Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Oct 1968

Vol. 236 No. 10

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £292,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969, 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including a Grant-in-Aid; and of the Public Record Office, and of the Keeper of State Papers and for the purchase of Historical Documents, etc.

We are not at all encouraged, Sir, by the repeated assurances of the Minister for Justice that legislation is to be introduced to provide more adequate maintenance for deserted wives and children. We have had promises of such legislation for at least the last seven years and it always intrigues me to see repeated statements by Government Ministers treated as though they were startling fresh news. I noticed today that some of the gentlemen of the Fourth Estate once again headlined as something to look forward to promises which have been made by the members of the Government over the last ten years, promises of legislation to do something about the neglected wives and children, promises of legislation to do something about malicious injury compensation, promises of legislation to do something about the injustices of our existing landlord and tenant statutes.

Any person who has any casual acquaintance with the law must be sick and tired of the inordinate delays on the part of the Government in introducing legislation of real reform as distinct from introducing legislation to meddle with matters which are satisfactory enough. What is needed in relation to the deserted wives and children is an immediate piece of legislation which would remove any ceiling on the amount of compensation to be paid to deserted wives and children. What is needed is legislation which would entitle the court to take into cognisance the income, the earnings and the property of the husband who neglected the wife and children. It is inexcusable that at the present time a deserted wife has to be limited in compensation to the sum of £2 10s and that wives and children are expected to survive on paltry awards from the court of £4 or thereabouts. It is not good enough to promise for the fifth time legislation to deal with this shocking injustice. One must deal with that as a separate item and take the lid off the awards which can now be made to wives and neglected children and anything I may now say should not be used as an excuse for postponing that very necessary reform.

It does happen that distressed and deserted wives hesitate about going into court to get awards of the kind I have been talking about. I do not think it matters so much in urban areas where issues of this kind are conducted every day in court without any particular notice being paid to them but in rural areas where every event in court is a matter of public property it causes not a little embarrassment and difficulty to have these matters conducted in open court. I naturally hesitate to recommend anything which would encourage the administration of justice other than in open court but I think it is very proper that the sensitivities of wives and families should be considered and I would hope that some system would be introduced which would avoid the necessity of dragging the sorrowing wives and their children through the open court.

In Ireland we are fortunate in having a police force which is second to none in the world. We have a police force which is respected and, indeed, loved by the vast majority of our people. They are respected by our people and not feared and, mind you, that is a valuable thing to have in this modern world in which so many States have police forces which are feared, hated and detested by large sections of the people.

If the Garda Síochána are respected and admired by our people it is because since their foundation they have been beholden to no political group. They have discharged their duties as the guardians of our society without fear or favour. In recent times, however, we have seen a growing tendency on the part of the Fianna Fáil administration to use this Force as their political tool. We have had several cases in which, by direction of the Government the Garda Síochána have been obliged to enter into political disputes, terrifying those involved with the full majesty and rigour of the law. We have seen cases in which members of the Garda Síochána under direction from the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General, have been obliged to go into court demanding in the name of the Government the most vicious penalties for what were, in fact, no more than political offences, the offence, if such it may be called, of demonstrating about something which the people concerned believe to be wrong, to be unfair. Those who might query whether it is fair to regard such behaviour as evidence of attempts on the part of the Government to make tools of the Garda Síochána I would answer that it is not without significance that when it suited the political needs of the Government to use the Garda as political tools to demonstrate the wrath and power of the Government they did it. As soon as it suited the Government's political purpose to change the tool entirely those against whom the full vengeance of the Government had been voiced through the Garda Síochána were relieved of the penalties which the Government had imposed on them, using the disciplined force of the Garda Síochána for their ulterior purposes.

This is wrong and unfair. It does a disservice to the servants of the people, the Garda Síochána, and it has tended to bring this force of splendid impartial public servants under a certain amount of condemnation which they certainly do not deserve. It is time for us to say: "Hands off the Garda Síochána and stop using them as political tools." I think the vote of the people as expressed on 16th October was a vote not only in relation to the Constitutional issues which were put before them but was also a vote for fair play. The Irish people have a great sense of fair play and a nose to smell out any tendencies which are unfair. It is because the Irish people realise that the present Government is so unscrupulous as to use and abuse the Garda Síochána and use and abuse other powers available to them that the people emphatically rejected the proposals of the Government. It was not only because of a lack of merit in the proposals but also because of what the people have seen associated with the Government's behaviour in recent times.

