Committee on Finance. - Vote 23—Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Wednesday, 5 Dec 1962

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice including certain other services administered by that Office.

Mr. Ryan

I think it is fitting during a discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Justice that we should make passing reference to the father of this House, Deputy Everett, as he, for some years, held the portfolio of Justice and any members who appreciate the value of Parliamentary democracy, appreciate the sterling services he has given to the nation. Apart from serving his Party and his constituency, he has served the Irish people well over many years and during that long and honourable service he spent a number of years in the Department of Justice. During his time in that Department, he brought about many laudable reforms.

On the last occasion when I reported progress, the Minister was saved by the bell. I had been drawing attention to the fact that, unfortunately, there existed in the Department, in the Garda Síochána and in the law enforcement department of this State, a virtual reign of terror in which the heads of the Departments have created an atmosphere of fear among the rank and file. You do not get the best out of any servants, public or private, where there is an atmosphere of dictation, fear, intimidation and a bad spirit generally. That, unfortunately, is the situation. In the whole history of the State, I think, the legal arm has never been so bedevilled with fear and intimidation that should be absent from the organ of State which is there to see that justice is done. I hope there will be a substantial improvement and that the reign of terror will give way to a reign of co-operation.

Recently I asked the Minister if he would consider the introduction of a system whereby solicitors on record in court cases would be notified direct from the court offices as soon as the cases in which they are concerned are put in the list. The Minister said he was satisfied that the system of the Legal Diary which has been operating for many years was adequate and that there was no need to supplement it by direct notice to solicitors on record. I appeal to him to reconsider the matter. Members of the House, who are not members of the legal profession, may not know of the Legal Diary. It is a document which is printed daily in Dublin during the law terms and it contains, on average, 400 cases listed according to the courts in which they are to be heard. I know for a fact that not infrequently solicitors, or counsel advised by them, fail to notice cases which are put into the Legal Diary and not infrequently adjournments are sought on the eve of a court case or on the very day of the court case because, due to pressure of work, solicitors and counsel have not noticed the case come into the list.

I have heard lawyers accused of negligence for failing to know when cases appear on the list but I ask members of the House as human beings to realise the problem that lawyers have to face. They may take the steps necessary to bring a case for trial in the circuit court or high court and four or five months may elapse before that case appears in the Legal Diary. In order to ensure that the case is not overlooked, the lawyer on record is supposed to apply his mind and eye daily to that list to watch out for the case. I wonder if each of us were put on oath to say what Statutory Instruments or Orders or other items appeared on the back of our Order Papers, how many of us could honestly say we read through those from beginning to end? Yet, if we were fulfilling our duties here as members of the House, we should do that to know everything that is going on. Likewise, the average lawyer has more than sufficient to do to try to keep up-to-date with urgent work, without having laboriously to pore over a list of 400 cases daily of which he may have an interest in only one or two or three.

The pressure and the strain in the practice of the legal profession is daily becoming worse and with the shorter working week which is being generally introduced it will become even more acute in the years ahead. At the same time, it is becoming more difficult to get experienced, competent law clerks. There was a time when law clerks were regarded as the poorest-paid members of the community, and I think that was true, certainly in relation to the responsibility they had. The result of that is a new trend and young men will not go into the law clerk's avocation.

It is a common experience of solicitors, I think, that unless they personally peruse the Legal Diary cases are frequently overlooked. Even though they might try to go through it they themselves have often overlooked some very important case.

Even though it might mean that the Minister would look to the profession to pay a contribution towards the service, I believe that most members of the profession in Dublin would willingly provide the necessary funds to ensure that in future when a case is put into the Legal Diary a notice to that effect would go out from the court office to the solicitor on record. I should explain, perhaps, that not only is a case put in the Diary for a particular day but once it is listed in the Diary, it may move according as cases before it are adjourned or settled or otherwise disposed of. But, at least if a solicitor gets a warning that the case is listed, he is alerted and he can watch the Diary and from then on, it would be his own responsibility.

I think there is a case for giving initial notice to solicitors on record. This is not a matter just for the convenience of solicitors: it is equally important to all the parties and witnesses involved in court cases, in order to ensure they will get the fullest possible notice. It might be that the system operating is more suited to a time when there was less litigation in this city and county, but it certainly is not suited to this day and age and the result is that witnesses and litigants get only a matter of a few days' notice, whereas, if my proposal were adopted, they would get ten to 14 days' notice.

I should like to refer again to the Gardaí on traffic duty in this city. I said last week that since they became armed with batons, their signs are becoming less intelligible to motorists and pedestrians. I discovered last Saturday to my surprise that one member of the Garda Síochána who, I had thought, was a particularly bad pointsman was a first-class pointsman when he had not got a baton. I did not recognise him as one and the same man. Last Saturday, when for some reason or another he had not the baton, he had his arms outstretched to the full and was giving indications in accordance with the bye-laws and regulations and there could be no room for any doubt as to what he meant.

I have seen the same person before and since giving indications with the baton which were certainly not intelligible to the average motorist. I would therefore appeal either for the immediate permanent withdrawal of the batons or else that Gardaí on traffic duty should get an intensive course in their proper use for traffic control. The batons should supplement the other gestures and signs and not replace them. Unfortunately what is happening is that the baton is solely used.

I do not blame the men on point duty. Obviously, this wand is having some effect on them, but it has occurred to me that perhaps the period they have to remain on traffic duty is too long. It might be better to have shorter runs of duty. It might have been all right when our streets had only a quarter of the traffic they now have, but it takes a high degree of alertness now to get traffic moving and that should be the purpose of our pointsmen. I am afraid some of them are so tired and so indifferent from long hours of duty that they tend to choke traffic rather than keep it moving. There should not be a delay of more than five seconds between the passing of traffic one way and the passing of traffic at right angles to it. Long delays in the movement of traffic lanes are not good enough in this day and age when our streets are becoming choked with traffic. I would hope for a vast improvement in that field in the immediate future.

I appreciate that we are not permitted to discuss legislation on the Estimate but I should like to express some appreciation of the increasing amount of law reform that is coming from the Department of Justice. I would urge that the legislation which we are told is under consideration in connection with the wills of husbands be not too long delayed because unfortunately, under our present system, there are frequent cases of wives and their families being deprived of their fair share of the husbands' estate because the husbands did not provide for them in their wills. While on that matter it strikes me that the time has come to increase the amount which a district justice can allow to a wife and children who have been deserted by the husband. I am not sure when the figure was reviewed but certainly the figure of £2 10s. a week fixed in respect of a wife has no relation to modern monetary requirements.

A final point I would make is to endorse what Deputy Donegan said about the provision of some funds for boys' and girls' clubs. We need a positive approach in this country to the prevention of crime. I do appreciate the great work which has been done in the treatment of young boys in what used to be called Borstal, but is now recognised as St. Patrick's. Positive work is being done there to reform these boys and make good citizens of them but I think we need to prevent our youth drifting into ways of crime.

The high precentage of young people in our prisons today is rather shocking and disturbing. The way to cut down on that is to encourage youth movements, boys' and girls' clubs. I know the Department of Education have done something but I do not think their work is sufficient in that field. There are many youth clubs and organisations in this city struggling to keep going and it would be a very sensible step if the State were to give a substantial contribution to these clubs. I believe that, in the long run, it would save money because it would reduce the number of juveniles who appear before our courts and who are ultimately imprisoned. It would also help, of course, to reduce the amount of malicious damage, theft and burglary. While I may be a severe critic of the Minister, I do feel he has a progressive approach to such matters and I would suggest that he endeavour to get from the Minister for Finance the necessary money for more positive steps towards the prevention of juvenile crime.

Major de Valera

On this Estimate, the question of safety on the roads has been frequently raised but I think this year this problem has assumed proportions which call for special attention. I have not been able to assemble the most recent statistics but the answer I got to a recent Parliamentary Question was disturbing enough. It seems that as the density of traffic grows on our roads, the threat to life and limb for members of the community grows also and before this problem assumes really dangerous proportions—it is dangerous enough as it is—the time has come for a concerted attack to check the trend in road accidents.

