When progress was reported last week, we were discussing the question of support for the Garda Síochána in the course of their duties. The first point under that heading was that individual gardaí carrying out duties like patrols should have the necessary support, that it is unwise to send individual men on foot and that every foot patrol should consist of at least two and that communicating machinery such as radios should be provided. On the wider question of supporting the Force as a whole in carrying out their duties, we must ask questions about——
Committee on Finance. - Vote 21—Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £266,010 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1967, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice and of certain other services administered by that Office, including certain Grants-in-Aid; and of the Public Record Office and of the Keeper of State Papers and for the purchase of historical documents, etc.
—(Minister for Justice.)
Civic spirit.
A good deal of that, but also about what happens to the criminal when detected and brought to court and afterwards. It is obviously very discouraging to a police force if they have gone to a lot of trouble to apprehend in the case of serious crime and having succeeded, find their work is virtually rendered useless either by the inadequacy of the sentence or the too-early release of the offender. I want to make clear that I am not going at all contrary to the general intention the Minister has expressed regarding probation and rehabilitation of offenders. That is excellent work and if done on a sufficiently big scale, and intelligently, can be of great benefit to the community.
There is no sense in getting sloppily sentimental about the offender at the cost or expense of the law-abiding citizens. Certainly it is getting our priorities mixed up if we are prepared to be over-lenient with the offender and not equally prepared to protect law-abiding citizens. While I completely commend the Minister's efforts at a rational approach to rehabilitation of offenders and while I also agree with the point of view that if this could be achieved and if the number of offenders who repeat is minimised, this is very much in the public interest, on the other hand, there is the hard core of criminals, to use a phrase I used last week. So long as there is an organised community, and particularly organised communities such as you have in modern cities, there will be a number of criminals—let us use the proper word—whether they are apprehended on the first offence or whether they are repeaters. For them, the only treatment must be a punishment which will be a deterrent, and not only that, but they must be isolated from the community so that they cannot perpetrate their wills on the community in the unlawful manner they are inclined to adopt.
I am not one who will condemn old-fashioned punishment on the ground that a deterrent does not work. Too often we hear it said and argued in academic circles and circles remote from the actuality of the criminal in society, that there are no such things as deterrents, that neither capital punishment nor imprisonment work as deterrents. Frankly, I do not subscribe to that view. I believe that in the severity of the sentence, there is a very real deterrent. I know there are people who have been watching the experiments in Britain and who have come to the same conclusion. It is customary on the part of people who advocate the abolition of such penalties in the comfortable academic atmosphere in which these things are often discussed to cry out "inhumanity" immediately people express such views. Unfortunately, we have to deal with a very real problem and at a very early stage you must face the fact that either you are going to deal with crime or you are not. All the evidence in the experimental period that we have seen since the war is that crime, if not dealt with, grows. I am speaking of the serious type of crime.
To return to the point in regard to the police force, it appears to me that it is necessary to back a good police force by adequate sentences, and I mean sentences of imprisonment. Furthermore, I believe that one can make a mistake in going too far in making prisons homes from home. These may be very unpopular things to say, but on the other hand, there are citizens who very frequently come up against lawlessness and who need the services of a good police force. It is worthwhile listening to them also. I remember the occasion when the abolition of capital punishment was being debated here and when the Bill was passed. I am not specifically referring here to capital punishment, though I would put no limit on punishment where, say, a police officer or somebody who is carrying out a duty on behalf of the community has been murdered. I do not want to confine myself to that type of crime. I am talking about crime such as those occasioning personal injuries, organised robberies and other serious crimes. When this Bill was going through the House, I remember meeting, not very far from this Chamber, some women who were very vocal indeed and pointed out the dangers that there are in cities for women. It would have been interesting to hear their point of view on the Bill, which certainly was not in support of it.
I have read in such places as the Garda magazine statements about the danger to citizens in certain areas. I am satisfied that if it were not for the Garda force we have, we would have as high an incidence of that type of crime as you read about across the water. My fear is that the very growth of our metropolitan area will bring an increase in that kind of crime if nothing is done about it. The thing that must be done is to protect the good record of the police and we have no hesitation in drawing attention to the need for adequate sentences. I do not think it would be proper for me to comment on any particular sentence or to suggest sentences are not adequate. That suggestion has been made in certain cases, but the point is that, in principle and in practice, the sentences should be adequate to support the police, if for no other reason.
That brings me to a very interesting and delicate question, the availability of accommodation for offenders. I do not think I should go further than ask the Minister whether the problem and expense of housing convicted criminals has anything to do with the customary length of sentence. I leave that to the Minister to answer in his own way. For instance, how far are sentences commuted in the case of serious crime? What length of sentence is served as against the normal length?
These are vital questions. I am not thinking of the criminal involved nor do I begrudge to any criminal the remission he may get so that he is released at a much earlier stage than the sentence nominally imposed would indicate, but I am concerned with the possible repercussions on the working of the Garda force. Not only must we underline for the Minister the question of protecting the garda personally but also the question of supporting the Force as a whole in carrying out their duties.
In that connection, too, I mention warders. They are a class who also need support. I would ask the Minister how do the conditions of service of warders compare with those of other public servants, in regard to leave, pay and other matters of that nature. The time has come to recognise that these public servants, like the gardaí—and teachers although that comes under another Estimate—are at least entitled to the same standard of living and scale of remuneration afforded to public servants in any other grade or class. It is merely a traditional distinction that has been carried on. There is no very sound basis for it. Take the police officer, for instance. He is a highly skilled technical man in our modern society. He is no longer merely what the old-fashioned police officer was, say, one hundred years ago. I therefore make that general suggestion about the incomes of the gardaí and the warders particularly. In regard to the leave granted to warders in our service, I should like to know how that can be adjusted. I should like to know also if there are enough warders in proportion to the number of prisoners they have to guard. In any event, their conditions of service require some improvement.
On the question of the publicity given to crime, I think it is important that the community should be aware of what the position is with regard to crime. I do not think the police can object to that; indeed one of the greatest supports for the police is the fact that the public become apprehensive with regard to crime and are willing to support the police. In this connection, if more information were made available by the Garda authorities, a number of the difficulties that have arisen in this regard might be solved. I shall content myself at this stage with just that remark.
The last matter I wish to talk about is this question of juries. In this Estimate, I take it, we are merely concerned with juries in criminal cases. Is that not so? I have voiced the opinion here before now that the civil juries are largely things of the past, anachronisms. Certainly in the Circuit Court they were made obsolete by the Act passed some time before the war which made appeal to the High Court take place by re-trial. The situation then was that in the case of a jury trial in the Circuit Court, the appeal could come to a judge of the High Court, and that it would be discharged in that way.
I forget how the thing worked out in detail but the point I am making is: in present day circumstances, are juries required in civil cases? In the days when judges might be considered to have restricted knowledge of the world and merely learned in the law, the theory of having a jury to help them to assess the facts—I am talking of civil cases now—may have had a lot to commend it but in modern conditions it is very hard to see what advantage the verdict of a jury will have over the verdict of a judge.
Are we travelling in the realm of legislation now?
It is very hard to avoid legislation on this Estimate.
I agree.
