in this House next March. Presumably, we shall be dealing with the financial business of the next year. I would ask the Taoiseach to use his good offices—I am sure the Minister will agree—to have this Bill introduced before the financial business next year.

The Taoiseach replied:

Introduced, certainly. The Deputy will appreciate that introduction and finding time in the Dáil programme for it are different matters, but I am hopeful it will prove to be an agreed Bill.

I said:

I think it will be an agreed Bill but could we aim at dealing with it before the financial business gets too strenuous next year?

To this the Taoiseach replied:

I do not want to overload that Department. They have a lot of legislation but I think there is a reasonable prospect the Bill will be ready for discussion before Easter. I think that is fair enough. It is actually in draft but requires a great deal of reexamination.

Then I asked:

Is it not true that it was in draft many years ago?

and the Taoiseach replied:

This is a new one.

There is an undertaking given by the Taoiseach to me on the occasion when a Private Bill introduced by me was by leave withdrawn, that the Government measure would be introduced before the financial business of this year. It has not been introduced.

I was not so optimistic as the Taoiseach and, by way of explanation, the Bill will be introduced before we rise anyway.

Then I shall say nothing more about it, if that is the position.

The officials have been working hard on a lot of other Bills.

I appreciate it is a Bill of some complexity. I appreciate the excellent work being done by the Minister's advisers in relation to it and I have little doubt that the measure when we see it here will be a measure that this House and the country will be proud of. I hope we shall see it soon.

I hope so.

Having said what I had to say about law reform —I hope it will be taken by the Minister in the spirit in which it was meant when I stated that something must be done about it—I want to pass on to an entirely different subject. The Minister is responsible for our prisons, for those who are lodged there temporarily or otherwise and also for those taken into custody to await trial. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the regulations which govern the conduct of affairs in prisons. There appears to be a regulation—I hope it will be changed—that the solicitor acting for an accused person in custody awaiting trial who decides to have that person medically examined, may not be present and that such medical examination may take place only in the presence of a doctor appointed by the State.

Perhaps that may not appear at first sight to be a very serious thing but I suggest it is a most impossible situation. The Minister or the Chair may suppose a case in which a man is charged, say, with the capital offence of murder and it may be important to those engaged in his defence to ascertain whether from a psychiatric point of view he was at the time, or is now, in a position to be regarded as responsible for his actions. Those engaged in his defence have no means of knowing what the position may be until such time as they have him examined by expert medical persons. Accordingly, they may arrange to do so. Under this regulation the first thing that happens is that the solicitor is not permitted to be present. That, I regard as unwarrantable but the second feature is that this psychiatric assessment or examination may take place only in the presence of another doctor engaged by the State.

I want the House to imagine a psychiatrist asking such an accused person perhaps as the first question: "Did you shoot John Jones?" and the accused person replying: "I did, and I fully intended to do it and he justly deserved it." There would be an admission of the offence, an admission of guilt, made in the presence of the examining psychiatrist and of the doctor engaged by the State. The examining psychiatrist in those circumstances would probably report back to the defence solicitor and those engaged with him to the effect: "This man is perfectly sane because he was able to tell me what he did and furthermore he satisfied me that he had a motive and a reason for doing it."

In those circumstances a possible defence of insanity would not be available. Nobody is to blame for that if that were the fact, but there is then available to the State, through no fault of the accused, an admission which must be given in evidence. I suggest that type of regulation is archaic. I have little doubt that it is some part of a rule that has been there for many years and that nobody has noticed it or knew of it. It should be changed and since the Minister is the only person to whom such a complaint can be made—and I believe this is the proper place to make it—I put it forward in the hope that steps will be taken to ensure that in future, in circumstances such as those a person in custody awaiting trial will have free access to examination by a doctor or by whatever type of witness the defence thinks desirable in the presence of his solicitor and that nobody else should be there. I have little doubt that if the Minister makes himself aware of the problem he will take steps to change that rule.