When I say this, I do so to draw attention to the seriousness of the problem at the moment and if one compares the answers to Questions here over a period of years, one finds that the upward trend is frightening. I should like also to say that it is obvious the Ministers for Justice and Local Government are addressing themselves to the problem. I am glad to see that on the Local Government side the necessary code of regulations would appear to be on the way. From the point of view of the Department of Justice, there then arises the question of implementing that code; in other words, the question of policing the roads. Admittedly, the policing of the roads and the control of traffic will have to be directed by the Department of Justice and by the Gardaí, but a great deal will depend on the co-operation of the public. The success of any drive to make the roads safer and to reduce road casualties to reasonable proportions will depend, in the first instance, on the efficiency with which the roads are policed but no less, in the second instance, on the co-operation of all road users whether they be drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.

In other discussions, it has been common to attribute road accidents to certain causes. One hears about drink; one hears about speed. These may or may not be very important factors. Personally, I think we are probably bringing the drink danger under control. The question of the risks of speeding cannot be discussed just in a vacuum: it depends on the circumstances. I should like to express the view that other factors are involved as well. It is not so much the actual speed of a vehicle that is the danger. It is driving at excessive speed with reference to the circumstances, with reference to the place and the density of traffic where the speeding occurs. That is what matters.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

And road conditions.

Major de Valera

Yes, general road conditions, certainly. In that regard, I understand that we shall have speed limits. I know this has been a matter of dispute but personally I am very much in favour of speed limits in built-up areas. Anybody, for instance, who goes down some of our surburban arteries—you meet them on the south side of the city and on the north side of the city: arteries that are feeding the main trunk arteries— say, at 9 o'clock in the morning, at one o'clock in the day or at 5 to 6 o'clock in the evening will note that the density and speed of the traffic in these places is often frightening.

Having regard to the fact that children are going to or coming from school—in the morning period, anyway—I think there are very few people who have any imagination at all who will not shiver at the way cars pass down these roads, taking risks which fortunately they mostly get away with but which can very easily result in a fatal accident if some young child miscalculates the time of crossing. That type of problem, to my mind, can only be controlled by a built-up area speed limit. I think these are to be introduced and I think, on balance, they are the best solution to this problem. I should like to say to the Minister that if such speed limits are introduced, they should be realistic. They should be fixed at a realistic level, and they must be enforced. There could be nothing more dangerous than having speed limits and then laxity in enforcing them.

Another attendant problem in built-up areas which will be minimised if we adopt the solution of speed limits but which will remain a very serious problem until speed limits are introduced is the hazard of parked cars on narrow roads, particularly the sort of road I have been talking about in the suburbs of Dublin. Parked cars not only restrict the area of road surface available to the vehicles travelling on it but they also obscure a driver's view. Again, say, at the peak hours in the morning, from 9 to 10 a.m., or at the lunch hour, if the pedestrian— particularly a child—comes out from behind a parked car, there is little a driver can do about it, having regard to the customary speeds at the moment and the narrowness of many of these roads. However, if a speed limit is introduced, it will minimise that hazard.

I shall not go so far as to suggest an extension of the "No Parking" regulations but there is one thing I should like to urge on the Minister as a matter which I think needs a little closer policing, that is, the observance of road signs. I know of one "Stop" sign in the suburbs: it is not very far from where I live. I have purposely observed it. I am not exaggerating when I say that hardly any vehicle observes it. Hardly any vehicle stops there, unless an oncoming vehicle actually causes it to stop in the ordinary way. It is practically ignored, except on the odd occasion when a Garda is there. However, if he is there, he usually parks himself in a position for all to see and then the traffic is exemplary. I am not drawing on my imagination. I have gone to the trouble of personally observing that "Stop" sign, particularly at the morning time, and I have seen as many as five cars in a stream pass it by at what seemed to me a considerable speed. If the Minister wants particulars, I shall invite his attention to the particular sign.

Mr. Haughey

Not too early in the morning.

Major de Valera

It can be seen at any time of the day but the time that worries me is the time the children are going to school.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Has it anything to do with the policing?

Major de Valera

I grant you that it is one of these signs in respect of which you might ask yourself whether it is right to have it there at all. My point is that if you erect a statutory sign and if you have statutory sanctions and then if you let everyone play merry hell with it, not only are you bringing the whole code into disrespect but actually you are contributing to disorder on the road rather than helping; that is the point.

I know the Garda cannot be everywhere. To a lesser degree, traffic lights occasionally need watching. I blame the drivers for this. You cannot expect a Garda to be parked at every traffic light, which is there to leave the Gardaí mobile. I am afraid that far too many drivers will take a risk at traffic lights rather than wait for the lights to change. Unfortunately, the drivers who do that are usually people who just will not wait. They are not in a hurry. Very often, the road is clear when they do it. It is just a lack of discipline.

Every driver should realise that when the light is red, whether or not he is in a hurry, whether or not he is irritated, whether or not the road is clear, he must wait until the light turns to green. Every driver must realise that, when the light is orange, it is his duty to stop before it turns to red.

I do not know how the Minister will deal with these problems. In the case of, say, "Stop" signs and occasional checks at traffic lights, and with mobile police, he can do a great deal to enforce the law. By making examples of people who flagrantly break the law, a lot can be done. However, the Minister cannot solve the whole problem on that basis. Therefore, it is essential that all drivers should be made aware and conscious in some way of their responsibilities on the road and of the need to be disciplined, even when the circumstances seem to suggest that they can break the regulations with impunity.

Drivers should realise that they should not have discreation in this matter. They should realise that, in the interests of themselves and other travellers, in the long term, they must be disciplined at all times and, if the lights are red, must never pass. If there are signs like "Stop" signs, they must observe them. If a sign says "Stop", let them stop. Above all, there should be courtesy on the roads.

All of that sounds, I suppose, very commonplace and perhaps like a string of platitudes because it has been repeated so often. But until we get discipline among road users, among drivers and pedestrians, nothing the Minister, or the Minister for Local Government in concert with him, can do will solve the safety problems on the road. It will require the wholehearted co-operation of all road users.

Coming more narrowly to Dublin city, I disagree throughly with Deputy Ryan in his attitude to the Gardaí in Dublin. I have the opportunities of observing them as closely as the Deputy and I think I can say the problem in Dublin is not that the Gardaí are indifferent. I took down the words the Deputy used. He accused the Gardaí of indifference in the performance of duty. That is not the problem. The unfortunate Gardaí in Dublin city are overworked at the main crossings.

The problems in Dublin city are the problems of the road users. If there is traffic congestion, it is largely the fault of the users of the road, vehicle drivers and pedestrians. There are certain types of drivers who are doing their best and, by and large, in fairness to them, the bus drivers, in recent times anyway, have been trying to conform to the pattern of traffic in the city as have drivers of heavy lorries. The trouble comes from cars cutting in and cutting out, from cyclists weaving this way and that way and pedestrians who will insist on crossing at the wrong places or at the wrong times. Deputy McQuillan is smiling but I would invite him to O'Connell Bridge——

The point I want to make about O'Connell Bridge is that at 5 o'clock I have watched two Gardaí on point duty and two Gardaí at crossings, one at Bachelor's Walk and the other at the far side. Nobody can say that four Gardaí are not enough at the crossings there but I have seen four Gardaí unable to cope with the pedestrians running all around them and traffic weaving in and out. I have seen young Gardaí most courteous with pedestrians and getting nowhere and I have seen at least one Garda almost losing his temper and getting nowhere either. There must be some way to convince people that if they would only co-operate in obeying traffic signals, they would get home quicker or get wherever they are going quicker than under the present system. Pedestrians, particularly at busy crossings, are the cause of the trouble and of their own delays.

In regard to the traffic itself — I think the Minister mentioned this on another occasion—it is true that in regard to Dublin traffic, half the road is very often empty because cars occupy the middle between two lanes, thus taking up the room of two. If some system could be devised of having the traffic in proper channels or lanes in the centre of the city, many of the complaints Deputy Ryan speaks about would be obviated. In any event, I do think it is very unfair to blame the Garda for this.

I know of no point in the city where the Garda are not dealing with this matter as expeditiously as they should. In fact, it is a miracle how they manage sometimes. There is one Garda on duty at College Green where there is a crossing. There is a confluence of a number of streams of traffic. It is remarkable that the flow there is so good; perhaps it is because there is only one point where the pedestrians and the cyclists can intrude upon him.