I will try to avoid it. I am not advocating legislation. You would be, you see, because the administration is laid down by legislation—I admit that, a Cheann Comhairle. The question of the abolition of juries has been raised here and all I want to say is that it seems that if the ultimate appeal is to a court, the Supreme Court, without a jury, there is not much reason for having a jury. After all, what do juries do? They assess damages; they find certain facts. Would you not, in modern circumstances, get a better level of objective justice in regard to a case from a trained judge?
Having said that about civil juries, it is a different question in criminal cases. The idea of trial by jury there is that the man is tried by his equals and the guarantee of impartiality is that so many men and women banded together in a jury come to a decision and that decision is the guarantee that there is more than one mind involved. The objection to the judge alone finding the verdict is that there is only one mind involved. I think the problem there is much more difficult. There is a very strong case for retaining the jury in criminal cases, although jury services are a hard thing and often an imposition on the individual juror and, although juries do occasionally bring in extraordinary verdicts, judges are equally capable of going off the rail on a question of fact. On balance, therefore, the question is, should juries be retained and, on balance, the answer should be yes, notwithstanding the objections that are there.
I know that a person looking at it from the administrative side, from the police side, may take another view but it is a very sound principle of law that no man should be deemed guilty until he is proved so, that the presumption of innocence should still be there in our law and the only safeguard of that presumption is either an extraordinarily objective judiciary or a jury. I should say the only guarantee is both, that you must have an objective judiciary—and we have that, thank goodness—and a jury.
Guilty people will get off but there is much less risk of innocent people being found guilty under the jury system. Guilty people will get off but it is equally a sound legal principle in a democracy that it is better that ten guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should be wrongfully found guilty. It is the application of this principle that is difficult here and it may seem contradictory, having said what I said earlier, that the police will find a man discharged in court. The answer to that is that the rule will make for better police work. It will certainly make for better detail and discipline in police work as it has heretofore both here and across the water and it would be preferable to have the system as it is than to have a system that could in any way degenerate into a mechanical method of securing convictions, obviating the need for detailed work. That would be a temptation to the morale of the gardaí themselves. So that, on the whole, where this question arises, it would be better to leave juries and to balance the penalties.
I suppose we will hear more on this subject and it is a subject that can certainly be debated. I have not even attempted to answer a number of the points that could be made. I merely want to point out that what I have said here is in no way inconsistent with what I have said before because the overall objective, whether you are looking at it from the point of view of the police or looking at it from the point of view of the citizen, is the overall good of the community. If I were to say more, I would be repeating what I have said on the last day and that would be out of order.
There is one thing that I should say about the Minister and his Department, that it is refreshing to see the constructive thinking that is going on, especially in this part about punishment. I know the considerable efforts that have been made to take an interest in police problems and to find the correct solution, both from the point of view of the force and the public. This Department has this creditable record for the year and the Minister as the head of the Department may well be offered congratulations and the hope that some of the tasks which are being examined and under way will be brought to a fruitful conclusion as quickly as possible.
Mr. O'Leary
In the subject of crime and punishment coming under the Estimate, we can all take our area of particular interest and concentrate on that. In this broad area of crime and punishment, for which the Minister's Department is responsible, I should like to discuss this evening an aspect of justice which is not often referred to but which I think it important should be referred to. I refer to the prison service. I want to refer to some problems that I see arising in the prison service and there are some points and questions which I should like to put to the Minister and I would be interested in his replies and to know his attitude towards them.
First of all, it should be said that the task of the persons now involved in the prison service is a far more complicated and demanding job than was the case for those involved in our prison service before the war. The Minister referred to the increasing need for qualified prison officers, that new ideas about the rehabilitation of prisoners were making more and more demands on warders and that they themselves should match the changed conditions by being qualified to help in the rehabilitation of prisoners. The question was asked: with whom could we compare the prison officers? I think the answer is we can scarcely compare them with anyone. I do not know of anybody else in public employment so subject to the 24-hour clock and to the strains of the prison service as they are. I know of no other body of men in public employment who receive such little public credit for their work. In fact, the reverse would be nearer the truth. The whole weight of propaganda in newspapers and on television—indeed we do not get many public announcements praising them—seems to be against those who work in the prison service. It requires to be said that the kind of ideas people had about our prisons and prison officers are no longer true. The prison today is a rehabilitation unit where skilled and important work is carried out. The people who staff this service are not sufficiently recognised, either in their conditions of work or in the general estimation of the importance of their work.
We should bear in mind that the hours of attendance of a prison officer are quite exceptional in their length. They work a 90-hour fortnight. One should look at this working period and ask is it really necessary that the prison officer engaged in such demanding work should be employed over this length of time. There is a main daily shift of eight hours, exclusive of meal times. This means they work an average of ten hours per day. They have two meal breaks, breakfast and dinner, of one hour each. The main reason for these backbreaking hours of work is the actual shortage of staff in our prison service.
I would like to ask the Minister if he and his officials have considered why there is this shortage of staff in the prison service. Would it be that the conditions of work now obtaining in the service have dropped far behind the conditions obtainable elsewhere in the community? If this is the case, would they address themselves to the problem without delay? This period of continuous duty of ten hours per day may be over three, four, 11 or 12 week periods. Indeed, it is possible under the present system that a prison officer may not have had a rest-day off in over three months. If it is important to attract the right people into the service, people who should get the opportunity themselves of studying the most up-to-date rehabilitation techniques, surely it follows they will not be got on the basis of the present working week and the rates of pay paid?
Furthermore, why is it not possible that overtime should not be paid to people with such long hours of work? I understand that in the Civil Service generally if an officer is required to work on his day off, he is compensated by some kind of overtime at time and a half or double time. This does not happen in the case of the prison officer unless the man is given time off within a six week period. We will have to consider overtime payments for these officers in respect of any period they are asked to do overtime work or week-end duty. While on this matter of overtime work, from what I know of the British prison service, they are extremely careful to see their officers are not overworked to the extent that they have no rest-days off over many months or that they are required, because of shortage of staff, to work week-ends. They avoid the possibility of their officers being called on to work for long periods in the tension of the prison.
They are letting a lot of prisoners escape.
Mr. O'Leary
I do not know how many prisoners they are allowing to escape. We do not allow many escape, despite the hours of work the prison officers have.
If they are as fresh as all that in Britain, they must not be keeping an eye on their prisoners.
Mr. O'Leary
I am trying to ensure that the Minister will not allow to escape from his mind the pay and overtime conditions of those in our prison service. I bring these matters to his attention to get his opinion on these problems, with which, I am sure, he is concerned. I want to get some assurance that the prison officers' conditions of work and overtime payments will be given priority treatment in the year ahead. The prison officer is often compared with the psychiatric nurse. However, at present the conditions of the psychiatric nurse—whatever room for improvement may be there—are incomparably better than those of the prison officer. The Minister should without delay look into the problem of overlong working hours in the prison service, too little time off, and should also have a fresh look at the rates of pay.
At present, due to the shortage of staff, it is possible that a prison officer may be asked to work his rest-day or to work week-ends. He can no longer look forward with certainty to planned leisure with his family. Far more than the criminal he has to look after, he has become a hostage of the prison in which he works. It is the prison officer's job to maintain his sanity in a rather difficult situation. If we do not give him time off to renew his energies, we cannot expect him to be on top of his form in dealing with his exacting task.
