No. This morning, I was crossing at a junction in the city and I saw one man on point duty holding the stick across his shoulder as if it were a shillelagh or as if he were Dick Whittington walking into the city. The only thing missing was the proverbial red bag with the white dots. Generally speaking, these white batons are being used in a most confusing and careless manner. If training in the use of them has been given, it is not being observed. If training was not given, it is time it was given and the batons should be withdrawn until it has been given.
To my mind, and to the minds of very many pedestrians and motorists in the city, the raised hand of a member of the Garda was far more strict and far more forbidding than these white batons, indifferently held in many cases. Many members of the force also use them with the right hand, without using the left hand, and most of us do not know whether we are getting a "stop" or a "come on" signal. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary with his car and his two chauffeurs does not keep an eye out for these things himself but the Minister has a duty—and it transcends any duty given to the Parliamentary Secretary—and the Commissioner of the Garda has a duty, and if they intend to do their duty, they should know that what I say in this regard is true. There will be some serious accident or some unfair prosecution, if something is not done about the use of these weapons—because they are dangerous weapons, certainly, so long as they are used as they are being used at present.
Many people were appalled to see the photograph in the papers in recent weeks of a member of the Garda with a white band on his hat and a short white coat, for use, we are told, during the summer. I do not think it lends any dignity to the Garda to dress them like icecream salesmen. We are lowering the prestige and dignity of the force by putting Gardaí in particular streets in these short white coats—like page boys or icecream vendors. I strongly urge that they should be discarded immediately and given to some icecream merchant or whoever wants to use them.
Aesthetically, they will never look well because, if a Garda is doing his duty properly, he has to raise his hands to various levels. If one looks at the photograph of the unfortunate person who modelled the white coat, one notices there is a considerable slant in the line of the coat and, against the navy blue trousers, it looks as if it does not fit the man at all. The only way of curing the slant in the drape of the coat is to make one side longer than the other, but then when the man puts his hands down, he will look even more ridiculous.
I believe we were right some years ago to relieve the Gardaí on point duty in the city on hot summer days of the obligation to wear a jacket. They looked a fine body of men and most respectable, when they were turned out in trousers and shirt. They looked well and the people respected them. Perhaps they looked bigger and more forbidding. Certainly these little white coats look ridiculous. I notice that the model chosen had a good figure and was not too wide at the waist, but what would an unfortunate middle-aged man look like? I suppose the coats would reach the same level, but they would hardly cross their chests in some cases. I strongly urge that the Garda would have the respect of the citizenry and look well before the tourists—not that I consider that is an important consideration, but it is a consideration in the minds of some people—if these icecream coats and white bands on their hats were cancelled immediately.
One would have hoped, when we were told the Parliamentary Secretary was considering establishment and other matters in the courts, that something might have been done about the atrocious delays which occur, day in and day out, in many Government offices and court offices. These delays are a serious contributory factor to the law's delays at which the layman loves to scoff. In many offices, the delays have got worse than they were. In his statement on this Estimate, the Minister showed himself to be completely out of touch with many Departments when he said he was not aware that there were delays.
There are delays in the Registry of Deeds certainly. At one time, it was possible to get a negative search bespoken and available before the close of a sale. Perhaps all members might not know that a negative search is a search which a solicitor causes to be made in the Registry of Deeds for any mortgages or assignments or items of that nature which exist in relation to a property. That search must be made to protect the purchasers of houses, to ensure there is no outstanding mortgage or that no one, other than the person who purports to be the owner, has any interest in the property.
A negative search is of very great importance because it is a search which is the responsibility of the State. Even if there is a mistake made in the furnishing of a negative search, the responsibility lies upon the State. The State has to make good the loss to a person who acts upon a negative search. But because of the delays in the Registry of Deeds solicitors have to rely upon searches made either by themselves or members of their staffs or firms who specialise in these searches. If there is any mistake in these searches the responsibility does not lie upon the State but upon the solicitor who employed the people involved. That is just not good enough. The fees for searches, unlike fees for many other things, have increased in recent years. Some drastic steps will have to be taken to expedite the issue of negative searches in time for the closing of sales.
There is one office which is a laugh in this modern age. It is the Office of the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy. The Official Assignee in Bankruptcy collects 10 per cent. of all assets, and for that he gives a totally inadequate service to the public. The result is that it takes years and years in some cases to wind up the affairs of bankrupt estates. That is not fair either to the unfortunate bankrupt or to the creditors. I appreciate that, perhaps, the only remedy for this is to amend drastically the law on bankruptcy. We on this side hope the day is not far distant before remedial legislation will be introduced in that regard. Nevertheless, there is scope for improvement in the handling of the bankruptcy system generally. I appreciate that, perhaps, the blame does not lie on those in immediate control. If it is because the headquarters staff in the Department of Justice have been niggardly in providing staff accommodation and funds for this office, it is about time they mended their ways. They make a profit out of this office and a substantial amount of money is available. They collect their fees before anybody else, and it is about time something were done to improve the matter.