The time has come for a serious assault on this problem of road safety. A great deal of good work has already been done. The Road Safety Association and the Minister himself since he took over have promoted thinking and action in this regard. The density of traffic has greatly increased and, incidentally, the small cars, mini-cars, that are on the road seem to be putting up the speed. They are faster than the bigger type of vehicles that went before them and they are able to weave in and out more easily from one lane to another. All these things are tending to make traffic conditions more dangerous and more chaotic, and this is the time to tackle that.

I shall not go into that in any further detail but it is only fair to the Minister to say that it is not exclusively a problem for the Garda. The Garda have a vital role, but, as Deputy McQuillan said, unless they get co-operation, we cannot hope for any improvement. In a sense, when tragedy happens on the road, it is not so much the fault of the individuals involved in the accident as the fault of all of us road users who have allowed a haphazard and reckless attitude to road using to develop. As responsible members of the community, we must regard discipline on the road as a matter of public morality and I do not think I go too far when I say that. When the licensing laws were before the House, that aspect of them was frequently stressed. Here we are dealing with the danger to the lives and the possible maiming of members of the community. Therefore the question of safety on the roads should be treated by both the State and the individual as seriously as any other question of public morality.

That was all I intended to say on this Estimate but having read what Deputy Ryan said on the last occasion, I must turn to another matter, that is, what he said about a judge. Deputy Ryan is very young. Perhaps he does not appreciate what is involved in such a type of charge in the House, but I for one, as somebody who formerly had some dealings with the administration of law in the courts but who now has no interest, should like to say to Deputy Ryan that it is not in the best interests of either the law or the community to raise the matter as he did. It is not just a question of putting a judge in a privileged position. If we are to administer justice in the community and if the ordinary citizen is to have an impartial system of justice administered, judges must be people for whom, by common consent, we have respect and regard and whom we do put on a pedestal, not for their sake but for our own. They must be treated as the Constitution provides they should be treated and I think therefore that it is, in principle, a bad thing and, in the long run, a dangerous thing, to deal with any complaint as Deputy Ryan dealt with the complaint which he said he had.

A judge is selected—no matter what the cynics say—by every Government to fill an important job and every effort is made to put the best people, the people who are best suited, into these jobs as judges. They are not just jobs but high positions of trust for the community and I think that in fairness to all Governments, selections have been made primarily with regard to the standing and integrity of the Bench and of course also to technical knowledge and experience in legal matters.

If Deputy Ryan had a complaint with the Bench, there were a number of courses open to him. If, for instance, in his professional capacity, he had a complaint against the Bench, this certainly was not the place to raise it. If he personally was involved in the case or a solicitor had made representations about a single instance, the Incorporated Law Society is there to protect the interests of solicitors. There was the time-honoured way of making his protest in court. I have been in court and I know it can be made. If there is something wrong, a protest can be made there.

On the other hand, if it were a matter of public duty, if the situation were such as to require intervention in this House, I should like to ask Deputy Ryan this question: If his complaint were serious enough to justify what was said in the House, why was it not brought up in the way envisaged by the Constitution? If a judge should misbehave himself to the extent that a Deputy is warranted or has a duty to raise it, then he has misbehaved himself to the extent that the matter should be formally dealt with in this House. On the other hand, if the charges were not serious enough for that, having regard to the position of the judiciary, they should not be mentioned at all in the House. Judges cannot answer back. They should not be brought down to the level of that kind of criticism, or if they are, if there is something of which this House should take cognisance, let the House take cognisance of it properly and the Constitution provides that we have authority to deal with such a matter by resolution here. I think it only right that we should have that respect for the judiciary and that respect for ourselves.

This Dáil should not be a place where complaints can be aired under the cloak of privilege. Deputies should not abuse their position by using their privilege here to say things they dare not say outside, either for fear of an action for defamation or, if it concerns a judge, for fear of contempt. If they dare not say it outside, it is a shabby and hardly a brave thing to air it in here where we have the absolute protection, as we should, of privilege.

Mr. McQuillan

What is the point in privilege?

Major de Valera

The point in privilege is this: it is important that you and I and everybody else here should have absolute privilege to say what we consider to be our duty to say, but that privilege was given to us to protect us in doing our duty and we should have a sense of duty in using it. If we are to avail of the protection of that privilege, we should be careful to do it in a way we can stand over.

If Deputy Ryan had come in and proposed a motion in the proper form for the removal of some judge whom he did not name for alleged misconduct or anything else, I would have no complaint about him, but if Deputy Ryan or any other Deputy—I do not want to be unfair to Deputy Ryan and I do not suggest he is the only one who abuses privilege—says these things, makes charges which cannot be debated easily, which cannot be answered and which also are in their nature ex parte statements—after all, we do not know how much substance is in the complaint or the basis of the charges made and that is not good enough—it is an abuse of privilege and I think it is less than what is due to the dignity of this House. I think it is a derogation of the dignity of this House and very damaging to the prestige of the Bench also and of the legal profession.

Let us all be frank and admit it, all of us, including the judges, are human beings, and there is not one of us who will not be shorter than he might be sometimes or less courteous than he might be; let us take that as a fact of human nature, but if that happens in some courts, there is always an answer to it, and, as far as I have had any knowledge of these things—and I have had a few years of experience of them—I have never known yet of a case where a solicitor or a barrister, having had right on his side and stood up to it, that the balance of equity was not restored.

It is much better that complaints of the nature made by Deputy Ryan, if they have to be dealt with not by formal motions, should be dealt with in the impartial way that old-established bodies such as any of the three I have mentioned should deal with them rather than they should be brought in as individual issues.

Lastly, I would like to make this comment from my own experience. I have seen a certain amount of shortness from the Bench in my time, and looking back, I may have felt aggrieved on more than one occasion, but I find it very hard indeed to think of a case where a judge had not right on his side, whether technically or whether there was something wrong with the documents or so forth. I think that impartial analysis will reveal no more than this—that perhaps in the case of individuals, there might be a certain amount of peremptoriness but you will find it very difficult indeed to find any evidence of positive injustice. If that is the situation, it underlines more than ever what I said at the outset, that if Deputy Ryan's complaint was serious enough to air here, it was serious enough to be dealt with in the formal manner that befits this House and befits the dignity of the Bench. If it was not serious enough for that, it should not have been dealt with here at all.

Lastly, if I may lecture again, as the Deputy called it, all of us should think of the responsibilities that privilege brings with it as well as the amenities it gives. Perhaps for that reason it is a lecture, if you like, that has come from me, but not the things that I would have said and might have said about Deputy Ryan, if I did not feel constrained to practise my own preaching.

Mr. T. Lynch

I did not intend speaking on this at all. I have great respect for the courts of my country, and I have always been in favour of law and order. I am not a newcomer, we will say, to that line of country. I am not concerned with what Deputy Ryan said. I do not know who the judge is, nor do I care. I am not concerned so much with the judges or with counsel. I am concerned with the ordinary people who go into a court, and I would say this to the Minister— that may be one of the reasons why people are slow to come forward to help the Garda is that they dread the thought of facing into court as ordinary witnesses.

I would say to the Minister and to the judges and counsel, with the greatest of respect, that judges should always show the greatest patience to witnesses. I do not put the onus of that on counsel, because counsel have a job to do and are faced with their own difficulties, one way or another. But the ordinary citizen will look upon the judge as his protector, and it is a great disappointment to him if he goes into court and has to suffer a shock when the judge or the justice shouts him down. That is no disrespect to the courts. I have the privilege of saying that here. In reply to Deputy de Valera's statement that the people on the Bench are not able to reply, I say that the people on the Bench can reply, that they are not without political influence, and that they do reply.

The fact that our people are so slow to help the Garda is a matter of concern to all of us. Many people are terrified to appear as witnesses in court, especially if they have had previous experience of being called as witnesses and being treated in any way contemptuously by the court. Take the position of the Garda when they are investigating criminal cases and endeavouring to get information. The average Irish citizen closes up like a clam and will not tell the Garda anything. One reason for that is that the Gardaí are strangers to the citizens. They are persons in uniform whom they have seen passing in a squad car. I would suggest that the Minister should reconsider the policy at present in operation of the centralisation of Garda stations and the closing of the small stations in the country and the city. I suggest that it is more desirable to have the Gardaí living close to the people, in constant touch with them, as they could be in local barracks. A little more neighbourliness is required. In such circumstances, the people would know the Gardaí who would be making inquiries. They would be on Christian name terms. That is the atmosphere that the Minister should try to create. It would be the best possible deterrent to crime.

