Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Oct 1967

Vol. 230 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 20 — Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £278,600 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice, and of certain other Services administered by that Office, including a Grant-in-Aid; and of the Public Record Office, and of the Keeper of State Papers and for the purchase of Historical Documents, etc.

—(Minister for Justice).

Mr. Barrett

I was rather disappointed when the Minister introduced his Estimate in July last that he did not seem to appreciate the urgency of implementing as soon as possible the report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure dealing with the jury system. The Minister told us on 5th of July last that he had three reports on the jury system before him and he used terms which to the ordinary person, have a rather sinister meaning. He said that he had at present these reports under consideration and he went on to say: "I shall in due course be introducing legislative proposals to deal with all these matters." When you are dealing with a Department of State and they tell you they have something under consideration and that something is going to be done in due course, you have a fair suspicion that there is going to be a long delay before the thing which is to be done in due course will be done.

There is an urgency about this matter which I think does not entirely escape the Minister. He will recall that one of the reports of the Committee advocated the extension of the classes from which juries are drawn. It is a fact that more citizens are exempt from jury service than are liable for it and this has resulted in dreadful hardship on those who are liable for jury service. In Cork in the last year, almost 600 jurors were summoned from a small area immediately surrounding the city and they were held at the Cork Courthouse — despite every effort of the presiding judge to facilitate them in every way — over a long period. These people were largely drawn from shopkeepers, farmers, self-employed people and people who would lose a day's pay if they were away from work, but they did not include categories which the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure suggest should be brought within the ambit of jury service, namely, civil servants and local government employees. The fact that a man who is self-employed may be called for jury service over a long period could be a very crippling blow to him. I know of men who were called for jury service and had to appear at the courthouse each morning and suffered grave financial hardship as a result. This could not be said about the civil servant or local government officer who no doubt would be left off in his employer's time and who would be able to relieve from jury service those sections and categories to which I have referred.

The hardships involved for jurors could be ameliorated if the suggestions of the Committee that they should be given reasonable remuneration for the time they spent on jury service were adopted. The figure of £2 was suggested in one of the reports. The unfortunate situation of the juryman who is summoned at the moment to serve on a criminal jury is that no matter how long he may serve, he gets not one brass farthing for giving his services to his fellow citizens. The position of the man who is called for a civil jury is not much better. No matter how long he may sit, at the end of the case the jury are given in silver 60 shillings to distribute between the 12 of them, that is, 5/- a man. In one civil case in Dublin not so long ago, which lasted for 21 days, the jurors were remunerated for their 21 days by getting 5/-each. These are grave and immediate problems and the fact that nothing has been done in regard to them over the years does not mean that the Minister should tarry over them.

I trust that he may be able to explain his reference to having at present under consideration the contents of the reports of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure and that he may be able to tell us what "in due course" means in regard to the introduction of legislation. The Minister will understand that anything I say is not capricious or anything like that. It is a matter of serious import to a considerable section of the community and I am sure they would like to know the Minister's mind on this matter.

Whilst on court problems, there is another matter which I should like to draw to the Minister's attention and which does not appear to have commanded the attention either of the Minister or any of his predecessors in any Government. I refer to the growing practice of manufacturers to give with their goods an alleged warranty or guarantee which almost completely nullifies the sections of the Sale of Goods Act which were enacted many years ago to give assistance to the purchaser of goods which were not of a merchantable quality or not fit for the purpose for which they were purchased. As the Minister knows, the old common law was caveat emptor, let the purchaser beware. The Sale of Goods Act nullified that in many ways. Now when people buy something which is the output of a highly technical process, such as a motor car, an electric iron, a television set, a washing machine, or one of the many expensive things that people bring into their houses nowadays—some of those people, indeed, not being in a position to afford bringing them in but nevertheless they bring them in — they are given a most impressive document which indicates that they will be given certain things if the machine does not work; if they return parts at their own expense, they will be given new parts, but they have to put them in at their own expense. What a man does by accepting that is that he does away with the Sale of Goods Act rights.

It is difficult for a person who buys one of the articles I refer to, to know, without technical knowledge, whether the thing is fitted for the purpose for which it is purchased or if it is of merchantable quality. Indeed, I understate it when I say it is difficult; it is well-nigh impossible. These goods are produced by firms with much expertise and technical knowledge at their disposal. It would be equitable, right and fair — it certainly would be highly popular and very welcome — if some legislation were introduced to nullify in turn the alleged warranties and guarantees given by the manufacturers or the sellers of these goods when they hand them on to the unfortunate purchaser. It is a thought I would like the Minister to keep in mind.

I have for some time been questioning the Minister here on a local matter regarding pound fees in Cork city. The matter has a serious local import at the moment inasmuch as the people of the constituency I represent, Cork city, particularly in the north central section of it, suffer greatly from the depredations of wandering horses allowed to roam at will day and night by itinerants One young man has already been killed without any hope for his relatives of recovering any damages from the owners of the horse; first, because it is hard to know who was the owner and secondly, even if you did, you would find he was not a man of substance. In addition, gardens are destroyed and children menaced by these wandering horses. At the moment the situation is that, apart from any action taken by way of summons by the local authority or the gardaí, the horse is taken and put into the local pound. By the simple expedient of going up the next morning and offering 6/- the itinerant can recover his horse.

I have suggested to the Minister on a number of occasions that he might consider increasing that pound fee to, say, £2 in the hope that it would discourage the itinerant class from allowing their horses to wander in this way and doing damage not alone to personal property but to life and limb in the manner in which they have done on previous occasions. In reply to a question of mine, the Minister did undertake to consult with the interests concerned. I think that in the press of official business, he must have overlooked doing this. I asked the City Manager at the Corporation last week if the Minister had yet consulted with him and I was told he has not done so. I agree this is purely a local parish pump matter, but it is an important matter to a large section of the community in Cork city to the extent of maybe 12,000 persons, young and old. It is a matter of growing urgency because tempers are rising among those who suffer from the depredations of these horses.