When the Solicitors Bill was being discussed last year, opportunity was taken by members of the profession on both sides to point out that overheads in solicitors' offices were considerable and that one of the reasons for these overheads was the grossly inefficient and outdated methods in many court and Government offices to which solicitors have to resort. We still have obligations upon solicitors whereby they have to attend, either themselves or members of their staffs, at court or Government offices for the presentation of documents which could well be transmitted through the threepenny post. The result of all that ridiculous and Gilbertian procedure is that delay is caused to productive work in legal offices. It is bad enough to have to attend but in some cases, as in the Stamp Office in Dublin Castle, those attending with documents have to join long queues and waste many hours before they can return to their offices.
Another problem which ought to be easily remedied is the problem of stamping court documents. At present in the Four Courts the high court office is on one floor; the circuit court office is two storeys above it and the district court office is away in another part of the building. Solicitors sometimes have to attend at these places. The length of the Four Courts is longer than the furthest length of Leinster House, and Deputies not infrequently complain about the long corridors they have to walk to get from one end of the building to another. But if on top of that you had to climb two or three storeys, you would become very exasperated indeed. But that is what happens day in and day out in the Four Courts.
Solicitors and their assistants have to attend at these offices. Going in they are informed what stamps have to be impressed on the document. They have to go down two flights of stairs to the Stamp Office and join a queue to have the documents stamped. They might find something else requires to be done, and the same amount of walking has to be done all over again. It is a most wasteful and unnecessary procedure. It ought to be possible either to have automatic stamping machines in the different offices, or else the money should be handed over the counter when the documents are received. It should be a very simple thing to keep an account. If the fee in a defence in the High Court is 7/6d and if there are 30 defences in the office at the end of the day, then the clerk ought to be able to account for 30 seven and sixpences. It should not be necessary to have to waddle along the corridors and join the queue to get a stamp impressed upon a document.
That may sound confusing and a bit ludicrous to the members of this House but in practice it is ten times worse. There are some documents on which you have to impress a stamp and others on which you have to lick a stamp. They might well be documents going to the same office, but the Rules of Court and the practice of the courts require that in some cases the stamp be impressed and in others licked on. All this is foolish and a waste of time. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice, if he is going to remain there, which we hope will not be very much longer, would be better occupied trying to get rid of some of these atrocious ways of officialdom and to improve the lot of the people who resort to these offices.
One aspect of the Office of the Minister for Justice which does not receive the attention it ought is the petitions section. I wonder if we are right in granting the number of petitions we do grant? It is true, for some strange reason or other, that more petitions come from the rural areas than from Dublin. From my own professional experience in Dublin I know of very few cases in which petitions are lodged against fines or other penalties imposed by the courts. In any event, from figures I obtained recently it appears that the average run of petitions here is around 1,200 per year, that is, about 100 every month or 25 per week. For the last four years one quarter of these petitions have been granted in one way or another. That amounts either to a reflection on the Judiciary or on the Minister for Justice.
I appreciate that most Ministers dealing with petitions will not lightly vary the order of the judge or district justice. I am quite satisfied that the Minister and his Departmental advisers do not lightly grant these petitions, but we as a nation have granted, perhaps, more petitions than we ought to have granted. Certainly, looking at the figures for other countries, I have not been able to find anywhere any figures which reach anything like 25 per cent of remissions. The highest I was able to find was one of about ten per cent. Across the water it is something less than five per cent. Here we have the position that, of the people who appealed to the Minister against decisions of the courts, one quarter got their fines or penalties mitigated. I believe that members of the Judiciary are aware of this practice. The result probably is that many members of the Judiciary, when imposing penalties, have regard to possible reductions which may be made later on by the Minister. Therefore, in the overall picture, we may have greater severity than we ought to have and only the lucky defaulter gets any reduction.
We know that no matter how principled the Minister may be he is subject to certain pressures and strains sometimes not only from Deputies of his own Party but from Deputies from all sides of the House who keep pestering him until a reduction is made. Then, being human, it is quite possible that a small percentage of petitions are granted in order to get rid of the persons who are pestering the unfortunate Minister.