The Minister told us that he proposes when introducing or on the Second Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill to answer the criticism that has been voiced against that Bill. I have not the Minister's speech before me but I think he referred to the criticism as unfair and ill-advised or some words to that effect. All one can say is this; that it is not unreasonable to accept the Government's intentions in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill as part of the pattern of totalitarian Government which they believe in. We still have on our Statute Book the Offences Against the State Act. We still have on our Statute Book—and in this we are alone in Europe with the dictatorships of Greece, Spain and Portugal—legislation at the whim of the Government to open concentration camps and establish military courts.

We think this is wrong and when coupled with that you have the Government's declared intention of prohibiting public meetings, prohibiting pickets——

Is it in order for the Deputy to discuss the Criminal Justice Bill?

The Deputy must realise that we cannot discuss the Bill at this stage. That would be anticipating the debate on the Bill which is before the House.

I am prepared to accept the Chair's ruling on that but the ruling applies to all sides of the House and the Minister should not then in his address, which he prepared in advance, have made any reference——

The Deputy has not read my speech. He comes in here with a lot of twaddle without having read my speech.

He should not have made any remarks about the Criminal Justice Bill nor should he have made attacks on those who criticised it. The Minister's remarks run to about three pages of my script and he referred to several pieces of legislation, actual or intended, and the Chair's prohibition of discussion of legislation applies to everybody.

The Minister referred to the Bill in passing, but the Deputy is going into it in detail. For that reason the Chair intervened.

I am passing through the whole totalitarian aroma that is stinking in the nostrils of the people at this moment. The Criminal Justice Bill is part of it and we shall hear more about that later. It is still not too late for the Minister and the Government to mend their hands but the Minister's intolerance is demonstrated by the manner in which he resents anybody who disagrees with him or exposes the undesirable tendencies which the people so emphatically rejected.

Will he not be shifted next week?

There are different ways of imposing dictatorship. You can have a military coup or you can have dictatorship by stealth, by leaving on the Statute Book legislation which empowers you to have concentration camps and military courts; dictatorship by stealth by which you introduce powers which when introducing you probably say you will never use. We are aware that on the Statute Book of Ireland was put an Act making it an offence to picket in the precincts of Leinster House. The Fianna Fáil Government which put that Act on the Irish Statute Book declared at the time through the mouth of the Minister for Justice when introducing the Act that it would not be used in industrial disputes. He said it would only be used against people who were undermining the security of the State. That is on the records of Dáil Éireann but we have seen within the last few years that the same power which is concerned about the very security and existence of the State being used to serve the political purposes of the Government when they were embarrassed by farmers, telephonists and others who were in dispute.

I have no doubt that it is undesirable for any people to picket the National Parliament. I have told those who have picketed Leinster House that is my view and I have told them that in picketing the Dáil they are picketing themselves because we have no authority, no power, no rights except the authority, power and rights we get from the people. We are their representatives and even as I fought for some of those involved here on the floor of this House I told them that I would pass their picket whether I was for or against them. But, having said that, I think it is wholly wrong to put in gaol, to treat as common criminals, to arrest with the aid of dogs and to stuff into black marias people who are protesting against what they believe to be injustice. That is something which more than smacks of dictatorship in any Government which indulges in that kind of action.

It is because these things have occurred in this State in recent times not only with the blessing of the Government but at the Government's dictation that we are concerned about the trends which are developing here and which, as I say, the people emphatically rejected on 16th October. Notwithstanding the voice of the people on the 16th October the Government are apparently incapable of interpreting that decision for what it means and that is that the vast majority of the Irish people stand for fair play and will stand against anybody who tries to destroy that principle. In case there is still in anybody's mind any doubt about the intentions of the Fianna Fáil Party, may I recall the fact that twice this year in the European Assembly of Nations I have heard the Leader of the Fianna Fáil delegation, a man who is a member of the Fianna Fáil Government for several decades, support and comfort the police State of Greece.

Surely the Minister has no responsibility for the statements made abroad by individuals on their own behalf.

The Minister has responsibility with the members of the Fianna Fáil Party until such time as he rejects them.

The Chair is telling the Deputy that the Minister is not responsible for speeches made abroad and the Deputy may not deal with them.