While on the Garda Vote, I am sorry the Minister could not afford the sum of about £5,000 requested of him by some of the Garda pensioners in respect of their pensions. I understand his predecessor informed the Garda pensioners —the Minister will find the reference in an editorial in the Garda Review in either this or last month — that the State at the moment could not afford £5,000 to meet the rather reasonable requests of the pensioners.

There is another matter I want to deal with which I meant to deal with when the Minister's previous Estimate was before the House, but owing to circumstances outside my control, I had to leave the House. I was requested to do so by you, Sir, before I could participate in the debate. The Minister had stated he had under consideration the setting up of eight new district probate registries in this State. I want to say to him: "I do not think it is worth while; I do not think the expense involved will give the value that it should give." Due to the circumstances I mentioned, I could not deal with it then; and what I say now may lead to recrimination. It arose out of the remark made by the Minister introducing his Estimate in which he said that the setting up of these new registries would provide a convenient local service throughout the country for persons wishing to take out grants of representation in respect of the estates of deceased persons.

I do not know how much convenience will be effected by the setting up of these new district probate registries. I do know that the Minister at some stage estimated it would cost about £6,500 per annum to keep these registries going. I do not know whether that includes the allowances made to the county registrars in the areas concerned. I know that the six county registrars who at the moment act as district probate registrars get between them over £750 a year. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the extra eight will cost about £1,000 a year, but whether that is included in the £6,500 to which the Minister referred, I do not know.

The new district probate registries were established in Clonmel, Donegal, Dundalk, Galway, Mullingar, Sligo, Tralee and Wexford. They were added to those already existing in Castlebar, Cavan, Cork, Kilkenny, Limerick and Waterford and, of course, the principal probate registry in Dublin. Is the expenditure in question worth the money? If it did provide what the Minister says —a more convenient local service — I would welcome its introduction into the House. There are two sections of the community involved in this. There is the person who wants personally to take out a grant of representation to a deceased. Then there is the solicitor who on behalf of his client wants to take out a grant of representation. Let us take the case of the person who wants to take out the grant himself. A few years ago, up to the passing of the Succession Act, in the case of small estates up to £500 or £600, he could go to the local customs and excise officer in the area and he could do the work for him. This was a very easy way in which a person taking out a personal grant of a small estate could get the work done. This was taken away by the Succession Act.

In regard to the Minister's proposal, which came into force on 1st January last, to introduce eight new district probate registries, it does not assist much in the case of the person who wishes to take out a grant to a small estate and who wants to take out a personal grant. Take the person in Castle-townbere in Cork. Up to the passing of the Succession Act, he could go to the nearest town, Bantry, to the local customs officer and get his work done. Under the new provision he has to go up to the district probate registry in Cork. Take his counterpart in Kerry, somewhere down in the Dingle peninsula. Instead of going to the local customs officer as in the past, that person would now have to come as far as Tralee to the local district registry if he wanted to do the work himself. I do not see how the Minister can possibly suggest that it is a more convenient means of obtaining grants of representation than what previously existed.

Take even the case of solicitors. The only people who will possibly find their business made easier in this respect are the practitioners in the towns in which the new registries have been set up. Take the case of the practitioners in Kerry. Up to now they were served by district probate registries in Cork and Limerick. They posted their business to these places and got their business back in due time. What happens now is that the local practitioner in Kerry, outside Tralee, has to post his business to Tralee instead of Cork and Limerick, which costs him the same postage, and therefore there is no advantage whatsoever unless he is going to drive from the town in which he practises into Tralee to carry out his business. The provisions to which the Minister referred have not in any way produced a system which is as cheap or as expeditious as the system, especially in respect of small grants, which existed in the past.

I do not intend to keep the House much longer except to point out one little thing, that since the free and convenient service given by the custom and excise officers is gone, now when a person applies to a district registry, the State charges fees over and above the probate fees they would have to pay if they employed a solicitor. I understand the fees paid to the State are much higher than if they employed a solicitor. The value of the service given by the customs and excise officers, whose function in this matter was abolished by the Minister and replaced evidently by this £6,500 scheme, is shown by some of the statistics for 1965. The year 1965 shows that only 64 personal applications for grants of representation were made, and that the services of the customs and excise officers were availed of on 88 occasions. As regards the person who makes a personal application for a grant, the statistics to which the Minister had access prior to introducing the system do not show that there was any need, much less an immediate need, for the provisions which he has now made.

Over the three years prior to 1965, there was no personal application for a grant made in Kerry. The Minister may say: "Yes, but now that the new local residence has been set up, they will always be dashing in to get their personal grant." I do not think this will be so, because the person who wishes to make a personal application will still have to travel to Tralee from the borders of Kerry, wherever he may exist, instead of, as in the past, getting, free, gratis and for nothing, the assistance of the customs and excise officer. In Sligo-Leitrim the system was always the same; there was one application in the three years prior to 1965.

Therefore, I think the Minister was quite wrong when he tried to suggest to the House — and I am sorry I have to say this after rather than before he brought this scheme into operation —that this was a more convenient system. It may be a convenient system but it is certainly not more convenient than the system that was available to practitioners and to other persons. It is neither more convenient nor as cheap as the system operated before 1965 when the Minister's Department started messing around with the provisions relating to the taking out of grants. In fact it has been, in many cases, made more difficult and more expensive.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I just want to deal with a few points arising out of this Estimate. The first concerns a comparatively small section of the members of the Garda Síochána. By and large, we are all proud of the police force of this country, the Garda Síochána. All down the years, they have given good service and discharged their duties as policemen impartially and with great satisfaction. I think it no harm to put on record again that that is probably due to the men who founded the Force and the tradition built up by them and handed on down the years to the younger men.

The point I want to deal with here concerns the pension rights of a small section of the Force. In 1925, the first pension order came in and that simply provided that a member of the Force on retirement, having served the required number of years, qualified for a pension of two-thirds of his salary at the date of retirement. That, as far as I know, was the position up to 1951. Then in 1951 a new order came in and under that order members of the Force were given certain options. They could adhere to the old system or the old pension rights of two-thirds of salary on retirement or could opt to take half of their pension on retirement and a gratuity up to one and a half years pay at the date of retirement. This order also entitled the widow of a serving member of the Force to one years salary which her husband was receiving at the date of his death.

