What Votes are being taken together? Will Vote 24 be discussed separately?
Committee on Finance. - Vote 23—Office of the Minister for Justice.
I intend to refer to that in my opening statement.
Will all the Votes be discussed together?
Yes, that is the usual procedure.
All the Justice Votes are being discussed together.
That is made clear in my opening statement.
I wanted to have it clear, before the Minister proceeded, whether it was all one discussion.
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £85,940 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, 1962, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice and of certain other Services administered by that Office, including a Grant-in-aid; and of the Public Record Office, and of the Keeper of State Papers, Dublin (30 & 31 Vict., c. 70; 38 & 39 Vict., c. 59; and 39 & 40 Vict., c. 58), and for the purchase of Historical Documents, etc.
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 28, 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 together the group of Estimates for which I am responsible, it will be observed that the number of Estimates has been reduced from nine to six. This reduction has taken place as a measure of simplification, and has been brought about by including the Estimate for the Public Record Office in that for the Office of the Minister for Justice, and by combining the former three Estimates for the District Court, Circuit Court and Supreme and High Courts into one Estimate for the Courts of Justice. This does not, however, affect the total amount of the Estimates, which show an allover increase as compared with the previous year of £647,480, practically all of which is accounted for by increases in the Garda Síochána Estimate. The bulk of that increase is due to the revision in May last of Garda rates of pay following the implementation of the findings of the Garda Arbitration Board on a pay claim and to further pay revision resulting from the acceptance of a Garda Conciliation recommendation for consolidation of rent allowance with pay. There is also an increase of the order of £141,000 in the provision that has to be made for police pensions. This increase is partly due to the greater numbers of the original members of the force who are reaching the age for retirement, and is caused in part by the pay revision to which I have referred and by the change in the treatment of rent allowance for pension purposes. Thus by far the greater part of the increase in expenditure is attributable to pay and pension increases.
Deputies will be aware that some of the foregoing items, and some of those that follow, have already been mentioned by me when I came to the House in March last to ask for Supplementary Estimates for a number of the services administered by my Department.
The first Vote, No. 23, is for the Office of the Minister for Justice, and makes provision for the staff of the Department's headquarters. A review of activities, since I spoke on the Estimates last year, indicates a period of solid achievement, the most notable features of which were—the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act and the Intoxicating Liquor Act; the operation for a full year of the Garda Síochána Concilliation and Arbitration Scheme; the substantial progress made in the field of law reform; the reorganisation of the district court; and the special attention given to the traffic problem in Dublin city.
The Criminal Justice Act made a number of valuable modifications in relation to penal procedures, and I shall deal later with experience to date of the working of the Act.
The Intoxicating Liquor Act was passed during the year after extended consideration in both Houses of the Oireachtas. As Deputies will recall, the Act made substantial changes not only in the opening hours of licensed premises, but also in the general law relating to the grant of intoxicating liquor licences.
During the year a number of important claims brought by the Garda under their Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme were disposed of, either at conciliation level or as a result of arbitration. The improvements in remuneration secured by the Garda under the scheme are reflected in the increased provision made in the Estimate for the Garda Síochána.
In view of the interest taken by the general public in the incidence of crime, I am glad that for the first time for a number of years, I can report that the incidence of crime has decreased, and that the position has been improved in two respects: first, the crime figures for 1960 were significantly lower than in the preceding year and, secondly, the detection rate has gone up.
The total number of indictable crimes reported to the Garda Síochána dropped from 17,865 in 1959 to 15,375 in 1960, a decrease of 2,490 or 14 per cent. Simultaneously, the detection rate rose from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent.
As I have said here more than once, the crime problem is, in the main, a Dublin problem. When the total crime figures go up, we invariably find that it is in Dublin that the bulk of the increase has taken place, and, as one can expect, when the figures drop, it is in Dublin that the significant drop occurs; and so it has been last year. The total figure for indictable crime in Dublin dropped from 11,231 in 1959 to 8,756 in 1960, a decrease of 2,475 or 22 per cent. This drop in crime is to some extent due to an increase in the Metropolitan force and also to the fact that the Garda are getting more co-operation from the general public, especially through the use of the 999 telephone emergency system.
The causes of crime are complex and decreases in crime figures may well be as difficult to explain fully as increases in them. We did, however, take special measures to increase the efficiency of the police machine in dealing with crime, especially in Dublin where the increase in crime had been a cause of serious concern. Apart from the increase in manpower mentioned, we also provided for improved communications systems, including round-the-clock motor-cycle patrols equipped with radio. I think that we are justified in concluding that these measures have made their contribution to the improvement that I am now able to report to the House, both in relation to the total crime figure and in relation to the detection rate; and there is every reason to believe that, as regards the more serious offences—housebreakings, etc.—the contribution made by those changes was substantial. For instance, the number of burglaries and house-breakings dropped by nearly a quarter —from 3,600 to less than 2,800—and the number of cases in which the Garda Síochána were able to institute proceedings increased from 66 per cent. to 71 per cent.
That, however, is only part of the story. Improved methods in the Garda Síochána have, as I believe, affected the volume of crime of the most serious kind, but these crimes, in numerical terms, and therefore in their effect on the total crime figure, are less significant than crimes such as larceny. As I have said in previous years, larcenies of pedal bicycles account for a substantial number of the reported crimes, and this is a crime which is particularly difficult to detect and in which it is particularly important that the emphasis should be on preventive measures rather than on subsequent detective work.
I think that I would be doing a disservice to the public if I were to let it be thought that any spectacular improvement in relation to crimes such as these is possible solely as a result of anything that the Garda Síochána can do. Yet, these are crimes which are in practice only too often facilitated by cyclists who will not take the elementary precaution of locking their bicycles when leaving them unattended. The same applies to articles left in unlocked motor cars.