I speak on the subjects of crime and police work as an ordinary citizen. The Minister is responsible for law and order. It is vitally important that order should be maintained. Order will not be maintained if in many areas the Garda stations are closed and there is centralisation. I would point out that the London police are seeking decentralisation of police stations. In the large centres of population in Great Britain, it is the policy to have a mobile police force, using cars, motor cycles or bicycles, radio cars, and so on, but that is for the purpose of supporting the small stations in outlying areas and the men on the beat. Centralisation is not good; it is a failure.

There is one Garda barracks in Waterford. It is badly placed, as the Minister and his advisers admit. Even if it were located in a central position, the people living on the perimeter of the city would not have a Garda station within easy reach of them. I suggest that, instead of having one large central station, there should be one station and four small stations. It may be suggested that the Garda may be sitting there all day doing nothing. That is fallacious. The presence of the Garda is a deterrent. The ordinary citizen can invoke his aid. It is not quite the same thing if the citizen has to contact a station which may be a mile and a half away, is told that there is no car available and that it is impossible to say when the Garda can come to his aid.

In regard to the investigation of criminal cases, it would be highly desirable if, when the senior officers went to the scene of a crime, the local sergeant were there with his five or six men who would know everybody in the district. The local Gardaí can make the inquiries because they are going to people who regard them as neighbours.

It was the custom at one time that the Garda delivered old age pension books. Some genius thought that the Garda should be relieved of that work and the books were sent by post. That had the effect of putting the Garda out of touch with the people. It was a very nice thing that the guardians of the peace should have that contact with the people. The recipients of the pension books became close friends of the Garda. Centralisation is doing away with that kind of thing. It has the effect of making the Garda remote from the people.

The record for the detection of crime, including murder, is not good. Taken over a long period, the figures are good but the record for the recent past is not good. I do not blame the Gardaí for that. They are not getting co-operation. I suggest that that lack of co-operation is due to the fact that the Gardaí who are making the inquiries are strangers to the people. That brings me back to the point I made at the outset, that if local Gardaí took part in the inquiries, they would meet with greater success.

I have mentioned the preservation of law and order, decentralisation and the investigation of criminal cases, including murder. I will leave out murder and deal with criminal cases. The Minister's attention should be drawn to what is happening all over the country. I read my evening newspapers and I am often appalled when I see criminal cases being brought into court, proved to the hilt and then the Guard who brought the case into court, instead of being commended, nearly put in the position of the guilty person when it comes to the judge or the justice administering the law, who should be protecting the people, often letting these criminals off or giving them trivial sentences. That is very serious and there can be nothing more discouraging for the man in uniform than to be constantly going into court with, as he thinks, successful cases and then finding the people he has brought into court walking out scot free. We must look into this problem.

There is something else, the question of people coming to the assistance of the Guards. It is not a case of anybody giving to the Guards the information they need or agreeing to go into court. There have been cases where Guards have been attacked violently and cases where Guards went to make an arrest and members of the public on whom they called for assistance did not assist them and afterwards the courts reprimanded the public for not doing their duty. The courts should do their own duty.

I know of a case of which I will remind the Minister where a man named Maurice Ryan, an unemployed labourer of Glin, County Carlow, died as a result of injuries received in a brawl, a fracas, or whatever you like to call it, when he went to the assistance of Guard Bartholomew Foley. His action is to be commended but he lost his life. He had a wife and family and I often wonder if we compensated that man's wife and family, or did we do anything for them. I often wonder if people who go to the aid of Guards to help them out and who receive injuries are compensated by the State. I do not know whether they are or not but I wish to draw the Minister's attention to it. It is something that concerns us all. We want to encourage our people to come forward and——

Mr. Haughey

It is a very important point. I just want to intervene for a moment. We do in fact compensate these people. I will deal with it fully later on.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am very glad to hear it and I thank the Minister. It should be made known widely that such compensation is available and that the State, as the protector of the people, is prepared to come forward and do the right thing.

I do not know what the Minister or his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, is to do about traffic and road accidents. I do not know what the Guards can do. People just do not care; pedestrians do not care. You have only to go into Kildare Street to see pedestrians walking out in front of the speeding traffic, without looking to the right or to the left. It is a miracle that more people are not killed. Neither do I know what the Guards can do about parking in Dublin. The Guards are getting a bit sharp when they come along to ask a man about parking his car. I know a Guard and I have said to him: "You were a bit too sharp with that man" and he replied: "If you heard how sharp everybody is to me, you would understand. Before I can say `I beg your pardon', they have me chopped up before I know where I am." This is a frightful problem and appeals will have to be made through all possible channels to drivers and to the ordinary people using the roads and to cyclists.

On numerous occasions, people in my constituency have come to me to complain about rowdyism after dark in certain portions of my constituency and there is a scare in various areas. The Minister was asked a Parliamentary Question about this and he truthfully said that it appeared to be exaggerated and that the Guards had not received many complaints about it. Since then, I am sorry to say, the Guards have received plenty of complaints. The reason the Guards did not get complaints is that the people do not want to do anything about it. If a girl is accosted at night and reaches home in a state of hysterics, her father or mother do not want to go to the Guards. They probably come to their Deputy and say: "will you do something about this?" He will say: "come along to the Guards", and they will reply that they do not want to go to the Guards. I have the newspaper cutting here in which no name or address is given but I could give the Minister the name and address of that girl. I would not lightly lend myself to creating a scare. It was said in this House that a scare had been created. That is, or was, the position.

I would say to the Minister that the cause of this is the centralisation of the Garda station. Now we are told that the station is to be put right up on the hill at Ballybricken in Waterford and the people will have to go uphill to it. I submit to the Minister that the case put to him by the Mayor and Corporation of Waterford is well worth consideration, that we should not have only one central barracks in Waterford but should have Garda stations in the various new housing schemes. It acts as a deterrent. I do not want people arrested or pushed about but the fact that the barracks is there is a protection in itself.

I also want to say, on behalf of the smaller country villages, that a number of Garda stations which have been taken from them should be put back again. I have not the figures on this particular matter but I am told that there are about 60 officers and men in the Civic Guards in Waterford city. I wonder how many were there 30 years ago? I should be inclined to say that there were as many, even though there was a much smaller area to be covered. I put it to the Minister that even if there are the same number of Guards in the city as there were 30 years ago, the men now have to have much more time off. We would need to have more Guards to do the ordinary beat work and the ordinary work of the protection of the people. I would ask the Minister to consider these points that I have made very carefully.

In the matter of traffic, there are some matters to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. I am not sure whether this matter is in his bailiwick or in that of the Minister for Local Government but it has to do with the enormous loads we see on the main roads at the present time. Many of these vehicles are not loaded very carefully. One sees gas containers piled up very high on lorries and trailers and I often wonder what might happen if one of them fell out and exploded. More care should be taken with regard to dangerous loads on the road, particularly at the present time when traffic is moving so fast. I remember reading of a dreadful accident where a truck ran down a hill in an American city and crashed into an oil tanker. Many people were killed and burned in the explosion that followed. We should take a little more care in these matters.

I do not know what the state of the law is about noxious fumes but I am sure the Minister has some method of dealing with them. There are a great number of heavy trucks blasting out clouds of black smoke along the roads and through the streets of this city. This is something we will have to take notice of.

The traffic situation will cause a great headache for the Minister. I have the idea that he is trying to cope with it but I should like particularly to draw his attention to the points I have raised about the carrying of large numbers of gas cylinders and also other heavy loads such as logs with only a thin rope to hold them. The Minister should issue some order about traffic such as that.

A problem came before us in Waterford city some time ago in connection with the installation of more traffic lights. We were asked to put in three more and we did so. We will get a grant of 50 per cent. towards the cost. I know this is a matter for the Minister for Local Government, but I think that where a local authority puts in such lights, the Minister should give more in the way of grants. The Road Fund is increasing every year and it could easily afford the extra subvention to the local authorities. If they did that, the local authorities would be far more inclined to instal these traffic lights which would have the effect of freeing more Guards for ordinary duties.

I wish the Minister luck, and he will need it, in his effort to cope with the traffic problem. If he needs the help of the local authorities or any of the Deputies in the matter of propaganda, I have no doubt that he will get it.