It is wrong that we should have an abuse of the petitions procedure. That it is necessary, I would be the first to argue. There are many cases where the full facts, the economic and family circumstances of the accused, may not be known at the time of conviction. In such circumstances, it is only appropriate that there should be some system which would allow the penalties to be remitted or reduced where there is extreme hardship.
It is a reflection on our whole judicial procedure when there are so many petitions to the Minister and so many are allowed. I would hope there would be a stiffening-up, on this matter and, at the same time, that there would be an indication that the same percentage of petitions will not be granted in future. If that were done, the justice would not impose penalties and fines with a view to their being reduced by the Minister later on.
In that regard, I would utter a word of slight criticism in relation to the obiter dicta of some Justices and Judges from time to time. It has happened from my experience and I have seen it in court that a justice on some occasions, when imposing penalties, recommends that the person penalised should petition the Minister saying that he, the Justice, would be prepared to support the petition. I think that is very bad. Either we have our own independent courts which operate independently and fearlessly or we have not. Certainly, we should not have any member of our Judiciary allocating punishment and in the same breath saying, in effect “I think the court may not have done right today and if the person wants to petition against it he ought to do so and I will support him.” We should have a fearless Judiciary who will impose penalties as the cases merit.
I had occasion in the course of the year to ask a question concerning a certain film which was rejected by the Censor and subsequently approved for limited exhibition by the Film Appeals Board. At the time I asked the question originally I had not seen the film but I was aware that it had been issued for limited circulation to people over 18 years of age, which might include some children. The name of the film was The Summer of the Seventeenth Doll.
I was having my summer holiday at a seaside resort on the east coast. This film came down for exhibition. There was no indication, good, bad or indifferent either in writing or by oral announcement outside the cinema or in the foyer that the film was limited to people over 18 years of age. I went in and saw the film. When the lights went on at the end there, in the rows customarily reserved for children under 14 years of age, were about 24 or 36 children. When I asked the Minister about this he said, perhaps facetiously, that I could not expect or was I suggesting that the Gardaí ought to go around checking the age of every person going into a cinema, seeing that any person in short trousers was kept out, and all that sort of thing. I am not suggesting any such thing.
I am not setting myself up as a moralist. I am not expressing any particular opinion on that film but I say that if we have laws and if we have a system in operation which allows certain films to be seen provided they are not seen by people under a certain age we ought to take some reasonable steps to ensure that a certificate issued in such circumstances is respected.
It surely is a reasonable obligation to require that every advertisement for such a film will carry a note to the effect that it may not be seen by anybody under 18 years of age. Surely we might go a little further and look for the co-operation of the film industry to the extent that where such a film is to be shown advance notice will be given to the Gardaí in the appropriate town or village. While not asking the Gardaí to stand at the door, to stop and check each person going in, and to look at their birth certificates, at the same time some reasonable awareness of the limited certificate should circulate through the town. The Gardaí could look in now and then and if they saw as I did some 24 to 36 youngsters in short pants watching the film or such a film then appropriate action might be taken.
On the occasion on which I raised this matter the Minister said it was open to me to report it. I have no desire to act as a common informer to a Department which is failing in its own obligations. Whatever about the past, I hope appropriate action will be taken in the future to see that where limited certificates are issued they will be respected. If that is not to be done, let us abolish the system of limited certificates and not pretend we are protecting our young people from such films circulating throughout the country. We should not act the hypocrite. There are obvious ways of taking the necessary precautions. I am not suggesting there will not be abuses in the future or that it will keep out each and every child but it will certainly prevent a large number of children from seeing these objectionable films.
I am aware that such certificates are respected in the first-run cinemas in the main streets of Dublin city but I think that is about as far as it goes. When I originally put this matter before the Minister I said such certificates were not respected throughout the length and breadth of the land once the first run of the film was over. From my personal experience and from what I have heard from others, it would appear that what I said on that occasion is true. It is about time, therefore, some steps were taken to curb that highly objectionable practice.
In the course of the past year the Rent Restrictions Bill was introduced. Funnily enough, although the Rent Restrictions Bill was intended to lift certain restrictions, some of us warned that it would cause a certain amount of hardship. While designed to relieve hardship in one sector, it was opening the way to serious hardship for other people. I am afraid the prophets of misfortune have in many cases been proved right. In recent months, I have heard of a number of small shopkeepers who have been in a small way of business for many years and just about making ends meet and who have had to close their doors, pack up and find some other means of livelihood or retire because the increases in rent which have been made possible by the Rent Restrictions Bill were just sufficient to soak up any good which was in the business.