Is it not a fact that at present, if because of some domestic problem such as sickness he needs a day off, he has to make individual arrangements with another officer to ensure that he can have it? Surely we can get a more enlightened way of dealing with this matter? It should be possible to facilitate an officer if he requires some time off his duty roster. The Minister should try to ensure that each officer will get off every alternate weekend and should not have the experience of working weekend in and weekend out over a period of months. The position is so bad at the moment that there is a shortage of staff. We are not attracting young men into the service and those whom we are attracting into it are not staying. If the Minister shows himself to be concerned with the treatment of prisoners and with this problem in its totality, then surely he must be concerned to improve the conditions of the people looking after the prisoners? Concern for the prisoners must be paralleled with just treatment and adequate conditions for those who look after the prisoners.
At the moment, we are not getting sufficient young people to come into the service and those who do enter it are, in fact, leaving it as rapidly as possible. It must follow in the promotion of men to fill the most senior posts in the service that the standards will not be up to the required level if we do not get a sufficient number of suitable people in the first place. I imagine that the expectations of the young men and women entering the service today are not fulfilled in two vital respects. There are the long hours of duty which the young person must consider. There is no certainty of time off and there are insufficient rest days. There is no hope of any arrangement for alternate week-ends off duty. This all adds up to the impossibility of the young person who enters the service continuing a normal social life and, with that limitation on his entry into the service, from the very beginning, it is no wonder that we are not getting the proper type of young person to enter the service.
Would it be true to say that if a young officer in the prison service wants a night off he has to make written application to get it off? Is this the position at the moment? I am not quite sure but I should like some enlightenment on whether such a procedure is, in fact, necessary at the moment. If a young prison officer at the moment is a single man, is he compelled to live within the prison? Is this a requirement at the moment? If they are living outside the prison, is it a requirement that they must be inside the prison by 11.30 each night? If this is the situation, one may fairly ask who is being detained, the warder or the prisoner? Naturally, a single officer does not wish to return to his place of work before 11.30 on his night off. If he has alternative living accommodation outside the prison, and even if he is not using the accommodation in the prison service, is it a fact that £1 a week is deducted for accommodation which he is not using?
The comparable position in Britain is completely different. At any rate, a living-out allowance is paid to people living outside the prison. The whole drift in the British prison service is towards encouraging an officer, where possible, to live outside the environment of the prison. It would not be remarkable to find a desire in those living practically 24 hours a day, working without time off, in the environment of the prison to have their houses elsewhere and as far away as possible from their place of work. Is it a fact that young officers at the moment in our prison service in Mountjoy, who are living in, find themselves in cells formerly used by prisoners? Is the accommodation, with some minimum improvements, of the same dimensions as the accommodation previously reserved for those detained there at the State's pleasure as a result of one crime or another?
Certainly, I am not one to criticise the improvements made in the lot of prisoners over the years. This is part of our new enlightened approach to the problem of crime in general. I suggest, however, that it is extremely important that our concern for the prisoners should be paralleled by an equally strong concern for the conditions of work of those who look after them. If the proper treatment of crime is seen to be one that must be tackled with skill and by trained people, then every possible opportunity should be given to the officers involved in this training and rehabilitation to qualify themselves through the medium of new courses at the university, and so on. I have in mind their release to attend day courses at the university. They should be enabled to attend the new courses in sociology in general, and so on, at the university so that the ordinary prison officer is actually given his training in this respect.
The Minister referred to the attendance of two senior officers of his Department at the United Nations congress held in Stockholm on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders. Has any report been sent to the practitioners in our prison service on the findings of the two gentlemen who attended that congress or has their report been filed away in the Department? Have the two officers concerned reported back, by any means or process, to the practitioners in the prison service? Would it be possible that, in the future, the people to be considered for attendance at any of these meetings in Stockholm, Britain or elsewhere, would be the people concerned in the day to day working in our prisons? I should not, let us say, wish to limit the release of the higher officers of the Minister's Department for such work: I do not wish to deny them a weekend or two in Stockholm, for example. However, if they spend a period abroad I suggest that they bring home a report and pass the information back to the ordinary Joe Soap in the prison service. This is the least that we could expect of them.
The Minister referred to the hostel opened in 1964 for prisoners and quite rightly he is proud of this situation. I consider that equal priority should be given to the important problem of the accommodation of officers who are compelled to live in. They should not have to occupy merely the same cell dimensions as, previously, prisoners were compelled to occupy. They should be given the opportunity, with an allowance, to live outside the environment of the prison. If this Victorian rule exists that they must report back to the prison before 11.30 on each night off, then I ask the Minister to consider this matter without delay.
If a hostel for prisoners in Mountjoy was opened in 1964, it should have been followed, if not simultaneously, by the opening of special quarters for single officers who live within the prison. Surely decent accommodation for single officers is equally important? Perhaps the Minister, when referring to the many arms of his Department, might spare some time to inform the public more fully than they appear to be informed at the moment of the rather tough job prison officers have to carry out, although I know it does not fall within his terms of reference.
Whilst many people today welcome the improved attitude towards the proper treatment of crime and the rehabilitation of criminals, there appears to be a note of laxity growing up in the press and on television, where crime is considered as a sort of Robin Hood type of occupation which appears to elevate the criminal into a kind of hero in our modern society. Recently I saw on the Telefís Éireann Late Late Show a man whose chief claim to fame is that he got out of more prisons in England than any other person.
Hear, hear.
The Deputy will appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for Telefís Éireann.
The Minister can criticise newspapers and he can criticise Telefís Éireann.
Mr. O'Leary
To have a notable criminal on the Late Late Show indicates a general laxity of feeling and certainly it points to a laxity of feeling on the part of the sponsors of the Late Late Show. Does Telefís Éireann think that this man is the type properly equipped for the edification of the Irish public on a Saturday night? I should like the Minister to make a speech or two blasting that type of attitude.
I agree fully with the Deputy there.
Mr. O'Leary
I have already referred to an important matter, and I am sorry to have to emphasise it, but I think it important that it should be emphasised. Are we so hard up in the matter of getting suitable people into our prison service that there are absolutely no recognised standards of entry to this service? Surely there is something illogical here? There is something illogical, in that we accept the fact that people who come in at one end of the scale under conditions which are so unattractive, may not be the proper people. Surely there is something illogical in reducing all standards at commencement and expecting people of high standards to emerge for higher jobs? Perhaps the Minister and his Department would give this their very earnest consideration at an early date.
I understand the status of this service is so low at the moment that there are, in fact, posters displayed in all our employment exchanges looking for prison officers. If there is an urgent need for prison officers, surely the matter should be seriously inquired into? Perhaps the Minister could set up an inquiry by appointing some civil servants and prison officers—perhaps like the two or three who went to Stockholm—who would look into the problem and see why our staffing position is so low at the moment.
I understand the Minister has invited some Deputies to visit Mountjoy. I hope that if any Deputy goes to Mountjoy, at the pleasure of the State, some improvements will be made in the conditions of the staff before this takes place. The Minister should ensure that higher civil servants visit Mountjoy more often so as to see whether there can be improvements in the Victorian conditions there. I would suggest that some of the diehard traditionalists in the Minister's Department should be combed out or sent somewhere for a rehabilitation course with regard to the priorities in the prison service. I have no doubt that civil servants may amass a great deal of knowledge in their years in the Department of Justice.
I would suggest to the Minister that he should be aware of this problem and see that his Department is up to date on it. He should allow no artificial hindrance in his Department to the winds of change and he should ensure that there will be better treatment for our prison staff, following which the morale will be better. All I am saying is that the morale in the prison service is very low and that it will be improved only provided conditions can also be improved.