I do not know whether any other Deputy referred to this matter but probably somebody did because it has been frequently mentioned here: is there any possibility of having the taking of depositions in the district court speeded up? We have seen examples in recent months of long and tedious cases in which, evidence having been given orally by a witness, that evidence must be taken down painfully in longhand by the court clerk and then read over and signed by the witness. Surely it should be possible, with all the modern techniques available to us, to change that. If the rule requires changing it should be changed to speed up that process which is clearly painful and arduous to the accused person, to the State who have to prosecute, and to the district justice who has to conduct this preliminary hearing. Some consideration should be given to that.

I started by saying that the Minister's report is a dull one. That is not intended to be any reflection on the Minister—far from it—but in my view it is a reflection on the manner in which the Department at the moment appears to regard its responsibilities. The Department in my view is far more important than it appears to think and it could do a great deal more good work than appears possible to it at the moment. There is a fruitful field of work in law reform and in the modernisation of the administration of justice and that should be the responsibility of the Department of Justice. I believe the Department can do it and should do it and I hope that progress in that direction will be made next year.

Some Deputies who spoke on the opposite side of the House attempted to imply that some of the increase in crime we have unfortunately experienced recently can be attributed to the fact that the previous Government decided to reduce the number of Gardaí. The previous Government decided to remove some of the chores which Gardaí were called upon to perform in order to bring the Garda force up to date, to assist in its mechanisation and to make it unnecessary for members of the force to be retained for the purpose of doing the most boring barrack orderly duty and other work of that nature.

Perhaps it would have been better if some stations closed in rural parts were maintained without the necessity for maintaining the same number of Gardaí in those stations. It would be a good thing if the Minister looked at the possibility of developing a type of village policeman similar to that in Britain. The very presence of a Garda in a district makes the local people feel more secure in their homes. It gives them an element of security to know that there is within reasonable distance a member of the Garda who will protect and advise them. There is something remote in having to contact a Garda station at some distance.

We all appreciate the contribution members of the force have made in the development of our country down through the years. I wish to pay a sincere tribute to those members of the Force who now are retiring. We can only extend them our best wishes in their retirement and put on record our appreciation of their magnificent contribution through difficult times in developing respect for law and order in this new State. The fact that worthy recruits are stepping into their shoes and uniforms and facing a new generation of Irish men and women in circumstances far different from those of their predecessors is a tribute to the work performed by those men who are now retiring from duty.

What horrifies me is the lack of civic spirit among many of our people in refraining from assisting officers of the Garda in bringing culprits to justice. People should realise the obligations they have to their neighbours if they do not realise their obligations to themselves. We know of instances in which people stood back and saw members of the Garda molested in public. It happened in Cork City and we know it has happened repeatedly in Dublin. Why should such incidents occur in this Christian community? Is there something wrong with our educational system or where does the fault lie?

In this respect I wonder whether a proper civic spirit could be instilled into our school children by making Garda officers available from time to time to give lectures to them on having respect for the law and also to explain traffic laws to them and other measures that would redound to their own safety. It must be a frustrating experience for members of the Garda force, having apprehended some wrongdoers and having brought them to court, to find that the penalties imposed are of such a trivial character, even when the Probation of Offenders Act is not applied.

We know that we may not—that it would be improper—criticise the Judiciary or criticise their decisions; nevertheless there is general concern among our people at the fact that so many fail to be apprehended and that when they are apprehended the law is so lenient in dealing with them. We unfortunately have this ebb and flow of people to and from Britain and many of our people who return here have the idea that they can get away with things in this country that they could not get away with in Britain. This attitude is having a detrimental effect on many of our people. When any of these people are brought to justice it is vital that the penalty imposed upon them should be such as to teach them a lesson because it appears to be the only lesson they can understand.

I think it was Deputy Barrett who referred here today to the fact that some cases have been transferred to the Central Criminal Court which could effectively have been dealt with in the area in which the crime occurred. I know some instances in which this happened and it entailed considerable loss of time and expense for witnesses and other people involved. They were not at all happy about being brought to Dublin when the case could have been quite effectively dealt with in the local court.