Last year, I made a special appeal to those concerned both in their own interest and in the public interest to be more careful in this respect. Whether my appeal had anything to do with it or not, the figures for last year do show a noticeable improvement. Larceny of bicycles dropped by over 1,000 from the 1959 figure of 3,700 approximately, and larcenies from unattended vehicles dropped by 500, from 1,850 approximately. I am, therefore, encouraged to repeat my appeal this year: to cyclists to lock their bicycles effectively, and to car owners not only to lock their cars when leaving them unattended but also to ensure that no goods of value are left on view in them to attract thieves.
I now turn to summary offences. There the figures relate to the number of prosecutions—not the number of offences committed. The reason for this, of course, is that it would be impossible to say how many summary offences are committed, since a substantial number of them, such as minor breaches of the traffic laws, never find their way into Garda records.
The number of prosecutions rose from 89,000 approximately in 1959 to 103,000 approximately in 1960, an increase of some 14,000, which, I may say, was due entirely to an increase in the number of prosecutions for road traffic offences. Nearly half of that increase relates to offences against the lighting regulations—the prosecutions for those offences increased by over 6,000, to a figure of 28,253 in 1960. I think that, in the interests of road safety, the House generally will welcome this evidence of increased vigilance against breaches of the lighting regulations. As well as that, there were increases in respect of all the common driving offences.
Those traffic prosecutions amounted to nearly 67 per cent. of the total last year. Next—though a long way behind—came prosecutions under the Licensing Acts which amounted to 14,800 approximately, a decrease of about 2,000 on the preceding year. May I at this point mention that as all these figures relate to years which ended on 30th September, the figures for licensing prosecutions would be very little affected by the enactment of the Intoxicating Liquor Act last year, as that did not become law until the beginning of July.
The only other figures that are of any significance numerically, in the category of summary offences, are those relating to unlicensed dogs and there the number of prosecutions increased by over 500, to a total of 4,090.
The number of persons killed in road accidents in 1960 was 302, a slight decrease on the preceding year's figure of 306. The number of persons injured in road accidents in 1960 was 5,451, an increase of 962 on the preceding year's figure of 4,489.
After several months of quiescence, the futile campaign of violence in the vicinity of the Border has recently been resumed. For reasons which have been frequently explained—our obligation to enforce the law and our belief that this campaign is seriously detrimental to the realisation of the national aim of reuniting the Irish people—the Government are taking determined measures to bring these activities to an end. I think it is right to mention that the measures in force impose a very considerable strain on the Garda resources and are costing the taxpayers about £370,000 per year. The Government will not, however, be deterred by these considerations in intensifying these measures if this should be necessary to bring this stupid campaign to an end.
Since the Estimates were discussed in the House last year, substantial progress has been made in dealing with the considerable number of legislative proposals which were then pressing for attention. Some of them, such as those relating to rent restrictions, had already been circulated at that time and have since been piloted through the Oireachtas. Others had been introduced but, owing to their complex and technical character, proved to require further detailed examination before they could be approved for circulation. Finally, there were other proposals which the Department was being pressed to proceed with, but which could not be advanced owing to the general pressure of work on my officers and myself.
Since then, I can report that we have passed into law the Rent Restrictions Bill, which was a comprehensive measure consolidating the existing statute law and amending it in certain fundamental and controversial respects; and a Solicitors Bill, which raised important issues affecting the public interest, including the amending of the provisions relating to the Compensation Fund. As well as these, a Bill consolidating and amending the law relating to charities has been passed through the Dáil, and progress has also been made with the Juries Bill and the two Bills dealing with the establishment and constitution of the courts as provided for in Article 34 of the Constitution.
Deputies, particularly those who have had experience as Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, will appreciate that very often the most difficult work connected with legislation has to be done before the text of the Bill is published. This is particularly true in relation to Bills of the character of those recently circulated such as the Courts Bills and the Civil Liability Bill. I am personally very gratified that with the limited resources at our disposal it has been possible to make such progress without neglecting other aspects of the administration.
I shall now deal with the usual administrative activities of my Department. So far as adoption is concerned, the level of activity was much the same as in the previous year; during the year 1960, An Bord Uchtála made 505 adoption orders, of which just over 200 were in Dublin: 232 of the adoption orders were in respect of boys, and 273 in respect of girls.
The number of aliens resident in the country in 1960 for three months or more who were obliged to register with the police was 2,849, which is slightly less than in the previous year. The majority were from Germany, Italy, Holland, U.S.A., France and Belgium. The number of aliens who visited this country during 1960, excluding those who came through Great Britain, was almost 40,000. The great majority were, of course, coming for holidays or for short business visits. As I have mentioned in previous years, our policy is to facilitate the admission of foreigners in these categories with the minimum of formality and paper work; and checks at the ports are simplified as far as is possible, consistent with immigration requirements.
In this connection, I mentioned last year that negotiations were in progress for the admission to Ireland, without passports, of tourists from certain West European countries who hold a visitor's card and a national identity document—the visitor's cards to be made available through travel agencies, legations, etc., abroad. I am glad to be able to report that arrangements are now in operation whereby French, Belgian, Swiss, and Liechtenstein nationals are admitted to this country on production of their national identity cards in conjunction with visitor's cards. I may also add that negotiations with a number of other European countries with a view to operating similar arrangements for their nationals are nearing completion.
During the year, 35 persons were granted certificates of naturalisation as Irish citizens.
Just over 4,000,000 feet of films were examined by the Official Censor in 1960. The number of films certified by the Censor as fit in their entirety for exhibition to the public was 1,170 and an additional 220 were passed with cuts. Fifty-six films were rejected. Thirty-three were the subject of appeals to the Appeal Board—21 of which appeals were rejected. There were appeals against cuts in five cases, all of which were rejected.
The statistics for the year 1960 in respect of censorship of publications show that the Censorship Board examined 518 books and 83 periodicals, and made 357 Prohibition Orders —291 being in respect of books and 66 in respect of periodical publications.
Comhairle na Míre Gaile considered 30 cases during 1960 and awarded three bronze medals and 30 certificates for bravery.