If morale among the staff is as low as I suggest it is, then, equally, a big problem will be the actual maintenance of discipline in the prisons. We cannot expect that this discipline will be maintained by a staff whose morale is as low as we accept it is. Shortage of staff, arises because of long hours of work, low rates of pay and lack of acknowledgment by the Minister's Department as to the importance of the prison officer. There is a lack of public knowledge of the Victorian conditions in which a single officer must live. If the prison officer is a man who has to be fully trained and if he has reached the full status of this office, we cannot treat him as a juvenile or as some one tied to the prison, by out of date conditions.
In an examination of the conditions of work of those involved in our prison services, we should also consider the conditions of the women involved in those services. Theirs is a task dealing with women prisoners which is an arduous and unpleasant job. They are employed under the same bad conditions of work as I have outlined for the male staff. I should like the Minister to state whether it has been found possible to retain the female staff at full strength. As in the male sector, does it also happen that there is a shortage of female staff? Has the Minister an answer to this and does he propose to take steps to improve the position so as to attract staff?
Would the position be that there have been resignations over the past year or two in the female staff and is it the position that there have been resignations in the male staff also? Have these resignations been confined to young men or are they common to all grades? The more we can see the prison officer as a social worker in a civilised job, the more we must see his or her status is enchanced by proper training and better working conditions, we will then be going in the right direction in improving the morale in the present service. An improvement in morale is possible if we carry out all the improvements which the Minister can effect.
I think the Minister has it in his terms of reference to do something about this conspiracy in the press which appears to aim itself directly at the people who man the prison service, suggesting that here we have people who are tyrants in their own way. The situation here is that none of these people, man or woman, has any protection against those unfair attacks from outside. I suggest that the Minister should consider—and this is something which he might also consider in relation to the police where a policeman is unfairly attacked in the press or elsewhere—the kind of review board that was suggested for New York, where officers in either the police or the prison service could have a chance of answering such criticisms and that they should not always be seen to be at the receiving end of unjust and inaccurate criticism. People in our prison service should have some means of answering their critics who appear to be very strong in the press and also on television, in contributing to this general picture which sees the criminal as a kind of Robin Hood and the prison officers, the people who are paid with the taxpayer's money and are the upholders of the law, as some kind of squares to whom the community does not owe any thanks. The Minister should look at this.
There is another point in regard to our prison service. I remarked on the lack of morale. It is important that justice is seen to prevail in the matter of people serving sentences in Irish prisons. I should like to ask the Minister a question and ask him to answer it as fairly as he can. Would it be true to say that those who come from better-off sections of our community find themselves out of prison faster than those who come from working-class homes?
Oh, no. That is repudiated.
Mr. O'Leary
It would not be true?
No.
Mr. O'Leary
If the Minister says it is not true, I will accept that. It has been my own impression that those who come from better off homes move through faster and find themselves on parole than those who come from working-class homes. I admit I stand open to correction. It was an impression I had on the basis of some experiences that have been brought to me.
That is not the criterion. The criterion is strictly the medical or psychological one.
Mr. O'Leary
I will drop that then. If the Minister thought there was anything in it, I would have asked him to reply to it.
I should like the Minister, if he can, and I think it is in his own interest that he should do so, to tackle the problem to which I refer. I have, to the best of my ability, avoided the more sensational aspects of the problems that come within the coverage of his Department. Crime is the subject of sensationalism in our press. One may chase several hares and take many lines of territory here. My line of territory and what I am concerned with is an attempt to get more action taken and my feeling is that the people in our prison service at the moment are not getting fair recognition of their work and redress of their grievances seems to be closed against them. It is time we re-evaluated their work. If, in industrial employment, it is seen to be necessary to have job evaluation which will evaluate the job in accordance with the needs of the time, surely it is time we re-evaluated the job that a prison officer must do in 1966? Surely the re-evaluation should result in better conditions, better treatment of these officers, a better recruitment system which would create a larger pool of qualified people to call on? If their conditions were better, if their accommodation were looked into and proper allowances given to them, it would be money well spent and would surely be an important item in seeing that the prison service is staffed by suitable people.
I had meant to say something on the Garda Síochána but I think other Members will be covering that. I shall just make one observation and the Minister can answer it one way or the other. It appears to me there is a real problem for the Garda Síochána in the years ahead in that they appear to be becoming mere slaves of the motor car in our urban areas. I do not know what period of a garda's time is allocated to the parking of cars, traffic guidance and all the problems the increasing use of the motor car creates, but it seems to me there is a grave danger that the community will begin to regard the garda as a kind of traffic warden. It seems the community is being extremely unjust in expecting the police force to do all this and to be absolutely on its toes in the detection of crime.
They will have to ask themselves whether they want the present situation to continue, in which the Garda Síochána in most of our cities and towns are becoming traffic wardens rather than policemen, or whether the time has come when we must reconsider what the policeman's job should be in relation to the motor car. Should we in fact try to bring in auxiliary people, part-time people, to look after the motorist and free the policemen of this problem? It seems that he is at the beck and call of one section of the community, the section having motor cars, and that the traditional role which the community is supposed to call on him to play must suffer as a result of so much time spent with problems connected with the automobile.
I do not know what expenditure is involved but it seems to me we run a serious risk of complete maladjustment and misrepresentation of what the duties of our police force should be. Are they to be seen more and more in this guise of serving the needs of the motor car in our cities and towns? We should look at this situation in the near future and decide one way or the other what we want in this connection because it appears to me that the budget for this Department will reach astronomical limits unless we come to some decision.
There is one arm of the law to which I contribute more than many other individuals—the £1 on-the-spot fines. It is a very efficient service, unfortunately for me. Would it not be possible for people with bicycles, motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles, when they transgress the law in a traffic matter, to benefit by, or at least to have the option of an on-the-spot fine rather than the method at the moment where a working man can find himself having to take a day off work because he has to appear in court? Surely the convenience of the law which is at the disposal of motorists in regard to their penalties should also be at the disposal of the people who are still stuck with bicycles? Would the Minister consider this possibility?
In conclusion, the Department of Justice and its top officials would, in my opinion, be doing an extremely valuable job if they looked into the conditions in the Irish prison service. While we must respect people who have expert knowledge of their subject, we must bear in mind that the change has been so dramatic in the treatment of criminals in recent years and there has been such a rush of innovations that roles have changed in this matter of treatment of crime and the prison officer who a few years ago was regarded as somebody who kept people in jail is now seen to be more or less a rehabilitating agent in the treatment of prisoners. In this situation of the enhanced importance of his role today, his conditions should be related to this new status. It is my argument that his status today does not get the kind of recognition, either in his conditions of work or his pay, that it should. It is my contention that the shortage of staff is due to the unattractive conditions of employment and my contention also that we are not, in the more demanding conditions of today's prison service, giving the prison officer a chance to do a good job in the interests of the community as a whole.
Reading the contributions, exclusive of that by the Minister, to this debate, I find the Language Freedom Movement has got two new sponsors. I am sure they will welcome this addition to their ranks.
Mr. O'Leary
The Dingle Peninsula.
I heard that one, too: that was the LFM. The two new sponsors are Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Higgins.
They are interested in the right of free speech.
It appears strange to me that they should be so interested in the right of free speech because, 30 years ago, I remember quite distinctly an organisation——
Founded to protect free speech.