Mr. Colley

Ba mhaith liom traoslú leis an Aire as ucht an bhealai dhiograisí éifeachtach ina bhfuil tugtha aige faoi athchóiriú a chur ar chúrsaí dlí. Ní tuigtear go foirleathan go bhfuil an obair seo an-thábhachtach ar fad do lucht gnótha na tíre agus do chóras sóisialaigh an náisiúin. Ní féidir pobal sibhialta a bheith ann gan an dlí a bheith i bhfeidhm agus is olc an rud é dlí a choimheád i bhfeidhm nach bhfuil i gcóimhréir le riachtanaisí na ndaoine. Dá bhrí sin, tá géar-ghá lenár ndlí a chur i gcóimhréir le riachtanaisí na hÉireann san 20ú aois.

Tá an fhadhbh seo an-mhór agus anchasta ach tá an tAire á h-ionnsaí go h-órdúil agus go h-éifeachtach. Tá an cheist chomh casta sin gur dócha go mbeidh tuathail anso agus ansúd san méid a déanfar ach ní chóir go ligfeadh an tAire do sin cur isteach air. Tá na buntáistí a bhainfidh lena chuid oibre i bhfad níos mó ná na mí-bhuntáistí a bhainfidh leis na tuathail sin.

I wish to deal primarily with the question of law reform but before I get to that subject, there is one matter I should ask the Minister to consider. It has been suggested to me that in areas of the country where major crimes have remained unsolved, one of the contributory reasons has been that the Garda have not got the co-operation of the local population and that the reason they have failed to get that is that prior to the commission of the major crime, the Garda have been too strict in enforcing the law and in connection with minor offences. I do not know if there is any substance in that but it has been suggested to me by someone who might be thought to have some knowledge of the subject. The Minister might investigate the matter and see if there is any substance in it.

On the question of law reform, the first thing I should like to do, as a solicitor, is to congratulate the Minister most heartily on putting an end to the annual tribute which has been exacted here by the barristers' profession from the solicitors' profession. I refer to the sum of £14 payable by every solicitor's apprentice on entering into his indentures to the King's Inns. I congratulate the Minister on his forward-thinking in abolishing that anachronistic exaction and tribute.

One hears frequent complaints about the slowness and high cost of the law, but it is not generally realised, I think, by critics that this slowness and this high cost are due primarily to the system within which lawyers are compelled to work. This system was designed for a social fabric which existed many hundreds of years ago. That social fabric has long since passed into history and the system of law left to us is hopelessly inadequate for the 20th century in Ireland. I am very glad to see that the Minister is tackling this whole problem, vast and complex as it is, in an orderly and rational manner. The rationalisation and simplification of the whole legal system and procedure could mean a tremendous saving to litigants, to the country as a whole, and could, indeed, put an end to a great deal of frustration from which both the general public and the members of the legal profession suffer in the practice of law.

There is one particular target which I would recommend to the Minister's attention for reform. I cannot quite remember whether one of these committees set up is dealing with this problem, but, whether or not it is, I should like to draw the Minister's particular attention to the problem that exists in regard to the law of property, and particularly to the existing method of conveyancing. For members of the House, who are not lawyers, I might perhaps explain briefly what happens. The solicitor for the vendor of the property submits copies of the documents relating to title to the solicitor for the purchaser. These documents may comprise a very large bundle indeed. The solicitor for the purchaser investigates each of these documents thoroughly and draws up a list of queries known as "Requisitions on Title". Eventually, the solicitor for the vendor replies to that and the solicitor for the purchaser is satisfied as to title; a deed is drawn up transferring the property to the purchaser and, in due course, that deed is added to the other bundle of documents. That purchaser comes along subsequently to sell the property. Exactly the same procedure is followed, except that there is now an additional document to be examined. This procedure goes on almost ad infinitum. Quite clearly, there is an appalling amount of unproductive effort involved in this method of conveyancing.

People complain about the high fees in conveyancing. As a solicitor, I believe they are justified in saying the fees are too high in relation to what people should expect to be called on to pay, but the fees are not too high in relation to the work solicitors have to do. It is my contention that solicitors should not have to do that work. The system should be simplified and costs should be reduced. It may be asked: what can be done? My suggestion is that the Minister should examine the possibility of making the registration of title in the Land Registry compulsory for all property, thereby ensuring that one has one final document in which all changes in ownership are recorded. There will then be no bundle to be examined every time property changes hands.

It is true that the Land Registry at present is not noted for its speed and it may be said that, if you overload it with all the titles in the country, it will probably break down. However, I believe this is an administration problem which can be overcome. The basic features of the Land Registry system are those which are required for an efficient system of conveyancing, provided the Land Registry can be made to work efficiently and cope with the volume of work involved. There are other problems involved, but some solution on the lines I suggest is the only possible approach to this problem.

I should like to commend the Minister on his efforts to get rid of old and inoperative statutes which have been cluttering up the Statute Book. I commend him on his efforts to achieve a consolidation of statute law in relation to various subjects, in so far as that is possible. The Minister has told us that his aim is ultimately to have a complete index—there will be two indexes—of statutes. That is a most laudable aim and one very much appreciated by the legal profession. It is of importance, too, to the general public, inasmuch as it will make for much greater efficiency and do away with the ridiculous situation which can arise at present whereby, if one wishes to find out what the statute law is on some relatively unimportant matter, one may find oneself involved in a quite prodigious research to ascertain the position. The reform the Minister has set on foot is most welcome and, if I say of it "Más maith, is mithid" it is not in criticism of the Minister.

One of the committees which the Minister has appointed includes in its terms of reference consideration of the simplification of pleadings. It will probably, I think, include allowing pleadings to be served in the Long Vacation. There is a vast field for reform in this matter and I think we could achieve a much more efficient system of pleadings, without losing any of the advantages of the present system. A very considerable amount of time, trouble and money could be saved, if sensible recommendations are made on this matter and are accepted by the Minister.

It seems to be fairly widely agreed that civil juries should be abolished. If that is accepted, it will almost certainly lead to a speeding up of civil actions in the High Court, with a consequent reduction in the cost of litigation. It will also help to relieve Dublin householders on whom the burden of jury service is becoming intolerable.

The Minister might also examine the rules of evidence to see if it would not be possible to encourage the submission of agreed statements—that is, statements agreed by both parties to an action, in so far as the parties do agree on the facts. Most lawyers will agree that in the average High Court action before a jury the preponderance of the time spent on the case is spent in proving facts agreed between the parties. Expert evidence, in particular, could be dealt with much more expeditiously by having agreed reports between the experts, letting them give their evidence solely on the points on which they disagree. The time and money which could be saved in this way would be enormous and would redound to the general economy of the country.

Another matter to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention is the subject of law reporting. It may seem that this is purely a matter that concerns lawyers, but ultimately it concerns the general public. Anything which tends to increase the efficiency of lawyers in their work is of benefit to the general public and to the economy as a whole. Within the system which operates at present in regard to law reform, reporting is fairly well done, but I presume it is because of the present system that it can happen that the report of a very important case may not be published for years after the case has been decided, and in the meantime, one could have a succession of reports of cases of relatively small importance appearing in the reports.

I know of an instance where the report of a particularly important case was required for another case which was coming on. Counsel wished to cite the previous case in the case he was in, and the report of that case could be obtained only by paying a special fee to the barrister who reported it. I know of one case in which that went on for a number of years before the report was published. I know the barrister who reported it had to go to the trouble of reporting it, editing it, and so on, but there seems to me to be something wrong when it can happen that years after an important case is heard, the official report is not available except on payment of a special fee.

Another matter in this connection which I can never understand is that when a judge delivers judgment from a written judgment, it appears, under the present system, that the copyright in that judgment is vested in the barrister who reports the case. One would think, on the face of it, that a judgment given by a judge was a document on public record, but in fact it is not. I know of cases where judgment could not be obtained for a long time afterwards, and in some cases, on payment of a special fee, bearing in mind that publication sometimes does not take place for some years after the case has been decided. I know there would be a number of difficulties in dealing with that matter. I recommend to the Minister that he should consider the possibility of dealing with it, bearing in mind that under our system of law ready availability of reports on decided cases is vital.

Another matter which leads to tremendous waste of time and money, and a tremendous amount of frustration on the part of legal men, litigants and witnesses, is this business of a case coming in, in the High Court, which may appear in the list for Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday but no one knows until the last minute when it will appear. I know of a case—perhaps it is not usual but it did happen—where a large number of witnesses on both sides arrived in Dublin from the country to give evidence because they expected to be in the list on Monday. For one reason or another, it went on and on for the whole week and the case was never reached. It went on over the weekend and people had to wait until the following week to be heard.