The next Estimate, No. 24, is for £5,910,320 for the Garda Síochána. This sum is greater by £618,610 than the original Estimate for 1960/61 and exceeds by £181,610 the total of the 1960/61 Original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate for that year.
As Deputies will see from the printed Estimates, the principal increases fall to be borne on the Pay and the Pensions subheads, subhead A and subhead M. In the case of subhead A, the reason for the increase, and which also gave rise to the Supplementary Estimate for 1960/61, arises from the determination of two claims under the Garda Síochána Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme, one relating to pay increases and the other to rent allowances and to the pensionability of these allowances. The acceptance by the Government of the findings of the chairman of the Garda Síochána Arbitration Board has given higher scales of pay to members of the Force with effect from the 1st March, 1960. These increases will cost approximately £430,000 in respect of pay for the Force this year.
A sum of £134,000, in addition to the £180,000 which would be required if rent allowance had continued to be paid as a separate non-pensionable allowance, has had to be provided in the Pay subhead in consequence of the acceptance by the Ministers for Finance and Justice of a recommendation by the Garda Síochána Conciliation Council for the consolidation of rent with pay. The Garda Conciliation Council recommended the discontinuance of the practice whereby rents of varying amounts were paid to members for whom official quarters were not available, and that, in lieu, a uniform pensionable amount for the different ranks be added to the pay of each member, the amount to be subject to a deduction in the case of a member provided with quarters. Both these increases, that is, the pay increase proper and the increase following from consolidation, are reflected in the increased sum required to meet the cost of pensions and gratuities.
As a result of the pay award, members retiring now on maximum rates of pension and gratuity receive additional sums ranging in their pensions from £29 2s. 3d. p.a. in the case of a Guard to £95 0s. 0d. in the case of a Chief Superintendent while, in their gratuities, the increased amount will be not less than £97 0s. 0d. for a Guard and £317 0s. 0d. for a Chief Superintendent. In consequence of the consolidation of rent with pay a Guard will get a further increase of £32 11s. 9d. p.a. in his pension and not less than £109 in his gratuity; the Chief Superintendent will receive a pension increase of £55 0s. 0d. p.a. and an additional amount of at least £183 0s. 0d. in his gratuity. It is anticipated that the combined cost on subhead M of these additional increases will amount to £90,000 in the present year.
Other increases resulting from settlement of claims under the Conciliation and Arbitration machinery related to revision of the locomotion and cycling allowances payable and the issue of gloves and an additional tie as part of the uniform equipment of Sergeants and Guards.
The mobility of the Force will be further increased next year by the addition of 29 cars to the Garda fleet for use in country divisions. Provision has also been made for installing a two-way radio system in Limerick city similar to that in use in Dublin and Cork. The re-organisation of the Force in Dublin to which I referred last year has been partly implemented. Full implementation, involving additional appointments in the Inspector rank, will require enabling legislation which I propose to introduce shortly. Increased provision has also been made in subhead D to send selected members of the Force to attend courses abroad with a view to keeping them abreast of the most modern methods of crime detection and prevention.
During the year, 215 members will be leaving the Force on age grounds. To this figure must be added a further 235 which is the estimated figure of wastage from voluntary retirements before the age limit, resignations, deaths, etc., making a total estimated wastage of 450 for the year. The Estimates provide for a recruitment of up to 450 recruits (including 30 Ban-Ghardai) during the year. If there is any significant drop in wastage the number of recruits attested will be suitably reduced.
The strength of the Dublin Metropolitan Division which stood at 1,719 on 31st March, 1960, was 1,769 on 31st March, 1961. Over the past couple of years, it has been found necessary to increase the personnel in the Dublin Metropolitan Division with a view to coping with crime and other problems in the city. The strength figure includes three Ban-shairsinti and 13 Ban-Ghardai.
Deputies have probably learned already that police dogs are being used in Dublin for the past couple of months as a further aid in the prevention and detection of crime. There has already been at least one instance in which these animals have proved their value in the apprehension of criminals, and I am confident that experience over the next few years will show that the acquisition of these dogs was a worth-while innovation.
The Estimates for Prisons, No. 25, is for £242,930. In this Estimate provision is made for the upkeep and staffing of Mountjoy, Portlaoise and Limerick Prisons and St. Patrick's Institution and for the maintenance of an estimated daily average of 480 prisoners and inmates. Provision is also made for certain expenditure which under statute is a charge on the Prisons Vote, such as the cost of the escort and conveyance of prisoners and the cost of maintenance of prisoners confined in district mental hospitals.
The Estimate shows an increase of £19,270 over the Original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate for 1960/ 61. These increases are in the main borne on the subheads of Pay and Allowances, Victualling, Clothing, Bedding and Furniture, Maintenance of Buildings and Equipment and the Manufacturing Department and Farm. On the pay side, the additional cost is principally due to increases resulting from the settlement of staff claims under conciliation and arbitration machinery and the recruitment of additional staff for the supervision of political prisoners in Mountjoy. An improved dietary for prisoners and inmates, which is being introduced very shortly, is responsible for the increased victualling costs. While the present diet is of good standard from the point of view of nutrition, I cannot help feeling that it is somewhat monotonous and that some variation of the dietary is desirable. The changes which I propose to make and which should help to relieve the monotony include the substitution of flake meal for pinhead oatmeal, provision of a milk pudding or other sweet with the dinner, an increase in the tea ration and the sugar content of tea, and an additional bread and marmalade ration instead of porridge on certain mornings.
The increase on subhead C is due to the necessity to replace depleted stocks of bedding and furniture. The main reason for the additional sum of £13,948 in subhead H is that new turf-fired steam boilers are required in Portlaoise Prison. The existing boilers have been in use for nearly 60 years and are nearing the end of their useful life. In addition to that requirement, provision is made in the sub-head for the normal maintenance work in the prisons and for the completion of reconstruction and adaptation works in St. Patrick's in connection with its use for the detention of youthful offenders committed to custody on remand or for trial.