We are quite well aware of the disintegration of the Fianna Fáil Party and of how one man cannot speak for another——

The Deputy should try to speak to the Estimate.

I am saying that the trend——

There is an Estimate before the House and the Deputy should do his best to speak to it.

I am dealing very vitally and crucially with the way in which the Government are abusing the Garda Síochána in this country to try to serve their own political ends, which is to establish here, if they can get away with it, a police State and to use the decent and innocent members of the Garda Síochána——

The Deputy was referring to speeches made abroad, in Europe.

Yes, Sir, and I was using that, and I think it is fair——

It is not relevant. The Minister has no responsibility and the Deputy should get back to the Estimate.

I am saying that a well-known member of the Fianna Fáil Party, who is a colleague and associate of the Minister's——

The Chair has heard all that from the Deputy. If the Deputy wishes to contravene the instructions of the Chair, I will ask him to resume his seat. We are discussing an Estimate, not speeches made abroad by an individual, for which the Minister has no responsibility and the Deputy is well aware of the fact that he has no responsibility.

We do not want to see here the kind of police state that there is in Greece. We want to see here what we have had until recent times, a Garda Síochána serving all sections of the community, a Garda Síochána beholden to no political junta, a Garda Síochána which could act fearlessly and impartially, a Garda Síochána which were not made the tools of any political party in or out of power and as we have every reason to be worried about the readiness of the Government to abuse the Garda Síochána and to establish here the kind of police state that there is in Greece and elsewhere, we have a duty to warn the people about what is happening. If the Government, as I say, want to re-establish themselves in the eyes of the people, and in the eyes of the Garda Síochána in particular, then they will withdraw from the present unsavoury position in which they have put themselves and into which they have tried to drag the Garda Síochána in recent times.

I said that the Garda Síochána are respected and admired by the vast majority of our people and our people repudiate the vexatious accusations, many of them from non-nationals, in recent times, that the Gardaí have engaged in—to use the term of vulgar abuse which is used internationally at the present time—police brutality. We do not accept that that is happening. We believe that there are certain elements in our community, and they are an almost insignificant fraction, who would endeavour to provoke the Gardaí who, after all, are human, to reply in kind to the assaults which are committed upon them and I think it is very much to the credit of the Force that, notwithstanding all the provocation they have received from this section of the community, they have restrained themselves and have exhibited the very best traditions of the Force.

In a recent twelve months period, we learn with horror, there were over 200 brutal attacks made on members of the Garda Síochána. It is a very frightening figure that over 200 attacks should have been made on members of the Garda Síochána and most of them, I am sorry to say, here in the metropolis. Very fortunately, serious injury did not occur in all cases but I understand that, in a twelve months period, 12 of these cases did result in injuries which were serious.

I advocated at the time that extra precautions should be taken to prevent injury to Gardaí Síochána when discharging their duty and I am not entirely satisfied that sufficient protection is given to the Gardaí in the discharge of their duty or that when they are injured sufficient compensation is given to them and that is something to which the Minister ought to look so that justice would be done.

There is one area of inactivity in the administration of justice here which ought to cause us more concern, and that is, in relation to dog and badger trials. The activity of dog and badger trials is something which all decentminded people will condemn. I will not call it a sport and I will not call it a game because it is neither. It is a cruel, vicious and indecent activity but it is going on in contravention of the law; it is going on in contravention of the rules of the Kennel Club and the other organisations which pretend to ensure that cruelty is not inflicted on either badger or dog.

The crime statistics, unfortunately, do not give us the exact number of cases which come to notice. Perhaps that is as well because I fear that if the statistics were available they might be negative because I am not at all satisfied, and many people are not satisfied, that sufficient is being done to curb this most undesirable activity. Nothing will ever stop this unfortunate activity until such time as there is an obligation on the organisers of dog and badger trials to notify the Garda in advance. It is surely asking too much to expect the Garda to be in a position to inspect dog and badger trials if they do not know they are happening. The only way to ensure that the law is being observed is for the Garda to receive advance notice of dog and badger trials.

The enforcement of the Protection of Animals Acts of 1911 and 1965 is carried out, of course, by the Garda Síochána but it can only be carried out by them when they know that activities in relation to those Acts are in progress. I would, therefore, urge the Minister to take such steps as might be necessary to see to it that the Garda are advised and must be advised in advance so that the law can properly be enforced.