If the expenditure involved in that type of thing were examined, it would be found to be enormous. There is the time of witnesses, the litigants, the solicitors and, to some extent, the barristers who all the time have to be waiting ready to go into court, if their case comes on. They find it difficult to devote their time to anything else. I know there are difficulties in this but I think one of the basic contributory causes to the difficulty is the approach to the question of fixing the list. It seems to be based on the idea that the judge must at all times be convenienced. By "convenienced" I mean that he must never be left waiting. That seems to me to be the basic misconception, because if you examine the position, you find that the judge is probably the one person of all those concerned who can afford to be kept waiting. It would be more efficient in the long run—I do not say this would work with 100 per cent. efficiency, but it would go a long way towards it—if you could fix a case to come on, say, on a Monday and establish the length of time it would take and then fix the next case for a day not before the day on which you think that case will conclude. As I say, that would not work 100 per cent. but it would go a long way towards getting over this terrible waiting around which I have mentioned.

The system I recommend to the Minister operates in a small way at present in respect of the list of cases to be taxed by the county registrar. Perhaps it will be said that that is a more simple matter but it works very satisfactorily. It would be well worth the Minister's while to examine this closely because the amount of money involved that goes astray because of this waiting around for a case to come in, if added up every year, must be fabulous.

The legal profession is an ancient and honourable one, but, by reason of its very age and honour, I think it tends at times to get too much involved in its own traditions, and is not sufficiently conscious of the requirements of this country in the 20th century. It seems to me that anyone who takes a long, hard look at the legal profession will come to the conclusion that there is no good reason why we should have the division in the profession which we have at present, except the existence of the tradition for this division and, I rather suspect, a foolish idea on the part of one branch of the profession that it is superior to another branch, and an unwillingness to give up this position of imagined superiority.

Mr. Haughey

Nolimus mutari.

Mr. Colley

This is a matter of practical importance. The average High Court action involves four lawyers on each side, solicitor, junior counsel and two seniors in the average case. There are four lawyers on each side, and the loser pays eight lawyers. The matter I referred to of the difficulty of fixing the list and not knowing when a case is coming on, contributes to this question of having to have two seniors. I know of no other excuse for engaging eight lawyers in one case. Any rational approach to this would involve the admission that ultimately there must be an amalgamation of the two branches of the profession. What would happen would be that a certain man would do the work the barrister is now doing and another man would do the work the solicitor is now doing. Firms would become larger. They would operate in offices and some of them would do the court work and others the office work. That would mean that there would not be all this duplication there is at present and it would ensure that the man dealing with the case in court had very close contact with the client and witnesses. It would be more efficient from that point of view.

It has been proved in many countries in the world that this system can operate satisfactorily. It may be said that while it operates in the United States, legal costs are very high there. That is true, but there is another reason for it. There is a different approach to costs there and it is not the uniformity in the legal profession which causes the high costs. I know I am asking the Minister to take major and revolutionary steps, so far as the legal profession is concerned, when I ask him to do what I am recommending, but I can assure the House that, sooner or later, that will happen, and from my point of view, the sooner, the better. It is in the interest of the legal profession that this amalgamation should take place. It will make for greater efficiency, lower costs and much better public relations for the legal profession. But the final arbiter, the final test, in this matter must be the public interest and I submit the public interest demands the amalgamation of the legal profession.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I do not propose to follow everything Deputy Colley has said. I was interested in his concluding remarks in which he said that inevitably the legal profession as we know it here would be amalgamated. I remember reading remarks similar to that contained in the Reports of the Irish Parliament that sat in this city prior to the Repeal. At that time, that view was expressed. What was inevitable then in the view of the expressor still is something to be achieved.

Very much shorter. The one that took 27 days took that length of time because, in fact, upon one man devolved the responsibility of deciding, in effect, the entire future of these two litigants. Though he was a very experienced judge, he was concerned particularly that every single item of evidence should be minutely examined. If it were a jury, it would be different. Certain facts would be distilled among 12 minds and worked out by the jury. There is no doubt that in relation to that particular trial its length was due to the very fearful responsibility in relation to fact placed on one individual who happened to be a judge. I do not believe this is really a matter for debate or decision here, but, since it was raised by Deputy Colley, I find that often when these things are raised and not replied to, people come to accept them as established.

I want to assert that, in my view, the abolition of civil juries, if it ever should take place, would in no way lead to a speeding up of trials. It might in some respects, but, largely speaking, it will not. In my view, in many cases, the resulting responsibility should lead to a careful examination of the elements and perhaps to longer trials.

Deputy Colley also said that the abolition of civil juries might lead to a reduction in the cost of litigation. Presumably, he said that because he felt it might lead to a speeding up of trials. Since I disagreed with him on that, it follows that I disagree with him in relation to any consequential reductions in the cost of litigation. I think Deputy Colley would appreciate and most of us realise you have to deal with these things and that the reals cost of litigation lies in other fields in relation to other matters that can in fact be controlled without interfering with the system of trial which is there at the moment. Deputy Colley mentioned some of them. In another place and at another time, I would have certain views also in that regard. I do not believe it arises from the civil jury system; I do not believe it is in any way associated with it.

It would be a very bad day for this country if our civil jury system disappeared. I do not think we can do without it. In fact, if it disappeared and there were no consequential changes in our legal system, we would be in the very absurd situation that a person who happened to have an insignificant or trivial injury would be entitled to have his case tried before a particular judge, if he wanted it. If he were dissatisfied with this judge's decision, he would be entitled to appeal to another judge and have his case reheard on fresh evidence, because he would have started his case in the circuit court and would be appealing to a judge of the high court. If in fact he had a more serious injury, and injury which affected him permanently, affected his life and future outlook in a very definite way, he would find himself in the absurd situation that his future and also perhaps the future of his family would be decided by one judge. One of the four would decide everything in relation to his case and there would be no appeal, except on a matter of law.

That would be such a reductio ad absurdum that even those who wanted to abolish civil juries would be driven to say that is so bad that they would have to provide a system whereby there would be a re-hearing on appeal. Consequently, you would have to have in justice a form of re-hearing of the case from one judge to another or, as probably would be suggested, to a number of judges. You would find in the end that in order to be just and reasonable, having abolished or sought to abolish a system that has stood the test of time, you were improvising and putting in its place something that will not be just as good but which, in order to be effective, will be at least as long and perhaps as onerous as the jury system is suggested to be.

May I say one final word regarding civil juries? Again, I must relate my remarks to what Deputy Colley said. I refer to the dislocation and difficulty people find in serving on juries. Again, I wonder what is his source of his information?

Mr. Haughey

Irate businessmen——

Mr. Colley

Exactly.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

——who have not been appointed P.C.s.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Every day, I meet a considerable number of people serving on civil juries and most of them like it. They may not like the notice when it comes but in fact, when serving, they rather like the work they are doing, realising it is part of a very precious right and duty of citizenship which they are discharging. Most of them like the sharing they do in the obligation to see that justice is done. I have never heard, apart from people who make mountains out of molehills, anyone who has done a stint of service on civil juries in the Four Courts genuinely saying he regretted it. It may be that Deputy Colley and many of those people who complain about the jury system have, as the real gravamen of their complaint, service on criminal juries.

It is perhaps in relation to criminal jury service that much of the complaint —and it is not very large, thanks to the public-spirited nature of our citizens—arises. So far as there are complaints, and so far as I understand them, they seem to relate to the criminal juries in Green Street. That is something that not even the most avid or enthusiastic jury-abolitionist would say could be abolished. Criminal juries must remain and so long as they do, those who must serve in due course and in turn at Green Street will find the situation arising when, quite suddenly and without notice, and without proper arrangements in regard to their business or their homes, they may be locked up for a week or two, or, as has happened, for three weeks.

There is the real burden of criticism there and there the real discontent lies. Let us not confuse that expression of discontent with service on the civil juries in the Four Courts. I believe they are quite dissimilar and neither has anything to do with the other.