As I have said on other Estimates, again we find in this Estimate the Minister asking the House to vote additional moneys. If all the additional moneys were devoted to the improvement of conditions for Garda personnel, for prison officers and for all those engaged by the Department of Justice, there would be no need for us to cavil at the expenditure. Is it not a fact that much of the increased expenditure has been occasioned by the direct action of the Government in increasing the cost of living and is it not true that the claim made by the Government that these moneys were saved to the Exchequer by the abolition of food subsidies has boomeranged against that same Government? Deputy Moloney may snort. No doubt in a moment he will be able to prove that what I am saying is incorrect, if it is incorrect, but I want to say categorically that this Estimate bears upon it very much additional expenditure in consequence of the rash, unjust and unnecessary action of his Government at that time.

The Deputy may not discuss the question of food subsidies on the Estimate for the Department of Justice.

I agree but the increase in the Vote for the Department of Justice was occasioned by the action of the Government in deliberately increasing the cost of living, thereby causing an increase in salaries and allowance for the personnel employed by the Department of Justice. This Department, in common with all other Departments of State, has repeatedly come to this House to seek additional moneys to compensate for the increase in the cost of living. That is my only reason for referring to it. I have put it repeatedly on the records of this House on every occasion on which the House has had to vote moneys to make up for the consequences of a direct and deliberate action on the part of the Government.

I think Deputy O'Sullivan must be rather badly stuck for comment when he has to refer to what he calls the deliberate action of the Government in increasing the cost of living in so far as it affects increases in these Votes. However, all is fair in love and war. The question of the cost of living has, of course, to be repeated here from time to time so as to give some justification to Fine Gael for continuing in existence at all. I would suggest to Deputy O'Sullivan, that he would be well advised to build up something else for the future which would be more effective as propaganda moreover for the local elections now at hand.

Nothing is more telling than the truth.

Telling the truth is telling the truth but Fine Gael will have to continue telling the truth for many more years before the people will accept the allegation that the Government deliberately increased the cost of living. I notice that the Ceann Comhairle does not approve of this line of argument and I shall leave it.

That is as good a reason as any other for getting off that line of argument.

I agree with certain points made by other speakers about the policy of closing Garda stations. In reply to a Parliamentary question put down by me to-day I observe that the number of stations has been reduced from 833 in 1930 to 761 at present. That reduction of 72 stations over a fairly considerable period of years is sufficient under the circumstances at the moment. I am glad to note that the general policy of reducing stations in the past couple of years has been rather changed in so far as fewer stations have been closed during the past year.

There is quite a difference of opinion as to the feasibility of the Government's policy in that direction. I always have the feeling that a Garda station in a district has many advantages apart from the fact that it provides protection for the people of the area. Most villages take a certain amount of pride from the fact that they have certain local institutions, such as a Garda station, a secondary school and a post office. The policy pursued for some time of reducing these Garda stations has never commended itself to me very much. We found that where the personnel of a station had been reduced it had to be replaced by motor transport or some other alternative and it is very doubtful if there was any saving financially.

There is quite an amount of work altogether outside police work which was performed by Gardaí in the past and performed very creditably indeed. That work cannot be undertaken if the normal strength of a station is reduced. We have evidence of that in the compilation of agricultural statistics. Where the personnel of a station was reduced it has been found necessary to employ lay people for compilation of the returns. While the cost involved may not be very considerable I think that the job could be much better performed by members of the Garda who have had experience in the work over the years.

Deputy O'Sullivan referred to what I could consider a worthwhile experiment—the introduction of a system of village constables or Gardaí on the lines of the system in England. I have seen in my constituency a somewhat similar experiment carried out in the past couple of years. It was proposed to close a Garda station in the area. As a result of representations from the local people and the clergy a compromise was come to and the personnel of each station was reduced by one. This left the strength in one station at two men, a sergeant and a Garda, and there were also two Gardaí left in the other station. The sergeant in one station acted as supervisor for both stations. I understand that the experiment has worked very well and has met the requirements of the people in both areas. The police service that was heretofore available is still generally on call and districts so served are now served satisfactorily.