From time to time we have received exhortations from the Minister for Justice and his predecessor to prepare ourselves for the new legal world into which we must move when Ireland becomes closely associated with Europe. We have not heard so much about Europe in recent times and there are those who would prefer that Ireland's activities abroad might not be discussed at all here in the House. There have been, as I say, these exhortations to the legal profession, in particular, to prepare for this new world, this great new European association with which we may one time be amalgamated. To do this it is very proper that law students would have a better understanding of European legal theory, systems and practices. I have asked the Minister for Justice to provide a subsidy for our law libraries, particularly those used by law students, so that they would have on their shelves the necessary legal tomes in relation to European legal theory and practice.

In the past we have had subsidies from the State for the assistance of law libraries because of the importance of lawyers, qualified and in training, being kept abreast of the legal position. We have a very polite notion that every man is presumed to know the law and that no man can be held not to know it. I am glad that the State, through the Department of Justice, has accepted a more practical understanding of the situation, that people cannot know the law without having the necessary textbooks available to them. The amount of money available for the stocking of our law libraries is far from adequate. The Council of Europe have already advocated that member states would use their good offices in parliament and with governments to ensure that governments would make financial assistance available towards the extension of education in European legal theory and practice.

I would urge the Minister for Justice to seek from the Minister for Finance a sum of money which will enable him to equip our law libraries to face the challenge of the legal future which will be ours when we become a part of any European legal entity. There is also a great need for more studies by law students of European legal systems. At present, most European law schools have dispensed with the obligation, which came down from early ages, to have Latin as a necessary qualifying subject.

We in Ireland are very much behind in the study of European languages. This year, for the first time since the foundation of the State, I understand we have the same number of Leaving Certificate students taking French as we have taking Latin, but that is not good enough. It is quite apparent that if one does not have a modern European language it will be impossible to study European legal practice and theory except where the books are available in the English language, and the number of these is very rare indeed.

On that account I ask the Minister for Justice to use his good offices with the law schools in urging them to abolish the precondition of a Latin qualification for entrance to the schools and to replace it with a precondition of a qualification in a modern European language. The Minister says he has no responsibility in the matter. I believe he has. I believe he has a responsibility for the future of our whole judicial and legal system and that it is not good enough for him to say that he has no statutory responsibility as such for the education of students of our law schools.

For several years the Minister for Health took a somewhat similar view in relation to the medical and dental schools and, because of that, we have a situation in which many of our dental, medical and nursing graduates are no longer acceptable in countries abroad. We have a clear duty to see to it that our Irish lawyers have a full understanding of European legal systems, but we will not have that until there is adequate help from the Minister for Justice.

One strange anomaly in our State Departments is, unless the situation has changed, that the Garda Síochána have not within their own control an up-to-date record of the ownership of motor cars. Certainly the situation used to be—and if it has changed I should be glad to hear—that in order to learn the ownership of motor cars the Garda Síochána were obliged to seek the assistance of the local authorities. That may be all right in relation to what might be called static offences or an offence committed where the parties involved have given the necessary information to the Garda.

However, the situation is intolerable in regard to hit and run accidents. Cases have arisen where some alert bystander has been able to get the registration number of a car and pass it on to the Garda Síochána but, having done that, several hours have elapsed before the Garda were able to trace the owner of the car involved, simply because of the necessity to seek the assistance of the local authority concerned. I do not have to indicate that that could easily facilitate the escape of a drunken driver from the full rigour of the law, because ample time would have elapsed between the taking of the number of the car and the ascertaining of the ownership to allow him to sober up.

I cannot see why in this modern electronic computer age we cannot have a dual record, one in the office of the local authority and the other immediately available to the Garda Síochána and within their control. It should surely be possible to transmit information from the office of the local authority to the Garda simultaneously.

In this day in which more and more people are being encouraged to fit their cars with seat belts it is very disturbing to learn that of a Garda fleet of 248 cars, as of November last—the number is probably larger now—of which 34 are Ministers' cars, only 34 are fitted with seat belts. The 34 in question, I understand, are Ministers' cars. That leaves a situation in which more than 200 Garda cars have not got seat belts. One can certainly appreciate the need for Gardaí to make a quick ejection from a car, but seat belts are very easy to get out of. It may be a little inconvenient to get into them or to fasten them, but this is no justification for not having seat belts in the Garda cars. There have been accidents resulting in serious injuries, as the Minister well knows, and I believe it would be proved justified to have seat belts fitted without any further delay.