The members of the Force within certain categories — I think, those of the rank of superintendent who had not attained the age of 60 years, those of the rank of chief superintendent who had not attained the age of 63, and those above that rank who had not attained the age of 65 — were given six months in which to opt for the new system of pension. A great many of those opted for the new system and are very glad they did so. In 1951, the members of the Garda Síochána were receiving much smaller salaries than they are now receiving. The Force was much less attractive to members of the Force when compared with other comparable occupations. The result was that some members of the Force in 1951 decided: "We will stay on until we are 50 years of age and retire then." as they could do under the old system; when they had served 30 years in the Force and reached the age of 50, they were entitled to go out under two-thirds, and they were then comparatively young.

A number of members of the Force decided they would not opt for the new pension scheme, that they would continue on until 50 and go out on a pension of two-thirds of their salary, and that they then would be quite able to take on other employment for the rest of their working lives. However, as I say, the position has changed, and the Garda Síochána are now receiving considerably higher salaries than they were receiving at that time. The result is that those who did not opt within the six months provided now find that they made a mistake, that it would have been much more in their interest to have opted for the new scheme. Most of these men are now in the older age group. Many of them came into the Force when it was badly paid and gave service when it was more difficult and perhaps more dangerous to serve than at present. I urge that these men should be given a chance to have second thoughts about the scheme and should be given a further period of three to six months, or a short time from now on, to change their minds and opt for the new scheme, which would mean that, when going out, they could have a pension of half their salary and a gratuity of up to one-and-a-half years salary and — perhaps more important— if they die in service their widows qualify for a year's salary.

I understand there is not much involved. In 1965, I understand there were only five superintendents, seven inspectors, eight sergeants and 160 gardaí involved. It is reasonable to assume that the number has decreased or been reduced since then. I do not know how much money is involved but I think it is not much. The numbers are small. This is an appeal on behalf of a category of State servants, an unarmed police force, who certainly deserve well of the State. Circumstances have changed considerably since the period within which they were entitled to opt expired. These men could not have been expected to foresee the change in conditions and therefore I appeal on their behalf.

The second matter I wish to raise also relates to the Garda Síochána. I sincerely hope the Minister will not have the bad taste of his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, and accuse me of cashing in on something when I refer to the tragedies of the last week or so on the Naas Road. It is a matter that has caused great concern throughout the country. National newspapers have taken it up and everybody who listened to the radio for the past week or ten days has been struck by the appalling death rate on this stretch of road. I know the Minister for Justice is not concerned with the construction of the Naas Road or with making the road traffic regulations but he is responsible for the enforcement of these regulations and the control of traffic. It is now abundantly clear that this stretch of road provides facilities for extraordinary speed, for very fast driving, but that when the road was being constructed, no adequate safeguards by way of entries or exits were provided. It is as simple as that. We have provided the means to travel at excessive rates of speed and we have not taken the ordinary elementary precautions for safety on an autobahn of this kind.

The Minister for Local Government has said that he is having inquiries made at the moment and that he will consider the results. I am sure he will implement them. The matter is extremely urgent. We see how urgent it is when we realise that the week before last two people were killed on this road and in a matter of days, the country was shocked to hear that a further four people were killed there. It is a matter which calls, therefore, for urgent attention and which should be dealt with as an emergency. It was suggested to the Minister for Local Government today that an immediate speed limit should be imposed. That is not within the sphere of the Minister for Justice, but I suggest to him that until such time as permanent remedies in the form of proper entries and exits are provided to this road, a special Garda patrol should be provided which could assist people who must enter or leave this road. The consequences of the inadequacy of the safety provisions on this road are so far-reaching and appalling as to justify the request I make that extra gardaí be provided at these points at times when traffic is heavy and I realise that is practically all day. Desperate diseases require desperate remedies and the consequences, God knows, have been dreadful enough to call for anything that will prevent a repetition in future.

Finally, I want to say a word about the hearing of jury actions in the High Court where litigants and their advisers from remote parts of the country, or parts of the country at a considerable distance from Dublin, are concerned. As is known, we have no system of legal aid on the civil side of the courts and that means that many litigants who can ill afford it must travel long distances to Dublin to have their cases heard. They must arrange for their expert witnesses, medical men, engineers and others, to come to Dublin and it often happens that they travel to Dublin on a Monday — their case is listed and they must be there — but the case is not heard and they may have to go home, if it is not too far, and travel back on Tuesday. Their case may not be heard until Wednesday. That is not an extravagant statement but one that can be borne out by experience.

On the other hand, we realise that many cases are settled on the morning of the hearing and for that reason, it is necessary, if the courts are not to be idle, to list more cases than are certain to be heard; but, at the present time, cases are listed for hearing in the numerical order in which they are set down for hearing and no regard is had to the distance which people have to travel. We will say there are four courts available and perhaps six or eight cases are listed. It is then problematical whether the last two or four cases, as the case may be, will be heard. They can only be heard if they are settled. If there are four courts, four cases are certain to be heard. If there are six cases listed it should be possible to try to arrange that the fifth and sixth cases would be cases where the plaintiff came from within a reasonable distance of Dublin city or, if there were cases in the list in Dublin city where the doctors and experts are on tap and where it would be necessary only for the plaintiff and one or two witnesses to come in in the morning, those cases could be listed and they could take their chance instead of, perhaps, taking the cases in strict listing order and listing fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth, a case perhaps from Cavan or Wexford or Donegal or any other part of the country a long distance from Dublin which would involve persons coming up on the chance of being heard and not being heard.

If that suggestion were adopted, it might mean a little bit more trouble but it is a service that the citizens and the taxpayers are entitled to, especially when we have not got free legal aid on that side of the court. It probably could be arranged by looking at the pleadings to see where the plaintiff comes from. I can justify my suggestion that regard should primarily be had to the residence of the plaintiff. First of all, defendants are usually financed by insurance companies and their expenses are sure to be paid. Secondly, it is not essential that the defence be in court at 11 o'clock on the morning on which the case opens because if the plaintiff is there ready to go on it is almost certain that he will take the first day and the defence has an opportunity of looking around and seeing where it stands and it certainly will not be necessary for the defence to have all its witnesses there on the first day.