Deputy Colley mentioned other matters but I do not propose to follow him, not out of any disrespect for his views, but because I feel that in regard to the manner in which arrangements are made in the courts for the hearing of cases, I should resent very strongly, the Minister for Justice having any responsibility. I hope he never will, and if he has no responsibility, in my view, these matters are not proper for discussion here. They fall to be dealt with otherwise, I think, and in another place.

May I raise another matter? This is a matter I have raised from time to time, both on the Health Estimate and on the Estimate of the Department of Justice. I have never been satisfied as to who is responsible but I hope that either the Minister for Health or the Minister for Justice will eventually accept responsibility for it. Perhaps it has been referred to already in this debate and, if so, I am sorry for the repetition. Each day in our courts, from the district court to the high court, as the result of road collisions, we hear of a variety of medical and hospital expenses incurred by the injured person. Each day, in dealing with these cases, the courts, by reason of the operation of the Health Act, are told that these charges cannot be recovered from the wrong-doing defendant. That means, through the operation of our law, the charge goes on to the rates. The burden of rates is increased by some of the damage caused by a person committing a wrong or a tort.

I know that, in the Road Traffic Act, an effort was made to rectify this but it did not succeed. The matter still arises every day in the courts and the effect is that hospital maintenance charges and medical service fees continue to be borne by the health authority concerned and, in effect, go on the rates. While this may not be strictly a matter for the Minister for Justice, I raise it here, as I have done on other Estimates, in the hope that it may continue to engage the attention of the Minister and the Government.

Now, I want to raise an entirely different matter and perhaps a more acrimonious one. I did not hear the Minister's introductory remarks but I understand the Minister said that in his view, the spirit in the Garda at the moment gave him satisfaction and was excellent. I do not subscribe to that view. I think at present the spirit in the Garda leaves a great deal to be desired. There are many reasons for that. I do not propose to go into them now, but in fact, in my view, there is considerable dissatisfaction in the Garda throughout the country. I have in mind certain Garda officers who, prior to 1954—and in this regard the responsibility may not be directly that of the present Minister—were encouraged to take part in a promotion examination, to work and study for it and to enter for it. These men were led to believe that their promotion depended on the measure of success they achieved in that examination. Quite a number entered—I am referring to the examinations held in 1954. It is a fact that a number of decent officers who attained very high places in that examination find themselves now, eight years later, in the same rank and in precisely the same place as they were in prior to the examinations.

I should like to know why? I am told that the scheme was altered and that now promotion suddenly descends upon a person like a ray of sunlight through darkness. One does not know anything about it until one is suddenly picked out for promotion. If that is the system of promotion in the Garda at present, it cannot be expected that it will lead to any general satisfaction. Certainly, men who entered for this examination prior to 1954, sat for it and secured—I shall not specify particular places because I do not want to pinpoint any individual—out of a large number of candidates a place, putting it mildly, within the first 12, and who see now men who took 56th or 57th place being promoted ahead of them——

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy does not mean "officers" literally because only superintendents and upwards——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am talking of sergeants sitting for this examination. Perhaps I am not using the appropriate terms. To use a military term, they would perhaps be n.c.o.s.

Mr. Haughey

Yes—sergeants and inspectors.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am talking about sergeants. I should like to know why what was felt by these men to be, in effect, an understanding with them was not honoured and why it is that, in the case of at least one man—there may be many others—who felt and understood in relation to his success in that examination or otherwise, his reasonable and proper standing and service in the Garda, he would be entitled to expect due promotion, it has never come to pass.

The men I am talking about cannot be promoted properly now because it is eight years later and they are now perhaps beyond the age. It may not therefore be possible to remedy the wrong done to them. However, I would point very strongly to the injustice of the fact that that promotion scheme should have been pretty well abolished without regard to some of the men who sat for that examination. It was not, of course, the result of any action by the Minister, but insofar as it appears to me that an injustice has been done, I am raising it on this Estimate.

That is about all I have to say on the Estimate but may I just revert to this question of civil juries? I know the Minister has expressed no view in that respect, that he has established a committee who are considering the matter and who will advise him and the Government on that question and on other matters. Therefore I suppose it is wiser at the moment to keep one's powder dry, because the deliberations of that committee——

Mr. Haughey

It is sub judice.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Is it really sub judice? I hope not. I hope that in that respect the ordinary people who realise it is a matter very material to them will not accept individual views from people who happen to be associated with the law. I am speaking against myself when I say that frequently those who are concerned in the courts cannot see the wood for the trees.

Mr. Timmons

I shall not delay the House with my remarks on this Estimate. First of all, I wish to associate myself with the tribute paid to Mr. Oscar Traynor and to wish him very many years of happy retirement after so many years of distinguished service to the nation. I also wish to pay a tribute to the Minister on the comprehensive nature of his report on the working of his Department during the year.

One point in particular I should like to refer to, relates to the problem of juvenile delinquency. The Minister referred to it in the course of his statement and pointed out that over 3,300 young people under the age of 17 years had been convicted during the 12 months under review. That gives food for serious thought. It is the highest figure since the foundation of the State, according to the Minister. I am therefore pleased to note that he has set up an inter-Departmental committee to deal with this and other kindred matters.

As most members of the House will be aware, the problem of the incidence of juvenile delinquency in this city is a serious one. It is reflected in the annual claims for malicious injury made against the Dublin Corporation who have had in recent years to ear-mark about £30,000 annually. That is a considerable sum of money and it struck the Corporation so deeply that some years ago they set up a special committee at the instance of the then Lord Mayor, Deputy Briscoe.

That was in 1957. The committee was very representative; the members sat for 18 months and produced a report which contained recommendations aimed at finding a solution. That report was then regarded as a blueprint for future action and I hope the inter-Departmental committee now set up will have regard to the recommendations of that body. One of their suggestions was that there should be a permanent voluntary body set up in the city to co-ordinate the work of all the voluntary organisations in a comprehensive study of juvenile delinquency and vandalism and to make recommendations to the Government and the Corporation.

I know the Minister is intensely interested in this problem. I had the pleasure recently of being present at a meeting of the Civics Institute at which he gave a very informed address and I feel sure he will bend his energies towards finding a solution to this problem. A first step would be to study the recommendations of the Dublin Corporation committee. Like many other Deputies who have spoken, I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the existing voluntary organisations in this field. They are doing their best, despite serious lack of funds and regrettable public apathy.

I am glad to see the inter-Departmental committee have recommended that consideration be given to securing alternative premises for St. Patrick's. Apart from its lack of proper facilities for the re-education and rehabilitation of young offenders, there is the drawback that the premises have that grey grimness associated with Mountjoy Prison. It should be possible to secure suitable premises on the outskirts of the city where there would be an environment more conducive to the re-education of the unfortunate young people who must populate that institution for a time.

I should like to commend the Minister on the point he made in respect of the desirability of achieving a system of uniform penalties in district courts so as to avoid disparities in identical cases dealt with by different district justices. I suggest he should go even further and bring about a uniform application of the Probation of Offenders Act throughout the country. This is a matter that causes public comment from time to time. I know the Minister is a great believer in the probation system and I would accordingly urge him to have that aspect looked into.

That would call for the appointment of extra probation officers. The small number of such officers we have are doing great work but they are overworked and badly remunerated. The existence of a more comprehensive probation system could not but yield good results. Probation officers not only do valuable work in assisting the courts but they also give wonderful help in advising and rehabilitating the young people who come to their notice.

A small number of men who were set up as a temporary force during the Emergency, known as the Taca Síochána, volunteered for duties of that kind and performed them very efficiently. A number of them have been absorbed into the Garda Síochána. However, I understand that the period of service as a temporary officer does not count for pension purposes. I think that, having regard to the manner in which they discharged their duties in those difficult days and the excellent way in which they have discharged their duties as police officers since, it is matter that calls for examination.

Reference has been made to the Dublin traffic problem. I would make just one comment relating to the provision of pointsmen at various complex junctions in our city. We have a system whereby pointsmen are on duty from early morning until they leave off duty about 6.30 or sometimes 7 p.m. I would urge the Minister to look into the question of extending the hours of duty. Anyone who has experience of trying to cross Butt Bridge, O'Connell Bridge, College Green or Parnell Street will understand the necessity for some form of control even after 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m., having regard to the volume of traffic passing through our city.

Finally, I would make a point in regard to the general question of police control in our city. I feel that the mind of the Department is turning more to mobility and mechanisation. A point has been made to me, and I agree with it, that the more uniformed men seen in the city and particularly in our growing suburban districts the better people will feel. They will feel a better sense of security when they see uniformed men in control of districts.