Deputies will recall that during the debates last year on the Criminal Justice Bill I referred to the undesirability of committing to prison, on remand or for trial, youths in the 17-21 age group, particularly youths who are first offenders, and said that I would consider the question of adapting portion of St. Patrick's for use as a remand home for these offenders. This was found to be feasible and the work of adaptation which has been in hands for some time, will when completed, provide distinct and separate premises for the youths on remand. The work should be finished shortly and, when it is, I propose to make an Order, under Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, approving of St. Patrick's for use as a remand institution.
The purchase of materials for mailbag making, mat making and weaving is principally responsible for the increase in sub-head N but the anticipated increased output from the sales of the manufactured goods is reflected in the additional receipts provided in the Appropriations-in-Aid sub-head.
I have referred to the passing into law of the Criminal Justice Bill and the House no doubt will be interested to know how the various provisions of the Act are working. An innovation in our penal procedure introduced under the Act was the power to grant temporary release to persons in custody under sentence and to criminal lunatics. To date that power has been exercised in the case of 26 persons in custody. Temporary release was granted to seven persons on account of family bereavements and to five because of the serious illness of immediate relatives; ten were allowed to spend Christmas with their families; two were released to help in the harvesting of their crops, one to receive Confirmation and one to enable him to sit for an examination. In all these cases, I should say that the persons concerned honoured the conditions of their release and returned to their places of custody prior to the expiry of the periods of release.
With regard to persons transferred from prison custody to district mental hospitals and to the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, consent to the grant of temporary release was given in eight cases, where, in the opinion of those in charge, temporary release would be an aid to treatment and would not be attended by risk either to the persons released or to others.
Another provision of the Act extended the powers of the Minister for Justice in relation to the places in which criminal lunatics may be confined, and this power has been exercised on several occasions for the purpose of transferring persons to the mental hospitals considered most suitable for their treatment or to places most convenient for visits by relatives. Prior to the passing of the Act, St. Patrick's Institution was primarily a place for the detention of youthful offenders committed for corrective training but, under the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, most of the youths under 21 years of age who were committed to prison to serve sentences of imprisonment were transferred to the Institution. Under the Act the courts are now empowered to commit such offenders direct to St. Patrick's instead of to prison, but I find that in a large number of cases the courts are still imposing short sentences of imprisonment.
However, I expect that in time those who find it necessary to convict young offenders will appreciate the advantages, to the offender and to the State, of the imposition of a detention course in St. Patrick's. Indeed, I have no doubt that visits to the Institution would hasten that appreciation and I heartily invite all concerned to make those visits. Then they can see for themselves the educational and training facilities available and the efforts which are being made to promote and develop the qualities which go to make good citizens. Some measure of the results of the efforts by the staff, the Visiting Committee, the clergy, the associations and institutions concerned with the welfare and after-care of offenders, by firms and private individuals, is reflected in the fact that out of 1,100 boys committed or transferred from prison to St. Patrick's during the last four years, only 45 found themselves back in custody in 1960. I take this opportunity of expressing my sincere thanks to all those for what they have done and what they are continuing to do.
I have already mentioned the provisions of the Act with regard to the establishment of remand institutions for young persons committed in custody on remand or for trial, and my intention to approve of the use of a separate portion of St. Patrick's for this purpose for youths. The good work of the rehabilitation of the offender is not of course confined to St. Patrick's and I have ample proof of what is being done in this regard in the three prisons by the Visiting Committees, welfare societies and others. To them also I wish to express my thanks and appreciation.
Estimate No. 26 is for the Courts of Justice and relates to the expenses of the courts and to the salaries of the staffs of court offices, but not to those of the Judiciary, which are borne on the Central Fund. As I have said already, the former three separate Estimates for the District Court, the Circuit Court and the Supreme and High Courts, have now as a matter of convenience been amalgamated into one. Information is, however, still given separately in the Estimate for the different Courts.
I am glad to be able to say that the reduction in the number of the districts of the district court to which I referred last year has now been effected and is in operation since the 1st April. The total number of districts has been reduced by seven with a corresponding reduction in the number of Justices. I am hopeful that under the new arrangements the district court will function efficiently and smoothly. However, only actual experience will prove whether or not the available number of "movable" or substitute Justices, of whom there are four, will be adequate at all times. The operation of the new scheme will be kept under continuous review in the initial stages.
Of the two remaining Estimates, No. 27 makes provision for the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, and No. 28 caters for Charitable Donations and Bequests. There is nothing which calls for any special comment regarding any of these offices. The volume of business being handled by them is much the same as in recent years and, generally, their work is up to date and there are no complaints regarding them.
I wish to conclude by referring to the very valuable unpaid services rendered by the members of the voluntary boards which function within my Department. The Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests, the Censorship of Films Appeal Board, the Censorship of Publications Board and Appeal Board, Comhairle na Míre Gaile and An Bord Uchtála continue to deal effectively and regularly with their respective duties, in a manner which is deserving of the very best appreciation and gratitude of all. These public-spirited citizens are making a most valuable contribution to the conduct of public affairs.
I move that the Estimates be referred back for reconsideration. When I came to this House many years ago, on the occasion of Estimates and on other occasions generally, Minister made speeches and the Chair allowed only a rather limited reference to notes. Nowadays, Ministers read briefs prepared by the Civil Service, and while undoubtedly that makes for greater coherence in the Ministerial pronouncements, I sometimes feel that the brief that is read lacks reality. This is an outstanding example. In the sixteen pages which the Minister has just read, we find on page 2 the claim made that a review of activities since the Estimates last year indicates a period of solid achievement. I should like to know what is being done about the prevention of crime and about the reform, or the attempted reform, of those who are convicted of crime. The Minister picked these out for solid achievement. A good deal was said about the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act in the latter part of the statement. I would wager a certain amount of money that if you asked any six or twelve Deputies about the Criminal Justice Act of last year, you would find it difficult to get answers of an accurate type. Mention was made of the Intoxicating Liquor Act. I did not think I would live to hear that being boasted of as any part of an achievement. If any piece of legislation caused confusion, disappointment and agitation of a very aggressive type it is the legislation to which the Minister referred.