The Minister will be well aware that, in many of the back streets in Dublin where tenement houses have been demolished and flats not yet built, there are several small hucksters remaining on waiting for the day when flats may be built and the population may drift back to the city centre. For such people an increase of £1 or 30/- a week in rent is a very serious hardship. Such cases are occurring and I ask the Minister to look into the matter and consider whether some steps might be taken to protect small people of that type. There was also objection to that Bill on the ground that it was allowing increases to landlords in respect of repairs which they might not carry out. That appears to be happening all over the place. The landlords have been very quick in imposing the increases, but they have not shown the same enthusiasm in respect of their obligations.
The Minister may reply that the tenants have their rights to force the landlords to execute repairs. Unfortunately we have no system of free legal aid and it can be a most costly process to force a landlord to carry out repairs. The practice in many of our courts in such cases has been, even where a decree is awarded to the tenant, to provide that each side bears its own costs. I hope the Minister will take another look at the Act and consider whether some steps are necessary to ensure that landlords execute repairs where they are obliged to do so.
To return to the police force in Dublin—we have many prosecutions brought under the Dublin Police Act of 1842. There are many things in that Act which are rather incongruous and unsuitable to our modern conditions. I have known cases where prosecutions brought under that Act were really vexatious. I have seen cases of unfortunate people of limited means having vexatious prosecutions brought against them under that Act. One case that comes to mind was that of a housewife who was tidying up her garden into which some children had thrown the insides of a mattress which had earlier been dropped by some passing itinerants. The owner of the garden was a prizewinner over many years in a local garden competition. His garden, in the middle of this working-class area, was a credit to him and was such, indeed, as to improve the appearance of the whole neighbourhood and an encouragement to the neighbours to keep gardens of a similar kind. Finding this rubbish in the garden, damaging her flowers, the housewife was sweeping it out on to the footpath where there was a vast accumulation of the insides of mattresses when a Garda came along and told her she should put it in the bin. She did so. Returning some time later, the Garda found this woman sweeping the path outside her house and he insisted that she was committing an offence, that the litter was hers as it was within her bailiwick.
A prosecution was brought and she was fined under the Dublin Police Act of 1842. That occurred in an area in which, it is said, many people are criminally inclined. I shall not mention the area as it might cause offence. It is in an area where many roads have 600 or 700 houses and if one person from the road is in court every person in the road is labelled in consequence. Where you have such an area in which it is necessary to have co-operation between the public and the Garda I suggest you will not get that co-operation where you have vexatious prosecutions against a person who, as in this case, was breaking the letter of the law in sweeping dirt from her own premises on to the highway, but who was certainly observing the spirit of the law in trying to keep her own place clean and tidy. It may well be that in this instance—I think it did happen—there were certain acrimonious words between the woman and the Garda. She probably told the Garda where to go when he spoke to her, but I am certain one word borrowed another. We want to bring about co-operation between the people in these areas and the Garda but we will certainly not do that if we have vexatious prosecutions of this kind.
The Minister may say that it is open to anybody to complain to the local superintendent, if such conduct occurs, but the ordinary person does not know that. In any case, it is very little use doing that after the event. Such people go to court believing they will get off but find themselves hamstrung by the Act of 1842. While there are many things in that Act quite appropriate, although couched in archaic language, it is an Act that might be examined and brought up to date to meet modern conditions.
It is a good thing for the country, I suppose, even if it is an annoying thing for Fine Gael Deputies, that as soon as they make a suggestion or give any advice the Government immediately act. Knowing that, we of the Fine Gael Party have been, for the past year, vehement about the condition of many of our Garda stations and the facilities available to the Garda. We had a very well-timed announcement last week that something was to be done. It would be churlish of me not to express my joy that something is being done and it would be churlish of the Government not to admit that they were under pressure from Fine Gael to do something. If our economy is as prosperous as it is alleged to be, the relatively small amount of money necessary to put Garda stations right should be available. It is a small sum in relation to national expenditure, but it is a considerable amount because a considerable amount of work must be done. I believe it is a priority requirement and should take priority over other things.
The Minister spoke in recent years about the fact that our prisoners had spring beds. I think I am right in saying that the beds issued to prisoners are the same as the beds issued to the Garda. I may be wrong and, if so, I am open to correction. I know that many of these beds were never intended to be slept in by Gardaí averaging 12 to 14 stone in weight and built proportionately. Many of them are heavier. The beds issued to them are utterly inadequate and could not be expected to provide the necessary comfort for sound sleep essential for those in sedentary occupations; neither are they suitable for a man on his feet on patrol all day. He is entitled to a more comfortable bed than that offered to him in his barracks at the moment. I do not know if any improvement has taken place recently in regard to press accommodation and privacy. Up to recently—I hope it has been corrected; it ought to be— Gardai had no presses, lockers or cupboards in which to put their own private property. It had to be left in the middle of the room or the Garda had to invest a few shillings in securing some privacy for his possessions. In some cases he could not do that because there was barely enough room for beds without presses or cupboards.