Two and a half years ago Dublin Corporation presented new street trading regulations to the Department of Justice, the Department of Local Government and the Department of Health. It is very disappointing, to say the least of it, that, because of delay on the part of the Government Departments concerned, including the Department of Justice, the necessary amendments in the law have not yet been made.

I would urge the Minister therefore to allow sufficient attention to be given to the reform of street trading in Dublin and to see to it that, as far as his Department is concerned, this matter will be cleared without further delay. If it has been cleared as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, I hope I will be forgiven for referring to the matter; but my information is that the matter is not yet through because of delay on the Government side. I am not sure which particular Department is involved but I would ask the Minister to look into it.

There is the situation. We have a Department of Justice which, as I said earlier, is not living up to its name. The people of this country are being ruled by intimidation. We have had the fine, upstanding members of the Garda Síochána used to intimidate people to serve the political purposes of the present Government. Let us have an end to it. Let us return to the happy situation in which the people can regard the Gardaí as their protectors and not their prosecutors. That is what the Garda want to be. They are not seeking the unnecessary powers which the Government suggest they need.

I want people to know exactly what occurs at the moment when parades and public meetings take place. Irrespective of legal obligations, sensible people will, of course, notify the Garda of their intention to hold a parade or a public meeting in the street. They have the right to hold these parades and public meetings without getting permission to do so, and I think that is the way in which our society can contribute in the future as in the past. However, as I say, the practice is to notify the Garda. This is a prudent one, because by notifying the Garda the amount of inconvenience to other road users and other people who resort to public places will be reduced.

The Garda are only too happy and too willing to give every co-operation to anybody who wants to use the roads and the public places in Ireland for lawful purposes, and I have never known it to be otherwise. The Garda, with their wide experience of traffic problems, can certainly make alternative suggestions to the organisers, and the vast majority of our people are reasonable and will accept such advice from the Garda Síochána. As far as I am aware the Garda are not looking for any drastic powers to enable them to prohibit people who are in entire agreement with their suggestions from assembling.

I would hope that wiser counsels will prevail, and even though the Taoiseach is unable, as he said he was yesterday, to make a reasonable decision, one would hope reason will prevail and that we shall continue to have the situation which has existed in the past. It is only by so doing that we will preserve for our people the right to free speech and the right of free assembly which are critically necessary if democracy and fair play are to survive in this country.

I want to make it clear, in case there should be any mischiefmakers who would try to construe it otherwise, that what I have said about attempts to establish a police state here are not a reflection on the Garda Síochána. They have been made the innocent victims of an outrageous conspiracy on the part of the Government to misuse them. They do not want it. It is a good thing that we have this debate on the Department of Justice at this particular time, so that the voice of the Garda as well as that of the people can declare that the powers the Government want to impose in the Criminal Justice Bill are not wanted by either the Garda or the people.

One final word about the Garda and it is this: the Minister announced some time ago—and he repeated the statement in his speech yesterday—that he was carrying out a review of the organisation of the Garda Síochána. One would think that a Minister for Justice would consult with the Garda before he would embark on that kind of activity. However, he has declared that he has for some time past been reviewing the organisation and structure of the Garda with a view to the better use of existing personnel and capital equipment and also with a view to seeing whether or not it is necessary to increase the numbers in the Garda. The Minister has also declared he is considering the whole structure including, apparently, the hierarchy of officers and men.

The members of the Garda Síochána resent—and I think they are justified in resenting—that the Minister for Justice should be embarking upon studies affecting their future as members of the force without consulting with the force itself. This is most unfair. I would urge upon the Minister, in relation to such reviews as he will conduct, to take into his confidence not only the commissioner and senior officers, who, of course, must be consulted and whose views it is very proper the Minister should hear, but also all ranks— chief superintendents, superintendents, inspectors, sergeants and gardaí. They are all concerned and very much concerned. Their own individual futures and the futures of their families are at stake. It is most desirable that, if any changes are to be made, they be made only after full consultation with all ranks so that such changes will have the consent of the force which now, as in the past, is dedicated to serve the people. The Garda Síochána want to serve the people and they should be taken for what they are, a body of responsible men.