——which claimed to be founded for the purpose of defending the right of free speech when, in fact, it did just the opposite. I remember when the then President of the Executive Council——
(Interruptions.)
Order. The Parliamentary Secretary.
——Deputy de Valera —was not allowed to speak. I remember one occasion in my own town of Loughrea when a deliberate attempt was made—I should say, without success—to prevent him expressing his views. This was an organised attempt by members of the Party who now profess to be so greatly interested in the defence of free speech and the right of people to express their views.
They always were, thank God.
Not in the 1930s.
Yes, and in the 1920s, when other people were wrecking the country.
The Irish language is the national language. It is the first official language of the country. When people like the LFM take it upon themselves either to weaken its position as the first official language or to try to abolish it altogether, they are deliberately trying to incite the people and inflame public passions.
The way the Minister tried to incite——
Order.
The Irish language is very dear to many of us and those who advocate its abolition——
Cén fá nach bhfuil tú ag labhairt as Gaeilge?
——are acting contrary to the Constitution. In the Constitution there is the right to proscribe meetings which may have the effect to which I referred earlier. I cannot find the exact Article.
The fundamental rights of the individual.
Would the Minister consider giving a lecture on constitutional law to Deputy Carty?
The Minister should give a lecture on fundamental rights to Deputy Ryan. He was not so successful in one case he took against the State, a case in which he had tried to undermine the rights of people, at, of course, the expense of the State.
He was successful in his by-election anyhow, which is more important.
The Article to which I refer states that the Government shall proscribe any meeting or gathering of people which might be inclined to incite public opinion. I believe the LFM are engaged in work of that kind when they organise meetings in, for example, Galway, the capital of the Gaeltacht, or when they try to have one in Dingle, which is in the news right now, or, shall I say, in Ring.
These just came to the Parliamentary Secretary out of his head.
Out of my head.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary quote the Constitution out of his head?
Order.
I will get the Article for the Deputy. The Deputy opposed the Constitution. We did not.
The Parliamentary Secretary opposed the first one. Anything that was constitutional at that time was opposed by the Parliamentary Secretary.
There are some things, which may not be so bitterly contested by Fine Gael, to which I should like to refer now. I have noticed a great lack of uniformity on the part of the courts in imposing fines and sentences. In a district court in Tipperary, for example, a certain fine or penalty will be imposed in a certain case. In another district court, there will be an entirely different penalty for what looks like the same offence. That seems to be the pattern all over the country. Again, some district justices like to pontificate and to lecture the public, defendants and plaintiffs. That is not their business. A court should dispense justice and it should be a uniform type of justice. In one part of the country the fine for not having a light on one's bicycle may be 2/- or 5/-; in another part of the country it may be £1. Parking offences are treated in the same way. Has the Minister any power to ensure uniformity of penalties? People are rather perturbed over this. Some years ago I heard some Minister for Justice state that there would be consultations between justices of the district court under the Principal Justice in an effort to hammer out some kind of agreement, but that agreement has not been hammered out.
I know one particular part of my constituency in which extraordinary sentences have been meted out, the like of which is not found in any other area. As a result, when a defendant knows he is to come up before District Justice X, he will submit a doctor's certificate, if he can get one, and keep on postponing his case until this particular justice, who is noted for his attention to a certain type of offence, is out of the way, on holidays, golfing, or for some such reason, so that District Justice Y will hear the case. Justice Y's views are known and his judgments are not as harsh or severe as those of the ordinary occupant of the bench in that particular area.
Another matter to which I should like to refer is the granting of bail to prisoners. Most criminals are aware that no matter what the Garda say about the matter, if they have recourse to a superior court, the High Court or the Supreme Court, they secure freedom on bail until their offence is tried and, in the meantime, they are at liberty to continue——
Robbing and stealing.
This is something the Minister for Justice, if he can, should legislate for, because these crimes often continue unabated until the original offence comes before the justice.
The problem of juvenile delinquency has been mentioned in the course of the debate. Opinions are divided as to the cause of juvenile delinquency. Some of them are believed to be social; I think most of them are parental, and blatant exploitation by juveniles is practised in the country at present. They are allowed to go into off-licence shops to purchase drinks, to consume this liquor at parties, in clubs and in such places. I know, of course, that wonderful work in the field of rehabilitation of youth is being done and great credit is due to the organisers responsible for these clubs and this training; but if we want to stamp out juvenile delinquency, somebody will have to establish social centres for these young people so that they can meet, under proper supervision, and enjoy themselves.
I met a German social worker recently who was amazed to see so many youths in our big centres standing at corners and ganging up in cafes and so on. Now, while I express no great admiration for the Germans, I think he had a point. He said: "You must have juvenile delinquency in this country if you have no places for these young people to go, if there is no place for them to amuse themselves under proper supervision, because, if they are allowed to congregate in these places—gaming establishments, et cetera—you are bound to have trouble". They have the same situation in the United States of America, where serious criminal gangs are recruited from young people who congregate in places similar to those to which I refer.
The present-day teenager has come in for a lot of criticism, much of which, I think, is unfounded. I have seen a programme on television—I think it is "Teen Talk"—and it is noticeable that many of these young people are highly intelligent, very articulate, far more articulate than many of us here and better able to express their opinions, whether or not their opinions agree with ours. We should have some sympathy for these young people; somebody should see they are guided along the proper lines, should see to it that they have proper places for amusement, so that full use may be made of their undoubted talents. Of course, many of us get annoyed when we see their long hair, and I am one who might be naturally annoyed at that, and their fanciful dress, but these are only passing phases. Basically, the youth of today are just as good as any generation before them.
I think most Deputies will agree with me in what I am about to say now in relation to criticism of gardaí all too frequently in courts today, especially by some learned judges who should know better. I do not want to mention specifically any judge but there was a case recently——
Was it the Dunne's stores case?
Is it Deputy Seán Dunne the Deputy is talking about?
No—the Dunne's stores case.
I shall not refer to that but there was a case recently in which a very learned judge of our courts made very strong criticism of the conduct of a garda on duty. Attacks of this kind on members of the Garda by judges appal me. They should not be made, especially at the level at which this particular attack was made, and I feel sure that somebody somewhere should be in a position to tell him that he is doing no good for the Garda force and certainly not promoting the confidence of the people in this excellent Force.
The detection of crime and its prevention, where possible, are in many cases due to a good spirit, if it exists, between the local gardaí and the community they serve and, in particular, to the esteem and common sense which the local sergeant displays. Indeed, good crime detection, and prevention —which is more important than detection—are, in most cases, due to a good spirit between the people and the Garda, and especially to the character and ability of the local sergeant. If you have a good sergeant in a community, who establishes good relationships with the people of the community he serves, and with members of the Force, you will not have much crime in that area, but if you have a Garda sergeant, with gardaí serving under him, who is intent on getting cases and on getting his gardaí to fill their books with one charge after another, all calculated to irritate the local people, how can you expect that when serious crime breaks out, the people will co-operate with the Garda in detecting it?
There should be co-operation and willingness to assist in every way possible. This should be two-way traffic. The Garda should not lean on people for minor offences, and lean on them heavily as they oftentimes do, and the people themselves should always be eager and anxious to help the Garda who have a difficult job to do. There have been too many instances of failure by the public to assist the Garda in difficulties. I think that is due to a bad spirit engendered by the Garda by their conduct in some cases.