This is something that would greatly convenience citizens and it is something that would probably increase respect for our courts and for the administration of justice. People get very annoyed and frustrated when they come up and have to hang around for a couple of days until the case is heard.

These are all the points I want to make on this Estimate and I strongly suggest that all three of them should be attended to by the Minister.

Major de Valera

This Estimate is concerned with a number of details that interest Deputies but right through there has been the question of policing the highways and the problems of road traffic. Since the matter was split up between local government and the Department of Justice it is difficult to deal with this problem as a whole and inevitably one must make remarks touching on aspects for which this Minister has no responsibility. It is only natural that on this Estimate, as was done by Deputy Fitzpatrick, the tragedies on the one strip of motorway which we have in this country, the Naas strip, should come for notice.

My own personal view is that this is not so much a matter of policing as a matter of construction, that it is more a question for the Minister for Local Government than for the Minister for Justice, but it so happens that it is the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Justice that is before us now and the matter comes up in his bailiewick before we can deal with it with the Minister for Local Government.

There is one question, however, which I should like to ask before we come to the question of policing and it concerns both Departments because we are dealing with a matter of fact. It used to seem to some people before our Naas stretch was constructed that there was a rather higher incidence of road fatalities in the North of Ireland than we had in the South. I remember when this was first remarked to me that it seemed to be in the area where the speedway was first erected in the North. I would ask the Minister, as a matter of fact-finding first, to see if there is any correlation between the building of these big stretches of road and the increase in fatalities. What I have said is based more on a hunch or a memory of the day to day reporting of casualties. I should like to know whether a proper study in this country as in England would reveal anything of that nature.

I do know that in England there has been trouble on the big speedways and there has been talk about restrictive speed limits. As I say, in the North there was a period when, on a superficial day to day reckoning — it may not be true in fact if one looked at it in detail, so I am merely submitting it as an impression ready for correction — it did seem that when the roads were straightened out and greater speed was allowed for and attained, the number of fatal casualties increased. Is this a phenomenon of which we are getting a touch?

This question of speed as the cause is something that must vitally affect both the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Local Government. I will confess that in former days I would have been inclined to think that speed in itself was not the important thing in motor accidents.

Mr. James Tully

That is because you are getting old.

Major de Valera

It may be, but speeds have greatly increased and as speeds increase for motor vehicles, two things happen. The possibility of avoiding an impending accident becomes very much less as speed increases and, secondly, the damage done in the impact of an accident is likely to be very much greater. This is a vitally important question from the point of view of speed on the roads. There is a great deal of talk about drink and the drunken driver. There is no doubt that the drunken driver or the driver influenced by drink is a menace but what is the important cause in a case like this? It is significant, to me at any rate, that although there is plenty of evidence of the contribution of the person who is rendered incapable, in small or greater degree, through the consumption of alcohol, there are very few cases where this is traced home in a serious accident.

Mr. James Tully

Because the man who caused it is dead.

Major de Valera

There is usually evidence in such a case. On the other hand, is there evidence that mere speed increases the accident rate? I do not expect an off-the-cuff reply from the Minister to that. I would be prepared to await the actual factual reply that emerges from the facts.

I am prompted now to make a remark about Dublin traffic. There has been a great deal of talk recently— some of it, I am afraid, rather uninformed — about Dublin traffic and Dublin traffic problems and what should be done about them. When traffic becomes as dense as it is in the city, the problem becomes more a physical one. It is like a situation that should be investigated in a physical laboratory or a chemical laboratory rather than one that can be adjusted by psychological or social means. The only people who can give the answer to the problem of Dublin's traffic are the people who have actually studied it and made experimental studies of it. That goes for the traffic in any city where it is very dense.

I went off at a tangent on that for a moment but I should like to make this remark. The time has passed when everyone can give his opinions about traffic, can be an expert, or can be confident of his own reactions in a particular situation. This is a matter for very expert study indeed, and the problems posed can be solved only by experts in the same way as engineering and other problems can be solved only by trained personnel. For that reason, I do not think it is helpful to offer solutions for the problems involved in traffic. It is a matter for safe planning and the answers will emerge from the facts and not from the opinions of people who comment on them.

To get back to the question of speed on the roads, if this is a question of speed, it is a police problem and a question of controlling speed. Controlling speed is a question of controlling the speed limits. The Minister may say that the only function of the police is to enforce the speed limits laid down. With regard to that kind of police enforcement, I wonder how much of it is a question of discipline on the part of the motorists and the people on the roads. We cannot have a policeman at every corner. The Garda are already overworked in regard to numbers. How much of the responsibility for some of the traffic problems is the responsibility of the citizens? I wonder do other Deputies find this. I personally have seen far too many cases of people crashing the lights to feel safe passing through crossings, especially at certain times. It has become a little too common and it indicates a certain carelessness on the part of the public. It is not the fault of any authority in any shape or form. We come here and our function is to comment on authority on behalf of the people. It is equally important that we should face facts of this nature. There is a growing tendency in the city of Dublin to crash lights and to indiscipline of that nature.

On the question of speed limits, although I am not for a moment going to suggest that it might not be wise to put speed limits on these long stretches — although Deputy Tully accuses me of getting old—once you go beyond 60 or 70 miles an hour, there is a great risk even with the most careful arrangements——

Mr. James Tully

Do not blame me. It is happening to us all.

Major de Valera

Once you go beyond that speed, there is a certain inherent risk in the speed itself. no matter how good the road is and no matter how the exits are arranged. There is not much point in unrealistic speed limits. I have in mind one stretch of road and I might as well mention it. It is the stretch from Irish-town to Sandymount on the coast road. For a while there was a 30 mph limit. During that time no one observed the speed limit. Then it was put up to 40 mph. Obviously that was reasonable and cars travelled at 40 mph. If you travelled at 30 mph, either you blocked the traffic or everyone flew past. Possibly because of the summer problem on that stretch of road, the speed limit was put back to 30 mph. I have an instance in mind of a car proudly displaying the insignia of a motor school which was to teach everyone how to drive and on three consecutive evenings that car passed me quite rapidly when my needle was at 30 mph. That kind of thing is reprehensible from the point of view of a driver. It is not a recognised legal maxim but it is a good maxim not to lead anyone into temptation. A certain amount of realism is called for in regard to speed limits.