These are two pieces of legislation. The Minister later refers, amongst the solid achievements, to substantial progress in the field of law reform— I shall deal with that later—and also to the special attention given to the traffic problem in Dublin. I am keeping these two or three together for a particular purpose.
In between the Minister's boasts is the solid achievement that we have had operated over a full year the Garda Síochána Conciliation and Arbitration scheme. That comes well from a Government who for many years resisted arbitration of any form to State servants and who rather reluctantly agreed to give effect to recommendations that came from arbitration boards at a time when the Garda Síochána and the teachers were related to the Civil Service and had their particular emoluments moved or improved as the Civil Service conditions or emoluments also improved.
There seems to be a certain amount of timidity in boasting that we have now had operating for a full year the Garda Síochána Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme. That is reflected in the Estimates. The increases in various Estimates are increases in pay or in the field of pensions, all of which were granted because of the increase in the cost of living figure and which must have caused a good deal of hostility amongst the members of the Gárda Síochána and the other services of which the Minister speaks because of the inadequacy of the increases given. However, there it is. There is one part of the solid achievement.
The Government must have been able to stand for a full year the operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme for the police. The organisation of the district court was a point remarked upon towards the end of the brief. The Minister had some doubt about that. It was too early yet to say whether or not the districts having being reduced by seven, the provision of four movable justices would meet the situation. Of the details of solid achievements, there are the two enactments, the Criminal Justice Act and the Intoxicating Liquor Act, the progress made in the field of law reform and the special attention given to the traffic problem in Dublin city.
I should have thought, in connection with those three things, that the Minister might say a word or two in praise of the Parliamentary Secretary of his Department who was appointed last year. When that appointment was made, there was a suspicion among the public that it was in the nature of a job. I use the word "job" in its worse sense, that is, the provision of work for a particular favourite. What has happened during the year has deepened the public suspicion into certainty that it was a job. This is a Department which was criticised by members of the Minister's Party as being a too-expensive Department. Deputy O'Malley is variously described in some of the newspapers that befriend the present Government Party as one of the best minds amongst the back benchers in the Party. On 14th March 1956, his remarks were reported at Column 536 of Volume 155 of the Official Report as follows:—
The local authorities—the people —cannot pay any more in rates. The only solution of a constructive nature, as far as I can see, is that the Government should give the example. How could the Government do that? In my humble opinion, the Government should give the example at the top. Take one example—the Department of Justice. Does everybody not know that the Department of Justice, instead of costing the taxpayers some £100,000, could be equally competently carried on by the Minister for Defence? Everyone knows the Minister for Defence could be Minister for Justice as well and carry on both Departments.
Later, he said, as reported in the next column, column 157:—
It is all right to make speeches at Chamber of Commerce dinners in Dublin or Sligo or similar functions and to use the clichés about more productivity but we are all getting fed up with that.
That was Deputy O'Malley in 1956.
Later in that year, in October, 1956, when the Department of the Gaeltacht was being put under a Minister and a Ministerial appointment was being made, members of the present Government and their supporters took great exception to that proposal. In justifying the appointment, the then Taoiseach reminded the House that, at an earlier stage, the Leader of the Opposition, then Deputy Éamon de Valera, when urging economy on the then Government reproached the Government for delay in setting up this Ministry for the Gaeltacht and for the fact that at its head was a Parliamentary Secretary and not a full-time Minister.
Deputy Costello said Deputy de Valera pointed out the responsibility which would be given to the Minister for Education in having to hold two posts: he felt any one of them would be sufficient to occupy the full time of an individual. He was making the point that it was wrong to have only a Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Gaeltacht. At that point he was interrupted by the present Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, who asked: "What about Posts and Telegraphs and Justice and Social Welfare?" Later Deputy Costello referred to that and said the only basis he could find for these remarks was that we should double up some of these Ministries. Deputy Smith, now Minister for Agriculture, retorted "Hear, hear". So we had clearly from the people opposite, one of whom is now a Minister, that the Department of Justice did not require a Minister at all. We now have a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary.
It is interesting to trace growth of this Parliamentary Secretary proposal. There came to this town on a visit some weeks ago a person who has made a name by the evolution of a certain theory which he has called a law. He is a man called Professor Northcote Parkinson and the theory he evolved is known as Parkinson's Law. It is variously described. At one time, he said one has to recognise that work is elastic in its demands on time—there is no relationship between work to be done and the size of the staff assigned to it. He explained in a positive way at another time that work expands so as to fill the time of the personnel available for its completion. He added on the other matter that expenditure always rises to meet income.
If Professor Northcote Parkinson had only known a little about our governmental situation, he had a terrific example of what he was writing about on a theoretical basis. He gave one example in a book he wrote on this matter. He talked about a civil servant of senior rank who was well up in the ranks for promotion. A vacancy was likely to occur through the retirement on age limit of a person senior to him. In order to succeed to the post, the civil servant began to lay his plans. It immediately occurred to him that he must increase the importance of the particular section of the Department he stood for.
It was pointed out to him that he could not appoint an extra member of the staff because that member might succeed him. He was told that he would have to divide the work and he appointed two people. Later on, each of these persons said that he had too much work to do and each of them got two assistants. The end of it was that there were seven people doing the work of one. We started off with a suggestion made by Deputy O'Malley and some others that the Department of Justice could easily be doubled up with some other Department. Defence was mentioned but there was actually a choice of Departments, as Social Welfare and Posts and Telegraphs were also mentioned. We were told that a considerable economy could be achieved by putting the Department of Justice into commission with some other Department.