It is my belief that there are many young gardaí who come out fresh from Templemore, or wherever they are trained, and who are qualified only to learn like teachers, if I may say so, who come out of training colleges and who need a number of years before they get the feel of things, and get experience. In their first few years in the Garda, they should be helped and encouraged by older members, members who have learned the hard way, and who have learned how to bring out the best in the younger men. Apparently, too, there have been cases where officers of the Garda have not done what they should have done, with rather serious results. When cases of that kind crop up, it is the duty of the Minister to find out why things like that should have occurred, and prevent them from taking place again. I will not labour that point, because if I did I think people could be identified, and that I do not want to do.
I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister that he should have in his Department a public relations officer. Many other major Departments have public relations officers who aim at putting the view of the Department before the people, at explaining policy, and seeking co-operation. If that is essential in a Department like the Department of Labour, it is far more vital in a Department like the Department of Justice. Laws are passed and people are asked to do certain things. A public relations officer should tell the populace why a certain law is necessary, and why the people are expected to and should co-operate.
Earlier on I was asked by Deputy L'Estrange to quote the Article of the Constitution to which I referred. It is Article 40 which states:
Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public...
If LFM meetings do not fall into that category—especially ones that are held in centres such as Galway—I will say no more.
I had no intention of intervening in this debate but, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach stands up and endeavours to justify mob law by quoting from the Constitution an Article which gives the State the right to prohibit a meeting which is likely to cause a breach of the peace, it is time we asked ourselves where this State is going.
Article 40.
It gives the State the right to control meetings which may lead to a breach of the peace. What Deputy Dillon, Deputy M.J. O'Higgins and others condemned was the action of a number of private individuals organising themselves by force of their voice and disorderly presence to prevent an orderly meeting proceeding. This was an utterly deplorable incident and one that it would be better for the moral standards of this country to be forgotten. It was just as wrong for people to do this in the Mansion House or in Galway, as it would be for any group of West Britons to go to a meeting of Connradh na Gaeilge and behave in the same way. When you have members of the Government condemning one section of the community for behaving in that way, and encouraging others, you are doing untold damage to the moral fibre of the country.
I said the Government should prevent the holding of these meetings as they are likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
The Parliamentary Secretary's remarks were not to the effect that the Government should prevent the holding of these meetings. He did not say that at all.
Read what I said. You were not here.
He endeavoured to suggest that these private individuals have a right to prohibit these meetings.
I said the State has that right. I do not want to be misquoted. I quoted the Constitution.
The parliamentary Secretary made a speech at the beginning, perhaps out of his head but not out of the Constitution. He handed the Constitution to the Minister and asked him——
Not at all.
——to refer him to the Article in the Constitution which he could use to justify that disorderly behaviour.
The Deputy was not here at all. He does not know what he is talking about.
What happened that night was deplorable. I am not concerned with the views expressed either from the stage or the floor. I would condemn anyone who would go along to a meeting organised in an orderly manner and behave in that way. What Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Higgins did was to express their concern that the Garda Síochána, apparently acting under direction from a high authority, did not interfere.
They were not requested to.
The people who behaved in that disorderly manner from the floor of the house did untold damage to the Irish language. No one is more conscious of that than the Parliamentary Secretary. So long as the Irish language, and all that is decent in this country, are upheld by these people who behave in such a disorderly manner, they are doing untold harm to the cause they pretend to befriend.
That is not the only worrying thing about this debate, and that is not the only worrying remark from the Government side of the House. The Minister is the man who is supposed to balance the scales evenly. He started this debate, and in so doing indicated his attitude to the newspapers.
Am I off the hook? May I leave?
We will hang the Parliamentary Secretary again. I am now dealing with the Minister's remarks. The Minister criticised the newspapers for giving what he considered to be an undue amount of publicity to the incidence of crime.
Deputy Dunne and Deputy O'Leary from the Labour Party agreed with me.
The Minister then attacked the journalists and newspaper editors and proprietors. He said they did not give the same attention to arrests of individuals for the crimes which they had previously publicised, that they did not publicise the convictions to the same extent as they did the original crimes. The Minister has a right, and no matter how awkward it may be, a duty to respect the rights of individuals. The mere arrest of an individual does not amount to a conviction: the fact that some person is brought to a Garda station and charged with an offence is not a conviction of that person, is not a condemnation of that person, and it would be entirely wrong if the newspapers were to abuse their right in regard to any individual at that stage by giving the impression that he was guilty before he was convicted.
If the Minister for Justice and the Government want to change that basic principle of common justice, let them bring in legislation to do it and let us do what other countries have done, say that people are guilty until proved innocent. I do not believe the Irish people want it that way and I think journalists are to be praised rather than condemned for the manner in which they respect the rights of individuals. It is not infrequent to find individuals and families who are involved in some unfortunate incident being concerned about the embarrassment of publicity. I suppose that is one of the punishments for having done wrong but it is not a punishment which innocent people should be made to suffer. Yet the Minister condemns newspapers for not imposing such suffering on innocent people. If the Minister wants co-operation from the press, he should seek it without stabbing the newspapers in the back.
The Minister referred to undue sensationalism.
He spoke about unfair reporting of what happened.
That is totally untrue.
Deputy Ryan must be allowed to continue.
What I regard as nothing more than fair comment has been the subject of what I consider an uncalled for attack by the Minister. It was not the first time the Minister attacked the newspapers.
He did not attack them.
On another occasion the Minister was being censured in the House by one of his political supporters, Deputy Vivion de Valera, who condemned the Minister because of his inactivity in relation to the frequency of stabbings and the use of flick knives and other such dangerous instruments. The Minister said the situation was not as bad as Deputy de Valera suggested it was and the newspapers were again blamed by him. He condemned them for giving publicity to the outrages of these individuals. On that occasion we in the Fine Gael benches defended the right of newspapers to give publicity to these things. We said the newspapers were doing no more than discharging a duty, doing a great public service in bringing attention to these incidents. Now, because of the proper publicity given by the newspapers to such incidents, we have a Minister for Justice convinced of the need to bring in legislation to deal more effectively with this appalling problem in our midst.
It is fair to suggest that if the Minister had not been embarrassed into introducing this legislation by the action of the newspapers, the protection such legislation will afford would not be provided. It is something the Minister ought to think about in relation to the question of publicity, because the prosecution case is heard before the defence. Our evening newspapers, which carry a far greater proportion of crime coverage than the dailies, are obliged, because they are running against time, to give greater publicity to the prosecution side than to the defence. The newspapers are not to be blamed for this. The only way they could ensure against it would be to give the defence the following day, but stale news is no news. The newspapers are bound by the dictates of time and accordingly the prosecution in our criminal courts in Dublin gets far greater coverage than the defence. The Minister may find that a particular crime is better headlined than another but, taking one thing with another, the prosecution get much better reportage than the defence.
That is in the nature of things, just as Members of the House know that Deputies who speak in the early part of the day tend to get better coverage in the newspapers than those who speak in the closing hours. This will happen as long as our newspapers are fresh with news and we all prefer that to having newspapers report events days or weeks afterwards.