On the question of discipline, some pedestrian crossings are a real hazard for the pedestrians because a real danger arises when one motorist, when properly warned by the pedestrian, pulls up and if there is a gap on the inside or on the outside, another car will whip right across. These are matters of discipline for the public. There is another matter which is hardly a matter for this Minister, unless the Garda are involved in detection. I wonder is there a valid excuse in all cases where bollards are knocked down. Bollards which are erected at pedestrian crossings for the protection of pedestrians are knocked down. I cannot recollect a case at the moment where a pedestrian was hit, but too many bollards are being knocked down regularly.

Mr. Coogan

At night, too, after half-eleven.

Major de Valera

Who pays for these bollards? First of all, there is the cost to the community. Secondly, a hazard is created. Do prosecutions follow?

Mr. S. Dunne

The person who knocks down the bollard pays.

Mr. Coogan

To the local authority.

Major de Valera

All right. These are instances of what I describe as indiscipline. If we cannot get people to co-operate in road discipline, then the gardaí have to step in. This is where the Minister is vitally concerned. As I said on the Estimate last year, one has the greatest sympathy with the gardaí in all this. They have a multitude of traffic problems with which to deal, to say nothing of parking problems, and it is physically impossible to have gardaí always there to maintain discipline. I should like to point out to the Minister the necessity there is for keeping the gardaí free for important police duties and relieving them from unimportant duties as far as possible.

Parking is a problem. Where parking is allowed, it has now become quite common to have double parking. I passed through certain streets on my way here and I saw a garda putting labels on cars parked outside other cars. There were two rows of cars on the side of the street, and that not very far from here. That particular duty is not a very good one where the gardaí are concerned because it brings them into unnecessarily unpleasant conflict with the motoring public. Surely auxiliaries could be recruited, wardens of some kind, to deal with parking problems? It is from that point of view, too, that I am apprehensive as to what will happen if we introduce the breathaliser test. I asked at the outset if our priorities are in the proper order. However, I can deal with that matter on the Bill itself. From the point of view of the Garda, if the Bill is to be made effective, it will mean a great deal of administrative work and it will cast a heavy administrative burden on the Garda. I would ask the Minister to examine it very carefully from that point of view.

When all is said and done, the mobile gardaí are needed to keep traffic moving on the roads in an orderly fashion, and subsidiary activities, such as those involved in a test of the kind to which I have referred, in parking problems and so on, should, if possible, be hived off somewhere else. The police have their hands more than full with road traffic problems. I mentioned the question of discipline. A great deal of discipline could be secured automatically if there were more mobile gardaí on the roads and fewer of them tied up with other duties.

With regard to traffic control, there are, I suppose, areas in which such control will continue to be necessary. Where mechanical means of traffic control can be provided, they should be provided without delay. Such control would leave the gardaí mobile to control a stretch instead of pinning them down at one particular point. The answer here will depend largely, of course, on the Department of Local Government, since the whole matter is basically a question of engineering. Take the congestion at O'Connell Bridge, right in the heart of the city. I am sure traffic control there imposes a heavy burden on the gardaí. Sometimes the number pinned down there would seem to be excessive, not excessive for the task but excessive from the point of view of tying men down to a particular point. When they are not there, there is chaos. Would it not be possible to provide subways at both sides of the bridge? That might be costly but it would ensure fluidity of traffic. Traffic would not be held up by pedestrians. A traffic policeman on a motor-bicycle could do a great deal of valuable work ensuring mobility of transport if sufficient mechanical men, if I may put it that way, were erected to take over the duties so many gardaí are called upon to perform at the moment.

With regard to entries and exits some people were very critical of the changes made in the city of Dublin but, by and large we must all admit now that a good job was done in the centre of the city. It may not have been the job some of us thought it should be, but the fact is it has borne fruit. There was an interesting demonstration to show that in the past week. Suffolk Street was closed for resurfacing and traffic was diverted down the lower part of Grafton Street. Anyone who watched there had a salutary lesson and an excellent demonstration of how effective the planning had been in that area.

With regard to speedways, such as the Naas Road, all of us travel them at some time or another. If we do not provide for crossings, we are bound to have trouble. Uncontrolled level crossings are absolutely wrong on such speedways. Level crossings on railways were controlled and traffic frequency was nothing like as great on the railway as it is now on the roads. Yet level crossings are left uncontrolled on speedways. There is a very serious engineering question involved here. If it is meant to be a straight facility, there must be a properly enforced speed limit to prevent it becoming a speedway. Everyone must realise that a car travelling at 60, 70, 80 and even 90 miles an hour — and it is no trouble to travel at those speeds on those stretches — takes quite a time to pull up and that another car behaving even slightly erratically can put the driver in a position where he has not time to cope.

Apart from the question of what I call the level crossing and the entries and exits from the side, there is the question of whether to stop. Can you stop on those or not? On some of the English ones I have seen, you simply cannot stop on certain stretches. That seems silly at first sight but it is extremely important. If you are travelling at those speeds, you want a clear-way, and apart from the question of a clearway, the actual process of stopping can be a serious hazard. If a car is going along in front, even with a fair gap, on a long stretch, there is a certain tendency for the driver following to condition himself to the speed of the motorist ahead and if the motorist ahead decides inconsiderately to slow down, the man behind may be right on top of him before he realises it. There are risks on a road like that from the point of view of stopping.

Lastly there is the traditional risk on our roads which has caused accidents in the past. I am afraid that there is a possibility that it will happen on those roads, too. I refer to the risk of animals wandering along the road. I understand that the legal position is that if I wish to drive cattle along the Naas Road, I may do so. That may be my right but in the nature of things, it would not be a very safe thing to do at night-time.