In those circumstances, there was a certain amount of public astonishment when the Taoiseach announced that he was giving the present Minister for Justice a Parliamentary Secretary. On 10th May, 1960, the Taoiseach said:
Ordinarily I would agree that the Department of Justice would not require the services of a Parliamentary Secretary, but at the present time there is a considerable congestion of work including a great deal of legislation which it is desired to have enacted.
So the Parliamentary Secretary was appointed.
At that time the Taoiseach said that this was a temporary arrangement to facilitate Government work. The date is remarkable—May, 1960. Later on in that month Deputy Ryan, on these benches, asked the Taoiseach the present duties of the Parliamentary Secretary and whether he was engaged full-time or part-time on them. The answer given in the Dáil Reports, Volume 182, column 2 of 24th May, 1960, is as follows:
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice will assist the Minister in the discharge of his parliamentary duties, that is to say, in the preparation and handling of legislation, answering questions, receiving deputations, etc. He will, also, undertake Departmental duties with respect to supply and establishment matters in relation to the Garda Síochána, the Court Offices, the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, the Public Record Office and the Office of Charitable Donations and Bequests and discharge such other duties as may be entrusted to him ad hoc...
One might ask, what was there left for the Minister to do if the Parliamentary Secretary was going to do all this? The Taoiseach said that the Parliamentary Secretary would attend to such other duties as might be entrusted to him ad hoc and he referred to itinerants. It is a well-known thing that if an individual is brought into a post, he will look around for something to occupy his time and the Parliamentary Secretary proceeded to inquire into the circumstances of the itinerants of our country.
The next thing was that he appointed a commission to inquire into this matter. One wonders what the Parliamentary Secretary had to do with itinerants when he had off-loaded the whole question on to a commission. On 24th May, 1960, we were told by the Taoiseach:
He will discharge such other duties as may be entrusted to him ad hoc, such as the study of some particular problem as, for example, that of itinerants on which he is already engaged. The office is a whole-time one.
One of the ad hoc problems entrusted to the Parliamentary Secretary was that of traffic in Dublin. I do not know whether he is the person responsible for the expenditure by Dublin Corporation of thousands of pounds to get information which will be handed over to some German expert who will report on it in a couple of years.
There is another special ad hoc matter to which the Parliamentary Secretary attended. He came to attend the opening of a branch in Ballsbridge of one of the banks where there was a drive-in counter, a special side entrance where a person can come in his car, where he can get an advance from the manager or increase his overdraft without getting out of his car. The Parliamentary Secretary attended that occasion. He may have to go to chamber of commerce meetings and other places such as were referred to by Deputy O'Malley when he was on these benches but he came to Ballsbridge to open this drive-in counter and he said that he was specially interested in it because the drive-in system in the bank would ease the traffic problem in Dublin. Such fatuity has not been heard for many years—that the provision of a drive-in counter at one bank in a Dublin suburb would ease traffic congestion. Do not forget Parkinson's Law, that if a man gets a job, he has to get something to fill up his time.
The Taoiseach described the post in that way on 24th May, 1960. A month later, Deputy Ryan put down a question asking how long the post was likely to last and on 31st May, 1960, the Taoiseach said he was not in a position to express any opinion as to the probable termination of the appointment. The matter remained so until March, 1961, when Deputy Ryan then asked the Taoiseach when it was proposed to terminate the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice which was declared by him on 10th May, 1960, to be a temporary appointment. The Taoiseach replied that he had nothing to add to a reply to a similar question on 31st May, 1960.
Deputy Ryan pursued the matter and said:
If it be a fact that the Minister for Justice is either unable or unwilling to execute the functions of his Department, would not the proper course be for him to resign so that the cost of £5,000 a year of the dual appointments in the Department of Justice will not continue?
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle thought that was a separate question but the Taoiseach replied:
As a matter of fact, I am now quite satisfied that there is in the Department of Justice a great deal of work which has been neglected over many years by reason of the inability of successive Ministers for Justice to overtake it and that the work of that Department will require the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary for a long time to come.
It would seem from that reply that the Taoiseach was consenting to the remarks about the Minister for Justice and that he considered that the Parliamentary Secretary was now taking over the whole of the work of the Minister for Justice.
The position remained that way until the Parliamentary Secretary himself went to a Fianna Fáil club meeting on 14th April last and made a speech there. The headlines given to that speech struck my attention. The headlines said: "Ten Year Plan for Law Reform." The temporary arrangement to facilitate the Minister for Justice as an emergency in March of 1960 has, by April, 1961, not merely swollen up to a full-time job but one that is going to occupy somebody for ten years. Parkinson never had a better example of what he said with regard to his law.
The Parliamentary Secretary on 14th April spoke of a ten year plan for law reform to the Comhairle Ceantair Átha Cliath of Fianna Fáil.
He said he had been assigned the task of law reform by the Government—
Here is some more Parkinson.
—and a separate division in the Department had been established to deal with the matter.
That separate division is to last for ten years. If that is not "a job" could I be told what is the correct expression for it? A temporary emergency, a clutter-up of the business in the Department, business which had to be got rid of, certain legislation it was desired to put into the Statute Book, and we find that the "job" is becoming more and more for permanent occupation.
Deputy Ryan asked how long it would continue and the Taoiseach said he did not know how long but he thought it would be a considerable time. The Parliamentary Secretary said ten years. Whether he, or someone else, will occupy it for the ten years remains to be seen.
... he had been assigned the task of law reform by the Government and a separate division in the Department had been established to deal with the matter.
He enlightens the public a bit further:
The immediate task they had set themselves was the preparation of a Government White Paper so that the public would be made fully aware of the problem and how it was proposed to tackle it.
More Parkinson. We have now got a post of a more or less permanent character and a new section in the Department. The only thing left now is to tell the public what it is all about and the first job of the new Parliamentary Secretary is to prepare a Government White Paper "so that the public would be made fully aware of the problem and how it was proposed to tackle it."