There is one thing that does occur to me in relation to the Estimate for the Garda. Notwithstanding the fact that there has been a fairly substantial reduction in the number of stations the number of sergeants still stands the same as for many years past. I have more complaint to make in connection with the question of chief superintendents. The number of those officers still is approximately what it was thirty years ago when we had many more stations and many more members of the Force. I do not suggest that there should be any reduction in the number of present holders of these posts but I do feel that, as retirements take place in the normal course of events, a number of these posts should be suppressed.

It appears to me quite feasible to amalgamate a number of divisions so that the areas could be grouped into compact working centres and the overall strength in chief superintendents could be reduced accordingly. We have been trying to do that in the case of the district court areas throughout the country and a rather workable scheme is about to emerge whereby there will be a substantial reduction in the number of courts without any great inconvenience to the people. It is not quite fair to attempt to reduce the strength of the Force and the number of stations without reducing the strength of the officers.

With regard to the recent figures of increases in crime, I do not think our record compares too unfavourably judged by international records. There is a fairly substantial increase in certain types of minor crime. The main complaint with regard to major crime is that in the past couple of years offenders have not been brought to justice. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and it is a reflection, to some extent, on the lack of co-operation and the lack of civic spirit as a whole.

Deputy O'Sullivan made a point with regard to a rather important matter. This is something in which I agree with him for once. He suggested our young people should be lectured in school as to their responsibilities and civic duties. The most effective way of making people conscious of responsibility is in the schools. Either the Department of Education or the Department of Justice should arrange for a series of lectures in the schools. Such lectures would give satisfactory results, I think, in a comparatively short time.

Traffic regulations are very important and people should be educated in traffic rules. That holds for both road traffic and pedestrian traffic.

One Deputy referred to the system of taking depositions in the district courts. I cannot understand why the present archaic system is continued. Surely it should be possible to employ shorthand typists or tape recorders for the purpose of taking depositions? That would save time and waste of time is the principal complaint by witnesses who have to attend the district court. I suggest the Minister should examine the matter with a view to bringing about a much-needed improvement.

I am prompted to rise because of the comments of the last two speakers in relation to the incidence of crime and the necessity for teaching civics in the schools. There is no doubt that anything that can be done in civics training in the schools is done. In many cases matters would be considerably improved if parents would accept their responsibilities and ensure that their children did not remain out late at night, go too frequently to cinemas, or read too many "crime comics". Curtailment along those lines would have a healthy effect generally and would help to inculcate in our young people a respect for law and order.

I spoke last year on film censorship. I notice that quite a number of films were rejected in the year under review. Something in the region of 196 were passed, with cuts. Some were rejected. In all, 21 were appealed and, of those, 15 were again rejected. A considerable number of films were regarded as unsuitable for children. We should, of course, be very careful about the type of film our young people see. Very often we read of regrettable incidents which occur as a result of what young people have seen on the films.

The same argument applies in the case of publications. There are still people in the country who are prepared to bring in books for distribution, books which should never find their way in here at all. It is a welcome feature that the Censorship Board is so alive to the situation. It is obvious that we must all be constantly on our guard to prevent such publications getting into the hands of children. This has been highlighted recently by a happening elsewhere. This is a matter in which parents could co-operate with the Department of Justice and those charged with preserving the morals of our young people in particular.

Nobody has anything but the highest praise for the Garda. It is regrettable that the Minister, and others, should have found it necessary to point to the lack of co-operation between the public as a whole and the Garda. Some say that this attitude is due to our past. We should be so far past our past that our people now should look upon the Garda as their protectors and the guardians of their rights. We want a healthier respect for them and their duties. If that could be achieved a good deal of minor crime would disappear from the calendar. Deputy Moloney referred to the number of chief superintendents. I do not think the number should be any lower than it is. There are 26; there are also 26 counties. I do not think the number is too much. A division corresponds roughly to a county and it would be expecting too much of efficient administration to reduce the number.

Closing stations here and there is a matter of concern to the people but the advent of the patrol car has in some degree offset the disadvantage. I am sure everybody is pleased that the mobile patrols will be increased. In that respect we could have no complaint. The Garda give an excellent service and one about which no one could complain.