Therefore there is the whole question of the structure of roads of this nature and after that has been put right, there will be a necessity for police patrols on such areas. That brings me to the question of times. Naturally the Garda have to concentrate on peak periods and peak problems but they need more gardaí on this job because after certain hours of the night, it is very unusual to meet patrols, either cars or motor cycles. I realise that the gardaí must have rest. It is not their fault. The best distribution they can make is being made but the fact remains that there is room for distributing the policing over hours that are not covered, hours that can be dangerous enough to warrant attention.

In a nutshell, what I am saying is that if we are to develop our roads in this way so that they are capable of speed, then all the ancillary services and amenities must be added, the cross-over and cross-under, the coming in from one side and all the rest of it and that is a big, expensive engineering problem. However, if we are not prepared to do that, we should think twice about how far we will go in the development of this type of highway and as the only expedient to control it, one needs to put on a speed limit on such a highway and that means continuous policing of it. There is also the question of discipline of motorists so that they will observe the regulations and rules but the motorist will not conform to anything that is not reasonable. Therefore, a certain amount of thought is needed to see that the system is reasonable.

Some things one could say would involve one in particular cases and naturally in this House, one does not want to get involved in particular cases that are being considered in any way. There is a matter touching on policing which I think I can mention, that is, the question of the guards' function in regard to crime. I have been concerned on other Estimates as to whether the Garda are being backed up sufficiently on this question of crime, whether sentences are sufficient and whether our approach to this matter is correct at all in some regards. I am not talking about the young offender, the first offender, the person you want to reclaim. I am saving myself from being accused of anything like that but there is a hard core of other things. Such persons as malicious criminals exist in all communities. We have been lucky enough, but modern communication and the ease with which people are now contacting one another and the growth of our cities do not leave us in a position in which we can be complacent about these things.

I am old-fashioned enough to think that punishment and detection are deterrents and that when there is detection, a conviction properly backed by a sentence is the old way and the best way of keeping order in a community. A judge in the North of Ireland yesterday made a remark to the effect that he thought detection and a conviction were the best safeguards. I would like to add to his remark, "Yes, and a suitable consequence to conviction". I mean by a suitable consequence — I see Deputy Dunne looking at me and I think he will agree that you cannot say in advance how a particular case should be dealt with. Each individual case is still an individual case but if the Garda are to function and to detect —I am speaking generally about a police force — and bring to conviction, it is necessary that the conviction will have an adequate consequence. I am not at all convinced — and I would abide by an experiment in a laboratory and take the answer whatever it may be — that the answer is extreme leniency and failure to back the forces of law and order or that will in the long term be beneficial to the community.

People will argue as to the value of punishment as a deterrent and the value of something else as an encouragement but the long term way to learn the lesson is by experience. I said it before and I say it again. We have heard an awful lot about the unfortunate offender, about his problems and all that kind of thing. I know we should not be unsympathetic, that we should be understanding, but we have not heard enough at all about the rights and the safety of the majority of the citizens who live in proper social relationship with the rest of the community and who are good law-abiding citizens.

Certain homicide used to be a capital crime. It might be interesting to know what exactly a life sentence means. How long does it mean? That would be an interesting thing to find out. There are specific cases, which for obvious reasons I do not want to go into, but I recommend this to the Minister for his attention. Would the Minister examine this matter and see how many convictions for crimes that brought a sentence of life or a sentence in excess of 20 years there were and see how long was actually served or, in other words, what in fact is the deterrent here. I am saying those things because of what is being done in other places. One has seen the way things are going in England. I am not talking about things here at all. I am referring to experience in other countries. I for one would like to see the answer. We will all know the answer in due course. I wonder if our experience will not be the same as across the water during the past ten years or so, whether all this liberalisation of legislation in regard to the enforcement of the law has been a social advantage and has resulted in social improvement.

There are very good reasons for questioning whether it has, particularly in regard to crimes of violence, murders and all that kind of thing. We have been singularly free of them here, thank God. The important thing here is that the Garda and the prison warders should get the full support of the whole community and the practical support of the community. Lastly, I am going to make a plea that people like teachers, gardaí and warders who give such good and important service to the community — in fact more than any other branch of the State service — should be given every possible support by the community.

I believe the time has come for a re-assessment of our traditional values by which we put people in certain administrative jobs, with greater status and greater remuneration than people such as law enforcement officers, prison warders and teachers who possibly are the most important in the whole team from a certain point of view. In so far as this Minister is concerned, I believe one way we can improve all the problems we have been talking about is further still to enhance prestige. Prestige is measured largely by remuneration of our police force. Our gardaí should be more in the nature, especially in the officer class, of professional men commanding great respect both in their duties and from the community because of what they are doing.

This may seem a revolutionary thing to suggest but when all is said and done, everybody depends in the last analysis on those people in the executive arm. The whole structure of the community in the last analysis depends on those people. That is a plea I would like to make in general terms again, as I have done on previous occasions in regard to our police force.

The question of juries, to come away from the police force, has been mentioned here. I expressed my opinion before but it is no harm to repeat it again. Do we need juries in civil cases? I completely agree with what has been said about the difficulties that are experienced by men called for jury duties. I do not know that the matter will be changed by extending the range and the liability for service. It may, but not in reality, having regard to a modern judiciary and a modern world. I do not believe that there is really any case for retaining civil juries.

I know that in certain quarters disagreement will be expressed in regard to this but I for my part feel that a judge, properly informed, is in as good a position to make an assessment as 12 men locked away in a room arguing among themselves. I have no knowledge of what goes on in such a place because I have never been there.

There are reasons for keeping a jury in the case of crimes, but I need not go into them. I will content myself with saying that perhaps it would be better to keep juries for criminal matters but I do not consider that in civil cases it is a good thing to continue with juries. One Deputy opposite instanced at some length what jury men have to contend with. Twenty-one days was mentioned and 5/- is donated to each man who has served as a juror. That does not seem to be good enough. On the other hand, it has certain disadvantages if you pay a person for duty of this nature. If you were to make it a paid job, then there would be so many objections to it that I for one would strongly oppose such a suggestion. The simplest thing the Minister could do would be to do away with the jury system in civil cases.