An ambitious programme was then sketched:
At the same time they were getting ahead with a number of legislative proposals. There was an accumulation of—
This paper says "errors"; I take it they meant "arrears".
—which must be dealt with first and they would be dealt with in a settled order of priority. In the next couple of years they must advance the programme to the stage where they would be at least abreast of the work that had been done in other common law jurisdictions.
First of all, we have a Government White Paper to tell everybody about the importance of the new section of the Department and the necessity for the Parliamentary Secretary. And, after that two years getting abreast of the work that had been done in other common law jurisdictions, we have what Deputy O'Malley derided as the high-falutin talk that occurs at chamber of commerce dinners, and functions of that type.
There was no reason why they should not develop their law——
This is the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary.
——in a way that would serve as an example to others, as their Constitution served as a model for India.
He had a look at the world then:
Continental countries had written codes of law such as the Code Napoleon and the advantages of these were obvious. In this country common law had developed side by side with the common law of England ... but in some instances they had been in advance of their neighbours.
After referring to some old statute of the reign of William III, relating to playing football in the streets on Sunday—I am sure the reference was introduced as a light note in this heavy discussion—the Parliamentary Secretary said:
In the sphere of private law there had, unfortunately, been no real legislative activity since the end of the 19th century. Important statutes, such as the Property Acts, the Evidence Acts and the Sale of Goods Acts were all enacted in the last century and they were in large manner no longer suitable for or even relevant to modern conditions.
There we are. A White Paper about the great work ahead of the Department, two years to catch up and get abreast, and eight years to go ahead and be a model to every other country as our Constitution was, so he says, an example to India.
Look at India with 11,000,000 bumped off.
The last paragraph is headed "Important Bills". This is a newspaper cutting of 14th April of this year. The Parliamentary Secretary says:
Four important measures at present before the Oireachtas—the Courts Bills, the Charities Bill, the Civil Liability Bill and the Defamation Bill—contained proposals for reforms which had been widely welcomed.
I got the Charities Bill three days later. It was not before the Dáil, but, of course, that is quite a usual thing to say before a Fianna Fáil gathering.
These proposals, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, "have been widely welcomed." That smacks to me again of the civil servant preparing something, not knowing when the matter will be debated, and really not caring a hoot whether or not the proposals have been widely acclaimed or widely welcomed. It was a proper thing to say. The only unfortunate thing was that the Parliamentary Secretary said it three days before the legislation got round to Deputies and three days before any notice was taken of these proposals in any newspaper.
Let me look at the four Bills now. We will probably be discussing the Courts Bills next week. One of them was described by the Leader of the Government as a mere tidying-up piece of legislation. A mere tidying-up; it is bringing up to date the courts which were established under the Constitution in 1922 and which have functioned as courts established under that Constitution without any difficulty, without any handicap in any matter and certainly no handicap in jurisdictional matters. When asked about this piece of legislation and why these Bills were being introduced the Taoiseach answered that the legislation was of no importance; it was a mere tidying-up. Before the particular group that the Parliamentary Secretary was addressing it was, however, one of four important measures introduced.
With regard to the second of the two Courts Bills we are told in the memorandum that came with the Bill—reference has been made to this already in this House—that, while it does incorporate a great many provisions, the most important of the provisions deal with the district court. As far as the Second Reading debate went, proposals dealing with the district court were subjected to a tremendous barrage of criticism on the ground that these proposals put the district court under greater supervision than would seem to be required and certainly under greater supervision than this court has ever had before. Those are two of the very "Important Bills."
The Charities Bill was in the Attorney General's office by at least the early part of 1954 and I know that it was a reprint of something that had been drafted almost in toto a year or two before. It was held up for three years in a search for a suitable definition of “charity.” What did the phrase “charitable donation or bequest” cover? When the Parliamentary Secretary introduced this important piece of legislation, this was the old legislation prepared long ago, and without any definition of charity; the only point upon which the legislation was deferred was not met in the Bill that was brought in here.
The Defamation Bill came after the speech to this group. My observation of it since has been that it incorporates most of the old law, with an odd adaptation of the old law to modern circumstances. To regard it either as an important Bill or as a Bill making any important changes is to speak the language of exaggeration.
The Civil Liability Bill is one that is regarded as of importance and the proposals have been widely welcomed, according to the Parliamentary Secretary. Proposals have been awaited with some anxiety for many years. On 21st October, 1959, Deputy T. F. O'Higgins, from this side of the House, moved the Civil Liability Bill of 1959.
He moved:
That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to provide for the amendment of the law relating to the defence of contributory negligence in civil actions and to amend the Tortfeasors Act, 1951.
The Minister for Justice at Column 73 of Volume 177 of the Official Report said:
We are opposing the introduction of this Bill not because we do not agree with its principles but simply because we have a Bill of our own in draft form. I intend to bring this Bill before the Government as soon as I can and I hope that it may be possible to introduce it and to circulate the text to Deputies some time in the New Year.
That would be early 1960. Deputy O'Higgins asked that the First Reading be given and he added:
I certainly feel rather strongly about this. I introduced this Bill seven years ago. A Second Reading debate took place in this House and when an undertaking was given to me by the then Minister, the debate was adjourned, pending the introduction forthwith by the Government of a similar Bill.
There was a certain amount of back and forward discussion but, at Column 74, Deputy O'Higgins said:
Everybody knows that the Bill was in draft form for the last seven years.
The Taoiseach's reply to that was—
We have given a great deal of thought to this matter and there is a Bill now in draft form. It is not in conformity with the Bill the Deputy has in mind but it will meet the point. I think by far the better course would be to await the presentation of the Government's Bill and if the Deputy does not like it then he can say so.
The matter was taken up again on the 28th October and Deputy O'Higgins moving that leave be granted to introduce the Civil Liability Bill, 1959, said:
I think I should, as I am bound to do, explain to the House what this Bill proposes to do.