My main reason for rising was to discuss this matter of the responsibility for juvenile delinquency. I believe a great deal of the blame lies with parents who permit their children to be late at night on the streets. I am very glad to note the progress made by an Bord Uachtála. It has done quite an amount of valuable work. The young people who have been lucky enough to be adopted can look forward to normal lives and the work of this body deserves commendation.

I should like to make reference to the Minister's introductory remarks, in the course of which he spoke of crime as being primarily an urban or metropolitan problem. I think that was an unfortunate phrase. Within a week of its utterance, there has happened what appears to me a most abominable crime, as yet unsolved. I did not think we should live to see the day when a criminal could go to the house of a widow woman and plant explosives there to terrorise her and her household. I refer to the crime on the threshold of Madame McGillycuddy, a member of a distinguished Irish family. But whether it was her door, or the door of the humblest woman in Ireland, it seems to me to be a crime of a peculiarly revolting character, one on which it would be wrong to allow the Minister to pass over without comment.

I think the Minister for Justice has done us less of a service than we are entitled to expect of him when he made no comment on this unsolved crime and many others of not so heinous a character, which have taken place in that general area, in addition to one unsolved murder. I was primarily concerned to express our loathing and horror at the outrage perpetrated at the home of Madame McGillycuddy. In addition, it seems to me that we would be wrong not to criticise the Minister for his failure to comment on it. I welcome the very satisfactory development that the priests and people of that area joined in expressing their public horror at the crime that had been committed. That is a consoling fact. I hope the Minister will take occasion to express his opinion on that event when concluding this debate, and to reassure us that effective measures to bring the perpetrators of that kind of outrage to justice quickly are being taken.

I do not think we should allow the Estimate to pass without recalling to the Minister's mind that we have had occasion in the last year or two to inquire from him whether he had any report to make on the fact that there are still outstanding a certain number of unsolved murders in this country, and whether he is satisfied that any real progress has been made towards the detection of those crimes or to bringing those responsible to justice, and if not, what steps he proposes to take to prevent further crimes of that character. I do not think it is good enough to sweep them under the rug and hope to forget them. They cannot be forgotten. The Minister, I think, should tell us what the present situation is in regard to them. We are all aware the circumstances can exist in which the police authorities have a pretty fair knowledge of who is responsible for a crime, but cannot accumulate the evidence on which they can bring a case to the courts with the prospect of carrying conviction to the jury's mind. That situation shifts the onus from the shoulders of the Gardaí to the people who fail to co-operate with the Gardaí. If these are the facts, the Minister should tell us.

On the other hand, if the Minister finds himself in a situation in which the Gardai's methods of detection have broken down and they are not able to conduct effective investigation into grave crimes, it rests with the Minister to take such steps to reinforce the police and their resources so as to ensure that serious crime will not continue to be a feature of the life of this country. It is true that by comparison with other countries our criminal records are not alarming, but we must remember we are primarily a rural community and that there is little use in comparing our crime records with those of countries with denser populations.

I do not suggest that there is any real reason for alarm about the crime record of this country, but I think that where you have a whole series of unsolved crimes in one particular area, there is cause for alarm since that is calculated to bring the law into disrepute and beget more and more crime. It is cause for real alarm and concern if blackguards can come to the door of anybody in this country, explode bombs and escape unscathed, because if they can do that today outside one citizen's house, no citizen in this State is safe.

I have heard the Garda criticised here from all sides of the House. In all forces, one will find that some individuals on occasions misconduct themselves, and if I thought that was a common occurrence I would regard it as a duty to comment on it. My experience of Gardaí is that, taken as a whole, they are very good. I cannot recall at once a case where Gardaí have been rude or unreasonable in the discharge of their duties.

I have been much struck by the manner in which some of the younger members of the Garda enforce traffic regulations at a very early stage of their training. I know somebody who inadvertently left his car on a passenger crossing and met a young Guard who was obviously very recently out of the Depot. His method of rebuke was to say to this person; "Do you know what a man is after saying to me about you? That the owner of that car must be a very thoughtless person to leave it on the passenger crossing." I thought that was as mild a rebuke as a policeman ever uttered and I must say I had no sympathy with the delinquent. I thought he escaped very easily and that the method of dealing with the situation reflected great credit not only on the young Guard but on the officers who had trained him. I hope it will always be so.