I do not want to come back to the question of police duty but I want to come back to the question of traffic wardens, auxiliaries and such people. I would like to know from the Minister whether a realistic scheme of this nature can be considered and whether costs would rule it out. I would also like to ask the Minister, following on what I said earlier, both in connection with the police force and jury service, because the police have a function in that, too, if there is any way of minimising, or has this been done as far as possible now, or removing from the gardaí, especially metropolitan gardaí, the administrative duties, the form-filling and all that sort of thing. I have not kept up-to-date with this but I have heard it argued that if you did not do it in certain country districts, the gardaí would have nothing at all to do. That is a very happy state to be in.

Mr. James Tully

The country people are very law-abiding.

Mr. Coughlan

There are not so many of them there; that is the trouble and that is why——

Major de Valera

That is one of the difficulties of the modern age, too. In the cities and in the towns where there are concentrated populations, is this a matter worth talking about at all? It possibly is not, but if it is, I think the Garda should be relieved of this responsibility as far as possible.

Lastly, how about our equipment? We are living in an age of technical development. Have our Department of Justice and all the services of justice been able to equip us for the needs of a modern age and modern cities? This will become more and more important. The Garda have been equipped in certain cases with intercontrol radio sets and that kind of thing. There is inter-communication even between individual gardaí, but have we enough of this type of equipment? Have we the proper type of transport to cope with these problems? These are all things that are important in this Estimate.

I think I have wandered over a number of points, many of which, as I said in the beginning, will come up on Local Government and especially on the new Road Traffic Bill before us. In the meantime, I would ask the Minister to advert to some of the headings which we will bring up here with a view to their impact on the Bill which will come before us. Many of us have experienced, on the Second Stage, concern with policing problems which will arise. Now is the time for the Department of Justice to vigorously put their point of view in those matters, and I would suggest that the Minister in closing this debate might let us have his considered opinion and that of his advisers as to the situation in regard to all the problems that will come up on the Bill to be piloted through this House by one of his colleagues.

Mr. S. Dunne

With Deputy de Valera, I feel that the matters which fall to be dealt with under this Estimate are vital to society generally. Indeed it has struck me that the attitude of the House to discussion of matters relevant to the Department of Justice has been far too often not sufficiently serious and I have often considered that much more time should be given to consideration of the various items which are the responsibility of the Minister.

I want to say at the outset that I think the Minister has discharged his responsibilities in this Department admirably. Any contact I have had with him, as we all must have from time to time, in matters concerning my constituents have been met with expedition and courtesy. I wish I could say the same of all the Heads of Departments.

To begin with — one of the matters which has agitated the public mind very considerably — I would refer to district justices. DJs are very important men and, invariably, men of high intelligence. I often think that they are not adequately recompensed for the difficult job they do. It is a job which in a way sets them apart from the rest of their fellows in society, and on that ground alone, it appears to me that they are a group that might well be given serious consideration by the Minister. However, that is something to which I am sure he will advert in his own time. But there are some DJs who are successful in raising the hackles of every reasonable citizen and they do this by taking it on themselves to deliver lectures of one kind or another from the Bench. That is not their function. Their function is, as we all know, to apply the law as written by Dáil Éireann and to apply it with as much reason, justice and mercy as seems to them appropriate.

There is nothing which annoys the citizen, and justifiably annoys him, than reading in an evening paper, or in any paper, a generalisation concerning, we shall say, a particular area or neighbourhood couched in terms of condemnation, or condemnation by inference, by DJs. This has been the subject of some comment recently. It would, therefore, be undesirable to identify any particular individual with it. I think the Minister might address a few words to the DJs on the undesirability of that kind of lecture, and the need for them, as well, to have regard to the spirit of the law.

I, like Deputy de Valera, am not one who would be found in the ranks of those who advocate recourse to physical punishment as a complete remedy for legal infractions or crime. It has its place. I think it would be impossible to contemplate any kind of settled existence without the final sanction of some physical deprivation, be it of liberty, or some other thing, to ensure that the individual who is intent upon defying the law will be brought to heel. But, on the other hand, much has been discovered within the past limited number of years in regard to causes of crime and the probable reasons why people take to a life of illegal activity and to the probability that in many cases such causes are matters over which they themselves have absolutely no control. They may be based on hereditary influences, lack of home influences, or the detrimental influences which flow from extreme hardships experienced by young people; or the lack of natural affection which can be disastrous to young people. All these things in an enlightened country, as I hope we can consider ours to be, must be taken into account.

We cannot just accept this, although it is a tempting thing to do; it is very tempting and easy to fall into the temptation of saying: "There is only one thing for the lawbreaker and that is to punish him." We all feel like that by times; I certainly do. I have had occasion to feel like that because I have suffered burglary and all that kind of thing — the culprits never having been found. At the same time, a thorough consideration of the whole problem is incumbent on us all, consideration of the facts and of the probable reasons and causes which lie behind crime itself. That is not to say there is not a place for Mountjoy, or indeed Maryborough, though I am somewhat doubtful about Daingean because, apart from anything else, it seems to be the easiest joint in Europe to crack.

But DJs, before I leave them, have been condemned, too, for overdue leniency and I must sympathise with this. On many occasions we have seen such cases reported. On the other hand, we might see what one would regard as an accidental legal infraction by an ordinary citizen being heavily punished by way of fine or imprisonment, or possibly both. You can see, too, deliberate lawbreaking, with robbery or, perhaps, robbery with violence being given kid glove treatment from the Benches and naturally the public will say: "What kind of carry-on is this; surely there is no justice in it?" I raised this matter before, and I think the Minister, in replying, said he had drawn the attention of DJs generally to the need for some kind of uniform approach in matters of this kind. I do think it is time to raise this matter again, keeping in mind at all times the need for protecting the ordinary inoffensive citizen going about his business, the need to see that the blackguard and the thug will not be dealt with leniently by the courts, and that if he is known to be a person who has broken the law not once but several times, he will not walk out of court free but will be punished, as he should, for what he is —an incorrigible case.