Then for a column and a half he spoke on the main point, which is the amending of the law with regard to contributory negligence, and half-way down Column 462, he sums up by saying:
The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the amendment of the common law of this country in this respect
—that is in regard to contributory negligence—
and to introduce into our common law what already applies elsewhere, namely, that this old defence of contributory negligence be modified in such a way that the court or jury trying the case shall be entitled to reduce the damages by the amount by which, or to the extent to which, the injured party contributed to the occurrence. I think it will ensure in a great number of cases that the person who is badly injured through the fault of another shall not be disentitled to any damages merely because to some degree, be it greater or be it lesser, he had contributed to the occurrence.
Then he continues, still at Column 462, on the 28th October, 1959:
That is the purpose of this Bill and it is a view I have long held and expressed in this House. I introduced a similar Bill seven years ago and it is pertinent to recall that, in 1952, following a similar statement, the then Minister agreed with and subscribed to the view I expressed and assured me across the House that he proposed to do something about it. The discussion on the Bill was postponed in the sense in which this Minister spoke and it never arose for discussion again. The Government changed and a new Government came into office, of which I was a member. Arrangements were made to introduce a legislative proposal to this House incorporating this proposal. Unfortunately, before that could be introduced, the Government again changed and now seven years later, I am again proposing the same type of amendment.
The Minister said the other day that the Government had a Bill. The Government had a Bill seven years ago and I do not know why it has not been introduced. Certainly, if the Minister says to me tonight, following what I have said here now, that a Government Bill will be introduced next week or in a month's time or in two months' time, I am perfectly content to withdraw this motion for the First Reading of this Bill, provided—and I know if the Minister says it, it will be done—that on the records of this House it will appear that this important measure of law reform is being approached in a realistic manner.
The present Minister replied—
I can give the Deputy not the complete assurance he is looking for, that is, an assurance that this Bill will be introduced in the course of the next two months, but I can give the assurance that it will be produced in the course of the coming year—
this is October, 1959, and the coming year was 1960. He went on—
and, I hope, in the early part of the year. The reason I have to say that is that, as the Deputy must be aware, at the present time I am inundated with Bills of one kind or another that must be produced in the near future, for the simple reason that they have priority over this Bill.
Deputy O'Higgins asked "Why?" and the Minister avoided that. He continued:
But I am giving this assurance to the Deputy, that the Bill is on the stocks, being examined.
That is in October 1959. He went on:
The Deputy knows much better than I do the complicated type of Bill this is. He must know that even the learned judges differ as to the manner in which it should be approached, and so on. We must be forgiven, therefore, if our advisers and our draftsmen take plenty of time to ensure that when they do produce a Bill, it will be a Bill that will meet the requirements. It is a very complicated question, and, because of its complications, it has taken the length of time it has taken over the years.
It has taken seven years.
I do not want to go into the reasons why the Deputy did not produce a Bill during his term of office, but I am giving him the assurance now that it will be produced in the course of the coming year.
At Column 465, Deputy O'Higgins pursued the matter and 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?
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.
That was Easter, 1960.
It is actually in draft but requires a great deal of re-examination.
Deputy O'Higgins asked:
Is it not true that it was a draft many years ago?
And the Taoiseach said:
This is a new one.
Whether he meant the Bill or the comment I do not know. Now the Civil Liability Bill comes around to us in 1961.
I have referred several times in this House to the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, and I want once more to refer it, because of certain things that arise in the tidying-up Bill and the Bill that accompanies it in regard to the establishment of the courts. The second Bill deals mainly with the district courts and gives the district justices much more supervision than before. We are told that it is only a question of getting the Bill through the House and that then it will be replaced by another piece of legislation which will incorporate very much the same matters. We have not yet got an explanation why it is necessary to introduce two Bills in double harness, one of which is a tidying-up Bill and the other dealing with district courts, but which will be repealed by a different Bill altogether. However, we have them.
We are establishing supervision over the district courts. There is to be a new President of the District Court, and he is to have certain functions with regard to the district justices. In addition, the President of the High Court is getting further powers, additional to those which he already had, with regard to supervision of the district courts. I wonder what is the good of giving duties to the members of the judiciary in face of what has been exposed here over a number of years when I asked questions about this particular matter?
In the 1936 Courts of Justice Act there were laid down a very good procedure and a very good machinery for working out that procedure. In Section 67 there was established a Superior Courts Rules Committee with a very distinguished personnel, The ex-officio members consisted of the Chief Justice, as chairman, the President of the High Court, as vice-chairman, the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland and the Master of the High Court. Then there were two nominated members, two ordinary judges of the Supreme Court, two ordinary members of the High Court, and, in addition, two practising barristers nominated by the Council of the Bar, one a member of the Senior Bar and the other a member of the Junior Bar. That was the Superior Courts Rules Committee. There were also the Circuit Courts Rules Committee, a District Court Rules Committee and a Rules Committee for the Local Registration of Title, all with very distinguished personnel.
In Section 75 it was imposed, and it was a statutory duty, that the secretary of each of the several committees was to summon a meeting of the committee at least once every year for the purpose of the general consideration by such committee of the practice, procedure and administration of the court in relation to which such committee is constituted and the law affecting or administered by such court. As soon as conveniently might be after every meeting, the committee was to report to the Minister whether any and if so what amendments or alterations should, in their opinion, be made in the practice, procedure or administration of the court or in the law affecting or administered by such court. As I say, that was a good procedure. We are getting away from Civil Service drafting of Court rules or of law. I am not complaining of what civil servants do in that matter, but I think for them to be attached to the practising members of the profession would be a good thing. This is a good procedure.
I asked the Minister for Justice, in speaking on the debate on the Estimate three years ago, again two years ago and again last year, how many reports had he received from any of these distinguished committees and for the first two years the answer was that they never had reported since established; the last time I got a statement that the Local Registration of Title Committee had reported once or twice. What is the good of putting new duties on people like this who will not attend to the statutory duties already imposed on them?
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.