In conclusion, once again I should like to congratulate the Minister on his introductory speech on this Estimate and to wish him very well in the future.

It is a little naive.

Mr. Rooney

I assume that it is the experience of a good many Deputies that when the notices go out to these people, calling them in to act on a jury, they immediately land into the local Deputy pointing out that there are domestic difficulties, that there are difficulties in the business, that they are busy on their farms, that they have other matters to attend to and that they cannot possibly afford the loss of time to serve on these juries and asking if they can possibly be excused. Some of them have to produce medical certificates showing possibly that they are deaf and could not hear the evidence properly in order to make a decision indicating that, physically, they are not in a condition to attend and serve on a jury.

The arguments I wanted to put up tonight are the arguments against civil juries in cases which are not criminal cases. I am fully in favour of civil juries in all criminal cases but in other cases I do not consider that they are absolutely essential and I feel an alternative could be chosen. Take as an example the amount of compensation and damages awarded in some cases in the courts, as decided by juries. What calculations have these juries to depend on and what experience have they? May be it is the first time they ever served on a jury and the last time they ever will serve on one. What calculations, experience and knowledge have they of case law and of the various considerations that arise when compensation and damages are being calculated and assessed? I think it must be agreed that frequently it is a hit and miss assessment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy now is going out of order on this debate. He is criticising the decision of a court, which is not in order.

Mr. Rooney

What I really wanted to say was that in my view it is not necessary to have civil juries in cases which are not criminal cases and that a panel of judges might be a more appropriate system for awarding compensation and damages instead of the present system of sending out notices perhaps to 250 people or maybe 500 people to come in and to answer the roll call. If they are not present, they will be marked down and fined £3 for not being there to answer the call and to serve on the jury.

I am quite sure that the jury system is a very fair system from the point of view of giving a fair trial and justice where they are engaged to hear a case and to make a decision. I think you could not expect anything fairer than you could get from a jury. However, I feel that a panel of judges could be more effective in many civil cases. I understand that that view was expressed by Deputy Colley. I did not hear him speak but he appears to be of the same view. He suggests that, with the huge amount of work going through the courts at present, in the absence of a jury, many cases could be decided more quickly and in a satisfactory manner, and that the administration of the law would be streamlined by a change from the present civil jury system.

The cost of litigation is another side to this matter. Of course the legal man is the best judge but under the present system, persons who are fighting a case have found it is more satisfactory to settle out of court rather than to face a jury. I believe it is because they feel the sympathy of the jury will be won by oratory and that the jury will not make a practical calculation of what the damages or compensation should be and what the loss really is. These people are not accustomed to considerations of points of law as a panel of judges would be and I believe that would be a more satisfactory method of administration than we have at the present time.

I do not agree that the people serving on these civil juries wish to be called and to attend for the purpose of making these decisions. They would be well satisfied to leave it to the experienced legal men, the men who will make the case and who will make the decision, the judges and solicitors or whoever acts on behalf of the plaintiff in these cases.

The only other matter I want to mention is the chaotic condition of traffic in Dublin city. It could be improved to a very great extent if road users would be made aware of their responsibilities and made to realise that each person is only entitled to his own share of the road and should not monopolise it. That refers to the pedestrian, the cyclist, the motorist, the man who pushes a hand-cart or uses a horse and cart. As regards cyclists in Dublin, they have no consideration for pedestrians, motorists or any other vehicle users. It should be considered whether cyclists should be diverted through various streets still reaching the same destination rather than have them colliding with each other coming out of junction streets on to the main streets and turning off the main streets.

The Garda make suggestions regarding traffic signs, road painting and different street regulations in relation to traffic. They have made many valuable suggestions which have relieved traffic congestion and, I am sure, will continue to do so. It is the regulation of traffic which will make things easier in Dublin city. In our coutry areas, for instance, the Garda suggest places where continuous white lines should be painted and also where the intermittent lines are to be painted. Experience has shown that these white lines on the roads have cut down the number of bad accidents. The existence of either a continuous white line or an intermittent white line is an immediate suggestion to the road user to keep to the proper side. Far more of this road painting should be carried out in areas where there is fairly heavy traffic. If that were done in Dublin city, it would encourage people to keep along a straight line in the traffic instead of zig-zagging as many of them do.

I cannot say much more about the traffic side of the Estimate without going into the problems of the Minister for Local Government but what I have to say was in relation to the actual regulation of traffic and the conduct of people using our roads and streets. If anything can be done by the Minister through the Gardaí in order to make people more traffic conscious I believe many lives will be saved and that there will be a freer flow of traffic.

Mr. Geoghegan

I want to congratulate the present Minister for Justice on the efficient way he has carried out his work since he took office. His task must certainly be one of the most difficult in the Government. One hears criticism from the opposite side of the House but, in fairness, one must say that he has done a very good job to date and I feel sure he intends to continue the good work he has started.

I want to raise a point on the conveying of messages when people from this country are killed in England in accidents or otherwise. Messages pass between the Garda Síochána and the police in England and are conveyed to the father, mother, brothers or sisters of the person who has met his death, perhaps in a road accident. I am open to correction by the Minister, but my information is that if an accident occurs in England, a message comes from the English police to the Garda and one message passes back, but if it is within post office working hours, further messages must be sent from the post office by the relatives to the police in England. That should be altered. These people would be prepared to pay the cost of the phone call through the Garda barracks. In a country area, people may not be accustomed to using a phone and carrying on a conversation across the water and it may be difficult for them. I would ask the Minister to look into it and, if it is the case at present, to alter the situation and let the Garda in this little country of ours convey the messages. It often takes quite a while, maybe a week, where a person is killed in a motor accident or a building accident, for his remains to arrive and several phone calls must be made and the best way is to have the Garda phone the police in England.

Deputy Rooney has left the House. A white line on roads may seem all right to him and to Deputies like him from the eastern counties where roads have an 18 or 20 foot carriageway, but in the country where roads may be 14 feet or less it is different. Perhaps a lorry and bus may meet at a very dangerous corner. The front of the bus or lorry may be well inside the white line and the end of the vehicle slightly over it. I have heard this discussed at local authority meetings. Are the Garda going to take the white line as the dead centre of the road? Perhaps the authority who painted the line might be out. It is a point that should be looked into before a prosecution is started. The person driving the vehicle may have slightly over half the road and when he is inside the white line thinks he is O.K., but there may not be room for vehicles to meet without a slight accident.

I welcome any speed limits which may be introduced in the near future. I happened to visit a few small towns in the past few months and I thought the speed of high-powered cars travelling through them uncalled for. You cannot avoid accidents in small towns, unless limits are introduced. I am thinking of places like Moycullen, west of Galway or Oranmore on the main trunk road from Galway to Limerick, Cork and Dublin. The speed through these areas is uncalled for and I hope that whatever arrangements must be made for the introduction of a speed limit will be made as quickly as possible.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I should like to take the opportunity of commenting favourably on the manner in which the Minister is discharging his duty. The Minister can be described as a man who has a very active interest in his Department, and not alone that, but, I believe, a keen personal interest in every section of his Department, and I may say he is noted for his courtesy to all who have had dealings with him. His job is an extremely difficult one and one which certainly merits the support and co-operation of all Deputies. The Department of Justice is one of the most important Departments as it affects the very life of all of us. When one considers the necessity for maintaining law and order, it cannot be described as anything but one of the most essential Departments in that it safeguards the activities of daily life of all our citizens.

The Garda Síochána for whom he is responsible have to discharge a very difficult job. The time has come when we in this country should realise that the Garda are there as friends to safeguard the lives and property of the people. Surely we have grown up in the past 40 years? Surely we are sufficiently broadminded to know at this stage the difference between right and wrong? Our people, at this stage of our country's history, should realise that it is necessary in any State to have the lives and property of the people safeguarded and that that is why the Garda are charged with the responsibility of being the people's protectors, defenders and friends.

I want to express my appreciation of the manner in which the Minister has time and again directed the attention of the public to the importance of co-operating with the authorities, particularly with the Garda, in the discharge of their duties. We have had in the past the most regrettable spectacle of Garda endeavouring to maintain law and order while not getting the full co-operation of the public.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, December 6th, 1962.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 5 Dec 1962

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

Mr. Ryan

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1962