Of course, these incorrigibles are in the minority but they should be investigated in regard to the need for consideration of all the other background aspects which call for the attention of psychiatrists, psychologists and so on, which must be applied to the full, explored, and used to the very utmost limits in so far as is possible in order to reform the person concerned, if reformation is possible. If there is a want in the individual, a psychological or mental want, then some means must be found to keep such a person under restraint for his own good and for the good of everyone else. As we know, there are many such borderline cases.

I want to mention here again the excellence of the gardaí in Dublin city and county in the dealings they are compelled to have in many difficult cases. I want to mention especially— I do not think it can be mentioned often enough — the tremendous services rendered to the people of Dublin by one man in particular — Detective Sergeant Brannigan — whose name is known to every person throughout the length and breadth of the city because, of course, Sergeant Brannigan was a sportsman. But it is a fact that he has rendered signal service to the whole community and has undertaken dangerous and difficult tasks for which this city owes him a debt of gratitude. I hope the Minister will lose no opportunity — because I am certain he appreciates this as much as I do—of having this expression and, perhaps, some more tangible expression of the feelings of everybody towards this excellent officer conveyed where it will do most good.

I read in a paper today — or it might have been yesterday — remarks of an American said to be an authority on drug traffic, in which he indicated that, in his view, this country was the centre of some element of drug operations. I suppose the thing is inescapable, that we might expect this dreadful contagion, which has galloped throughout the world, especially through the adolescent world, over the last decade and which has wrought such havoc, which causes such awful problems, would eventually reach our shores. I do not know to what extent it is a problem, as yet, but I do know it does exist here because I have discussed it with people who are in a position to see the sad end effects of drug addiction in Dublin. Perhaps the Minister would tell us how far the disease has penetrated here and whether we are equipped, whether our police force in the city and country are equipped to discover this kind of criminality and to take remedial steps about it with the greatest possible speed.

It has been said to me that there are drug-pushers in Dublin. Surely there is no punishment man could conceive which would be too bad for the person who pushes drugs. We have all read of the terrible effects of drug addiction, the fact that it amounts to worse than the taking of life in that it destroys the human mind as well as the body. Before people die it drives them mad; they go through agonies which are unimaginable by all the literature which deals with this particular problem. We have seen it referred to on television, and there is some knowledge of what it means. If there are drug pushers in this country —I do not know; I merely repeat what has been said to me by those who claim they know—and if it becomes necessary to bring in legislation to deal with them, I urge the Minister to consider doing so because this is a vicious viper and it must be stamped on, if it is there, immediately and without hesitation.

A great compliment is due to that section of the Garda Síochána who are responsible for "Garda Patrol" on Telefís Éireann. Again, I probably repeat myself, but I do not think one can compliment good men often enough because good men are not all that numerous and when they are observed, they should be seen to be observed, certainly by us. This programme is excellently done, with a professional flair by the gardaí who appear on it and I am sure it has a very beneficial effect on the enforcement of law.

Later tonight on the Adjournment, I shall be dealing, I hope in some detail, with the question of the traffic danger constituted by the Naas Road. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me now on one point. I put a question to the Minister for Local Government in which I asked him if he had consulted with the Minister for Justice and the relevant two county councils in connection with the need for having this traffic murder — it is nothing less than that — eliminated from the Naas Road. The Minister for Local Government, in an unsatisfactory reply, indicated this consultation was under way. I assume he has had consultations with the Minister for Justice.

Minister for Justice (Mr. B. Lenihan)

Discussions have already taken place between the Minister for Local Government and myself and the responsible officials of both Departments and the Garda, and I am sure the Minister for Local Government will be making a statement on it.

Mr. S. Dunne

I should like to make some suggestions to the Minister for Justice in regard to this matter, and I hope I shall not be repeating what has been said by other speakers because I do not want to weary or bore the House, or make statements now which I shall have to repeat later. It seems to me that one of the great dangers as far as that road is concerned, or, indeed, any road of its kind, is the constant use of it by vehicles which are either unlighted at the rear or ill-lighted. At the present time, if any person is driving on the Naas Road at night and sees in the distance ahead a red light — in some cases, the red lights may be so bad on heavy trucks covered by mud that they may not be visible at all—there is no way whereby the driver of the following car can tell whether that red light is stationary or moving unless it disappears round a corner. If it is stationary, there is no way whereby he can determine whether it is or not. At the same time, the driver of the rear car is subject to the continuous blinding flow of traffic coming against him, dazzling him constantly, and it is the easiest thing in the world in that situation for even the most careful driver to find himself stuck into the back of a lorry or into another car that has been stalled because of an accident or for any other reason.

Something must be done about it because the most awful accidents have been occurring with too great frequency during the past few years in this way: vehicles crashing into the rear of stationary vehicles on fast traffic roads. I suggest to the Minister that if it lies within his power, he should do something more than the present regulation whereby if a lorry breaks down, gets a puncture or something of that nature, a triangle of reflectors is placed behind the lorry so that traffic from the rear will know there is something stalled. That is not good enough, because for one reason or another traffic coming from behind can overrun that, which may not be as visible as it ought to be or, perhaps, one car behind has come to a stop but the cars behind that may not and the result may be a crash pile-up with the terrible tragedies that follow from it.

I suggest to the Minister that there should be some more effective source of warning by means of a flashing light. It need not be expensive; it is not a technologically impossible thing to design. Indeed, it is in many shops. Some county councils have been using it. Such a devise should be left at a fixed distance behind the stationary vehicle. This should be a requirement by law and its lack should be direly punished.

This is just one thought I have in connection with the general question of traffic control. I urge the Minister to give it what support he can. I am sure he is anxious we should all do our utmost to try to reduce the accident rate. All of us feel it deeply when we hear of unfortunate relatives in some cases learning of the deaths of young people in their prime when they read it in the newspapers. We must adopt the most constructive methods we can to ensure that there will be a minimum of accidents. We shall never eliminate accidents, any more than we shall ever attain human perfection in any phase of activity, but we must strive in all the ways that are open to us.

Speed itself is something which has to be controlled by means of imposing speed limits. Why is there not an upper speed limit? Why should there be any sections of the country where the motorist—any motorist—can put down his boot and think himself a Malcolm Campbell, a John Surtees, a Stirling Moss, a Seagrave or what have you, and build up speed to any level he likes?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.