So far as I have been able to observe, the Guards dealing with the simplest and humblest people in the State show the same neighbourly regard for their feelings and susceptibilities as they do for anybody else. On the whole, I am quite satisfied— and I would be much interested to hear any Deputy speak who disagreed with me that if there was any general departure from that standard of conduct the Gardaí themselves would be the first to react most vigorously against it, even if it involved reporting a colleague. I certainly would be horrified by it because there can be no greater abuse than that the police should treat the public with discourtesy. I want to go on record as saying that I have no evidence of it and in my experience, if these things are happening, those of us who represent the public are not long in hearing about them.

I want to mention a detail for which, perhaps, there is an explanation but which strikes me as rather an obscurantist gesture of an administrative kind and I should like to be reassured that it is being done after due consideration. If the Minister would look at the Garda Vote, under the note explaining subhead B, he will find that heretofore the Commissioner of the Garda had as his private secretary an officer of the rank of superintendent and that that superintendent received a special allowance. I notice that arrangement has been discontinued and the private secretary to the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána is now of the rank of sergeant.

The sergeants of the Garda are very admirable men but the Commissioner has to do a great deal of highly confidential and secret work and it seems to me that, if the Commissioner is to have the relationship that a responsible officer of his kind ought to have with his own private secretary, he ought to feel that his private and confidential papers are in the hands of an officer of the Garda of a sufficient rank to suggest that degree of discretion and prudence which is requisite in a person who is to have uncontrolled access to the confidential papers of the Commissioner. Perhaps the Minister would be able to give us an explanation of that rather remarkable change. Perhaps the Minister would express to me his view as to whether he thinks it is appropriate that the private secretary to the Commissioner should be an officer of the rank of sergeant. I do not think it is. There may be some special explanation for it but it behoves the Minister to reassure us in regard to that matter.

It is very difficult for somebody who is not actively engaged in the practice of the law to offer an informed opinion on the problem of the congestion in the courts but I think the Minister must have heard complaints recently about people finding that the Dublin district courts are not in a position to discharge their business promptly. It is a very great inconvenience for anyone to be unable to get his case disposed of promptly by the district court but especially in criminal matters it is a great deal more than an inconvenience; it can be a great cause of mental distress and upset to people who are required to appear before the courts and find that there are repeated adjournments and that on occasion when they attend they are informed that they must come back two days later or the following week. Whatever the cause for these delays may be, the Minister should inquire into them and insist that they be put to rights.

The last matter I want to raise, which is a matter of some substance, is this: The district justices in this country and the circuit judges are supposed to sit at certain places on certain days and provide the people with the convenience of the court. I am informed that certain district justices just do not sit and that when litigants expect their cases to be called they are informed that the district justice has sent a message that he is not going to sit and he just does not sit and there is no more about it. If I were Minister for Justice and I was informed that a district justice had failed to sit on the day he was paid to sit on, in the place where he was paid to sit, I would have the machinery set in motion to give that gentleman a week's notice that he must either satisfy the authority that there was good reason for his failure to discharge his duty or be suspended and, if it happened again, he would be sacked.

It is an intolerable abuse, in my opinion, that a district justice who is being paid to do his work which, goodness knows, is not extravagantly onerous, but highly important, should, with complete indifference to the convenience of the public and for no good reason, refuse to hold his court. I do not know whether these matters are directly under the control of the Minister or under the control of a judge of the circuit but, whoever the authority is, I suggest that the Minister should take action in this matter and make it known without hazard of doubt that he will require district justices particularly to hold their courts on the appointed days unless they are in a position to satisfy him that there is good reason why they should not.

I have nothing further to add but that is a matter to which the Minister should give his close attention and I want to assure him that it is not a matter I would raise in this forum unless I had good reason for directing attention to the abuse.

I move to report progress.

I hope the Minister appreciates the courtesy extended to him.

Thank you very much.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Top
Share