Not so long since we had in Dublin a position in which members of the Garda had to sleep in cells. The offices in Green Street today are quite unsuitable. In the past they must have been cellars or dungeons; I do not know which. The conditions in which the police have to work are absolutely deplorable. The Department of Agriculture would penalise severely any farmer who kept his animals under such conditions. In Rathmines the facilities are deplorable. Anything the Minister can do to alleviate conditions generally is welcome. I believe such an approach will pay because it will mean a more contented force.
Many of the Garda at present come from very comfortable homes and part of the frustration, annoyance and irritation, where the young members are concerned, is related not only to pay but also to the conditions under which they have to live in many of our stations. I notice that the idea is to have a nation-wide survey conducted by a superintendent. I am always afraid of surveys. It will take the man a year to complete the survey. He will then come back and the next Estimate will have been passed. It will be two years, therefore, before anything will be done. So much could be done right away that I hope the work will be embarked upon without any delay of any kind.
The Adoption Board has been working very successfully and it is appropriate that we should take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the work done by those associated with legal adoption. It is an excellent thing that such a scheme, a scheme about which many people had many doubts, has operated so successfully.
Any criticisms I have offered are not intended to be carping criticisms, though the Minister, being a politician like myself, might regard them as such. The criticisms I have offered reflect the opinions of many. One must examine an Estimate for a Department like the Department of Justice in a critical manner. Many people consider the Department an unimportant one. I do not subscribe to that view. I believe the Department of Justice is one of the most important Departments of State. Lest the Minister feel I have no authority for that view I would refer him to the remarks of Deputy de Valera sitting on this side of the House in 1954. He said the Department of Justice was the most important Department of state. Unfortunately he then went on to say how wrong it was of Deputy Costello, Taoiseach at that time, to appoint a Labour man to such an important Ministry as the liberties of the people might be taken away. That was quite a shocking allegation. Perhaps he now regrets having made it. I hope he does.
The Department of Justice is an important Department because it is so concerned with the liberty of the individual. Anything I have said with relation to the new office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice does not detract in any way from the importance of the Department itself. This superfluous, redundant appointment is having a bad effect upon the Department. Some years ago it was said by one in a position to judge that it could be said for the Department of Justice, but not for any other Department, that it had never lost its sense of proportion. It had not unnecessarily expanded. Parkinson's Law did not operate. Unfortunately there has been a breach in the walls in recent years, and that at a time when the work should be growing less. We have a perfect example of the operation of Parkinson's Law in the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary, his private secretary, his two chauffeurs, his car, and his office accommodation, plus the other ancillary posts.
There is in the Estimates at page 84 an increase of £7,199 in the wages of headquarters staff. The Minister rushed rather breathlessly through that when introducing his Estimate. He attributed the increase to an increase in salaries. We know for a fact that the increase includes at least two of the items I have mentioned. Some of the increases are concealed in other Votes. There is a sum of at least £2,000 odd on the Estimate for the headquarters staff, and all because of the unnecessary appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice.
The other Estimates have not increased by a like amount. If the increase were attributable to increases in salaries, there would have been similiar increases in other sections of the Department. There are no such increases. Last year this appointment was made subsequent to the introduction of the Estimate here. Because of that the money to pay for this unnecessary and expensive appointment had to be obtained out of the moneys allocated last year. Because of the anxiety of the Minister not to face the House with a Supplementary Estimate certain essential routine jobs in the Department were neglected. But the Minister did have to come in with a Supplementary Estimate. It was alleged to be for another reason. It is shocking that essential operations of the Department of Justice should be neglected in order to save pounds, shillings and pence so that the Minister could avoid the embarrassment he ought to feel in coming to the House with a Supplementary Estimate to cover a wholly unnecessary appointment.
Those of us who criticise the appointment are not doing so without cause. If it could be justified the Minister could have come in openly and courageously with his Supplementary Estimate, but he knew that there were people on this side of the House in a position to challenge the appointment and he resorted to this shabby subterfuge of trying to conceal the increased cost of the Department by talking of the necessary routine work which had to be carried on. I hope the Taoiseach will revert to the position he took up at the beginning; when the appointment was made he said it was for temporary convenience. The facts which governed the situation then still operate. The Minister has been engaged in this House for far shorter hours than many of his colleagues who have no Parliamentary Secretaries.