I share the concern of other Deputies in regard to the prison service, the personnel in that service. For years the Government remained deaf to pleas in the House and elsewhere about the growing discontent in the Garda Síochána, about the bad wage structure, bad conditions of service, and it was only when matters reached crisis level, when we were about to have a national strike and the Minister was thereby embarrassed, that the day was saved by a high ecclesiastical authority and justice was done to the Garda Síochána at a belated hour. There is a danger that we may reach the same crisis level in the prison service unless something is done in the near future to improve the wage rates and conditions of service and the status generally of officers in the prison service.
Theirs is perhaps one of the least pleasant of occupations. I venture to say there are few tasks in the public service more unpleasant than the task of a person whose duties are carried out within prison walls. We condemn people to prison as punishment for offences committed by them, and to condemn free people to work in a prison in order to earn a living is to impose on those free people the least pleasant of tasks. I believe, therefore, prison officers should be compensated and I ask the Minister to ensure that before things go too far, the conditions of service of prison personnel be vastly improved.
Most of those men are people of great ability, of great tact and integrity, and if we are to maintain the high standard in our prison service the men must be paid in accordance with the high standards we demand of them. Other countries which neglected properly to pay their prison personnel paid the price in indiscipline, in escapes and in other unfortunate developments. I do not think the personnel in our prisons are likely to err in the same way as those in other countries but we should not ask them any longer to suffer the conditions in which they are now living. I again earnestly urge the Minister to deal with this problem immediately.
I had no intention of contributing to the debate, were it not for the outrageous performances of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. These performances should not be allowed to go without condemnation because to my mind, they are indicative of a very dangerous trend on the part of the Minister and the Government. The Minister referred recently to the question of publicity for the use of flick knives and for people on unofficial strikes. He treated both groups as being deserving of the same condemnation.
Go back and read what I said.
It indicates that the Minister for Justice and the Government, in grouping these two type of people, are not holding the scales in balance.
I suppose it is indicative of modern conditions that practically every Member speaking on this Estimate stressed the crime aspect and I suppose every Member, speaking from experience, is worried about this matter. The Minister has carved out a niche for himself by reason of the fact that he piloted through this House the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Bill. Many years ago associations were formed for the purpose of giving the people the right to buy their ground rent from the landlord. Many of the landlords were of the absentee variety. In this city, and elsewhere, the landlord was like a feudal king wielding tremendous powers over the people. I want to congratulate the Minister particularly on piloting this particular Bill through the House. He has certainly carved out a niche for himself in history. One person said to me that if this Party did nothing but introduce this Bill it has certainly more than justified its existence.
I notice the Minister is considering amending the law in relation to malicious injuries. This is such a complicated matter that it will take tremendous examination before the Minister can bring in an equitable scheme whereby innocent people will not have to pay for acts of vandalism perpetrated by thugs and blackguards. I suggest to the Minister that in framing legislation to cover this matter, an effort should be made to require insurance companies to pay their contribution. It is well known that should some vandal or drunk smash a plate-glass window the insurance company will not pay if there is any possible way of getting out of it. The amount of the damages will be levied on the rates of the particular city or town. We all agree that some persons, such as widows or elderly persons, cannot afford to pay insurance and there should be some protection for them against vandalism in the form of a claim on the local authority. It would be a good thing to put some such scheme into operation. At the same time, this whole matter will have to be examined very carefully in order to provide a really equitable system.
I join with Deputy de Valera and other speakers who spoke on the prison warden service. Indeed, it often seems strange to me that we get any good out of that service at all. The picture of a warden with a turnkey going around has run its course and in this modern day we need men of great ability to do this job. They must be very dedicated men to take up this particular type of work. I feel the Minister is with us here in asking that those men and women be given the highest possible remuneration and the best possible conditions. We must face the fact that if we do not provide such conditions we will not have such a service in a very short time.
The Garda play an important role in the life of the nation. Everyone pays tribute to them and sometimes complain about them but overall the people appreciate the tremendous job of work they are doing. At the same time, it has often been said, particularly about people in the city here, that when a garda is attacked the people will not go to his protection. If a garda is attacked by some thug, the people just stand around. This is true to a certain extent. At the same time, in any row in any city or town, you might not physically be able to interfere. You might do more harm than good by doing so. The fact is that most citizens do not want to get mixed up in this type of thing. They do not realise they have a duty to perform.
I believe the vast majority of people would interfere in such cases if they knew the most effective way to do so. Very often the most effective way to interfere is to run to the nearest kiosk and summon extra gardaí. If a person has to testify in court in such a case, he may lose a day's work and the compensation paid by the State is not all that generous. Therefore, by carrying out his duty the man is penalised. This is a matter which the Minister could examine. Many of our people cannot afford to lose a day's pay when they are witnesses in such cases.
The ban-gharda, in my opinion, are not used for the purpose for which they were set up. Dublin Corporation were one of the main bodies who agitated for years to have this force established. They were in a position to know the conditions in the city where women were needed. I worked for many years down at the docks. I recall one instance in which some dockers prevented a young girl from committing suicide. They rang for the gardaí. The gardaí very quickly sent down four very big men. They were kind men but there was a terrified look on that girl's face when she saw herself surrounded by four very big police officers. At the time I wrote and suggested that women gardaí should have been used. The Minister said that he would look into this matter.
I cannot see why ban-ghardaí are not employed solely in cases where women and children are concerned. You often see them looking at motor cars and telling people to move on. They were not established for that purpose. I hate to admit that there exists in this city a very great social problem with which a certain amount of vice is associated. At our docks, the same as in other cities, young girls are taken on some of the foreign ships. Some of them are forced on board by thugs. The gardaí have tried to stop this. On a number of occasions conditions were so bad that the Dublin dockers refused to work on a ship because so many girls were on board. They were all cleared off by the police. There are people in this city who are making money from such vice.
I am aware of the tremendous amount of work done by the gardaí in the dock area but more could be done. I urge the Minister to increase the number of ban-ghardaí. They can deal with this most important social work. As I said before, the ban-ghardaí deal with traffic offences and they should not be doing this work. They are more social officers than law officers. We must press to have the force extended and put them on more of this type of work.
The Minister is being accused, wrongly, I think, of berating the newspapers for sensationalism. I suppose the people running newspapers are very anxious to get news. I deplore the action taken by newspapers in regard to some occurrences. I recall one particular case in the city which got tremendous headlines when the people were first accused. They were brought to the first hearing and then the case suddenly disappeared from the newspapers. I am not saying that my morbid curiosity was aroused by this, but the fact is when this case was dropped, there were all sorts of rumours. One of the people involved in this case was a man known in public life who was duly named. I consider the papers did a great wrong in, first of all, publicising the matter and then dropping it. Today most people are against the Establishment, in whatever sphere they are in. The case I mentioned was dropped, even though the people involved were named in the first instance, but the public soon forget that. I would not say that the newspapers are sensational; certainly they are much less sensational than the cross-Channel papers and that is something to be thankful for.
The Minister is also responsible for the censorship of films and literature but today the censorship of films is rather out-dated because a person may switch on his television set and see any film without censorship and this is something we must examine. The cinema is losing its role as a cheap form of entertainment and it may be that censorship is not so necessary now. The Minister could, however, extend the grading system. Let adults see whatever pictures they want to see, but for heaven's sake, protect the younger people from soul-destroying propaganda. I should like to pay tribute to the members of the Board who censor books. They must have a frightful task reading all the bilge that is published, especially across the Channel. The Board is often attacked by the lunatic fringe who shout against the censorship laws. I do not know why they do that. It is only a section who do it and they generally pretend to be the avant garde of every agitation. The more senseless the agitation the more these people back it up. I should like to see some new method being brought in in regard to extending the censorship of books, not necessarily to ban them. The position is ridiculous because somebody at the customs may see a book that has been banned and confiscate it. While under the law he has the right to do that, it does not seem sensible that a person who has not been appointed a censor can undertake to censor a book and prohibit its being brought into the country.
The fact that the Minister has to deal with no fewer than six Votes points to the magnitude of his task. Each of the six Votes is very important. A number of speakers have referred to the time involved for garda in chasing motorists for parking infringements. We must admit that that is true and I suggest that the Minister should imitate Dublin Corporation and bring in a system of traffic wardens. I was one of those who proposed the scheme of traffic wardens for children going to and coming from school. We introduced this scheme because a number of children had been killed or injured near schools and the garda refused to patrol these areas for us. While the system is costing the people money, nobody begrudges it because since the system was introduced, no children have been killed or injured in places where a warden was on duty. In other cities, they have traffic wardens who are not policemen and whose job it is to deal with parking offences. This releases the police for their primary work, prevention and detection of crime. It has been proved that the more affluent society becomes, the more lawbreaking it becomes also. There are countries in which people have everything they want from a material point of view but in which there is a frightful crime rate. At home the young people who are apprehended for crimes come not only from the poorer types of homes but from all classes. I urge the Minister to consider introducing this traffic warden system because the great thing about it would be that the Garda would then be able to devote their time to preventing and detecting crime.
There are a number of items in the Minister's Estimate which could perhaps be dealt with by other Departments and some day we may get down to the task of examining which of these could be so dealt with. This would leave the Minister more time for more serious work. I welcome the Minister's announcement that he proposes to bring in legislation to ban the sale of offensive weapons. This is very necessary but simply banning them will not settle the matter. The cure is to be found in the homes and in the schools, and that is why I suggest that there are some aspects of the Minister's work which could be done by other Department, as, in this instance, the Department of Education. They could bring home to the young people that not alone is it illegal to carry a knife or other offensive weapon but that good citizens do not do that kind of thing. If we could get this across, we would have less crime and better citizens.
I am glad that the Minister mentioned the high crime detection rates and we can congratulate the Garda in this regard. It is easy to criticise the Garda and to say that they did not catch everybody but how many people go free because people refuse to co-operate with the police? Very often people do not co-operate with the Garda because of our history and because years ago to be an informer was looked upon by decent people as being what it was. However, we have had partial freedom for over 40 years and in their own interests people will have to re-examine their attitude. It must be brought home to the people that not to co-operate with the police —say, in the case of a criminal who has beaten up a watchman and who is going scot-free—is more despicable than to inform and do their duty.
We frequently hear references to teenagers but they are probably no better and no worse than we were when we were teenagers. The ridiculous dress of some years ago was just as bad as it is today. It is no offence to dress in this way but some people condemn these young people because they adopt this modern dress. I was speaking to a young fellow with a beard and who dressed in this fashion and he said he did so as a protest. He did not know what he was protesting against but it was against society. As I said before, most people feel that it is the modern thing to be against the Establishment and we must ask ourselves why people feel that way. Perhaps some day somebody will get down to the task of examining why good citizens will not help a garda in distress or give information leading to the arrest of wrongdoers. This happens not alone in Ireland but in other countries but perhaps, being a small country, we feel it more. If one does not know the garda on duty one probably knows somebody related to him.
Some years ago a coloured student was attacked in the streets and badly beaten up. I occupied another position at that time and the students brought the matter to my notice. They said this happened because of the man's country of origin. I told them that was not so, that these thugs would have beaten up any man no matter what his colour. They accepted that but could not understand why, as one man lay on the ground and as the thugs kicked and injured him, nobody interfered. They said that would not happen in another country. It would happen in other countries. We have always been very careful to protect minorities, and if we see one of the minority being kicked almost to death with nobody intervening there is some deep reason for this. I do not altogether accept that the explanation lies in our history. We must instil respect for the law and the idea that if somebody breaks the law, he should be punished and made pay for it. Very often people who are sentenced come and tell you afterwards that they are not guilty or that their families will starve if they are sent to prison. I admit that I have approached the Minister on behalf of some such people. This is something I do not like doing but I must say in fairness to the Minister that he has always examined these cases carefully and where he has refused to intervene I respect him for his attitude.
As another speaker said, we must not make our prisons rest homes. If a man does wrong, he must be punished. People say that there is no deterrent but I believe that the possibility of being caught prevents people from doing many things. We must show that the law is impartial and that it is very powerful and that if a person commits a crime he will almost certainly be caught. Yesterday, a justice sentencing two boys for a crime said to them: "Do you know you could have been hanged for this at one time?" That was a deplorable remark. I do not know what power the Minister has over the judiciary but a reminder to some of them of the importance of maintaining respect for the courts might be useful. Perhaps this man had spent a long day on the bench dealing with wrongdoers and was fed up, but the remark was certainly regrettable. It does not give people the confidence in the courts that they should have. We have a long way to go before we can build up general respect for the law. This type of utterance only holds us back.
Before concluding, I wish to say that I know the Minister has been doing certain work for juveniles sent to St. Patrick's. Very often in the country one hears people say their son is there for a very minor misdemeanour but he is associated with people much more depraved. While I have every confidence in the administration, I wish it were possible to improve on the position. I suppose it is very hard to prevent the association of different types of prisoners. Possibly we shall never get round to it but I should like to see Mountjoy, with all its frightful memories, cleared away. The appearance of the place is depressing from the outside. From the point of view of modern treatment of prisoners, it would be better if we got rid of that place and had a building which would be a place of punishment but would not be so degrading. In the meantime we must try to bring it home to both law-abiding citizens and others that Mountjoy and our other prisons are institutions supported by our society that must be maintained so long as there are wrongdoers among us. If everyone had proper respect for the law we would have fewer people in prison and a much happier society.
I shall be very brief. Instead of making a speech I want to appeal to the Minister in respect of something that affects my constituency and, indeed, other parts of the country. I am sorry that the Minister for Transport and Power is not present also. I appeal to the Minister for Justice to take the Garda Síochána off the duty of interrogating drivers of lorries concerned in the transport of livestock. I see no reason why people earning an honest living and doing a good job for the country should be subjected to so much interrogation. Whether the gardaí are deputed for this work by the Minister or by somebody else we find them at certain points with notebooks and pencils questioning lorry drivers. At times one would think they represented the Gestapo and not the Minister for Justice. They question the drivers as if they were criminals. I hold there is no justification for this in respect of people who are engaged in the haulage business and especially in the haulage of livestock.
Private Deputies' Time.
I appeal to the Minister to use his good offices in putting these people to something useful.
Would the Deputy allow Private Deputies' Time to proceed?
I am very sore on this point.
I cannot override the standing Orders of the House.
The Deputy can continue afterwards.
I would wish the Minister to look into this. The Minister comes from a rural area like myself.
I must ask the Deputy to give way, please.
I am very sore on this point. It is very seldom I stand up in this House——
I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed any further.
That is all right; I have made my point. I hope the Minister will look into it.
I will, indeed. I can assure Deputy Sheridan it will be looked into.
Would the Deputy resume his seat?
I am really sincere about this. This is something for the benefit of agriculture.
The Deputy will please resume his seat.
Of course I will resume my seat.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.