The pay of the Garda is also being reviewed at present. One would hope that the deliberations in that connection will be speedy and that at the conclusion the conditions of service and the remuneration of Gardaí will be such as to encourage the very best people to enter that force and to be promoted in that force. As I say, notwithstanding the disappointments of the force in recent times under the Fianna Fáil Government in relation to pay and so forth, they have remained a wonderful body, and we thank God for them. We can only hope they will be fairly served by the present administration in whatever few weeks are left of that administration and that the administration will not further blot its own copybook and the copybook of democracy in this country by any further misuse of this splendid force.

(Cavan): On this Estimate each year we very properly hear tributes paid to the Garda force for the work they have done since the inception of that force. That is only right, and I want to join in saying how fortunate we are in having such a fine impartial police force as the Garda Síochána. I wonder, however, do we show our appreciation of the members of the Garda in a practical way by providing those of them who are obliged to live in married quarters with suitable accommodation. There is something being done at the moment to meet the serving Gardaí on the question of salaries, and I do not propose to deal with that matter.

I had occasion, however, within the last 12 months to take up with the commissioner and the Department of Justice the case of a young married sergeant who is living with his wife and two young children in a Garda barracks in a village on the borders of Cavan. In this day and age we find that there is neither running water nor sewerage facilities in that Garda station. It is not a very old building; I would say it was probably built within the last 30 years. Although there is a public water supply in the village, this barracks has not been connected to that water supply, nor has it been provided with elementary toilet and sewerage facilities. That is hard to believe but it is a fact. The excuse given by the Commissioner's office and by the Department of Justice is that there is some vague consideration going on about closing down certain stations and that it has to be decided what stations will be closed down and what stations will be kept open.

That is happening as a result of a commission that sat last year or this year and certainly that is no excuse for having this Garda barracks, which is supposed to house a young sergeant in his late 20's, his wife and a couple of young children, in this condition. It is not possible in 1968 to get a grant from the Department of Local Government for a new house, not even in a remote part of the country, unless the house is properly serviced and the term "properly serviced" means that water and sewerage are provided. It is no answer that there is no public water supply in the vicinity because the applicant for a grant is expected to bore a well and get a supply of water and if there is no public sewerage system in the locality he is expected to sink a septic tank and connect his house with it.

That is as it should be; those are minimum requirements and conditions in 1968, or indeed much earlier, but yet we have this case which I mention, in the village of Finea, where this sergeant, his wife and family are living under these conditions. The barracks is structurally sound; it is a single storey building which, of course, could be utilised in the morning as a dwelling house if it were no longer required as a barracks. My information is that it will continue to be used as a barracks and even if it is not surely if there was an expenditure of a few hundred pounds to connect it with the local water scheme and for the provision of a septic tank this would be justified. It would add to the value of the house if it were to be sold subsequently.

I do not know how many more cases there are of this type of living quarters for non-commissioned officers and men of the Garda Síochána still in existence. I say it is a reflection on the Minister and on his Department that this position should continue to exist. I would appeal to the Minister to see that this barracks is put into a habitable condition. I do not think I am exaggerating by saying that a house which has not got running water and sewerage facilities is not habitable according to civilised, everyday standards. I hope it will not be necessary to comment on this sort of complaint again.

Last year I mentioned the case of members of a section of the Garda Síochána who had opted under the 1951 scheme to continue on a pension of two-thirds of their salary and who had failed to opt for a pension at the rate of 50 per cent of their salary and a lump sum on retirement or death. As I said previously, in 1951 conditions in the Garda Síochána were altogether different, their rates of pay were lower and many of them retired as early as they could. Now that things are different they are inclined to stay on longer. All this is on record and I do not want to repeat it. There is a small number of men involved from the rank of superintendent down who now regret very much that they did not opt for the smaller pension and the lump sum and who are at a loss as a result. On their behalf I appeal to the Minister to let them have second thoughts and let them exercise an option now which would give them the right to a substantial lump sum on retirement or death. Then, of course, they will have to be satisfied with the lower rate of pension. This would show a practical appreciation for the force and it would be an encouragement to men to remain in the force in the knowledge that they are appreciated in a practical way.

I understand that the older members of the force who served in more difficult times and played a very noble part in establishing the force we have today and in gaining for it the respect it undoubtedly gets, are badly treated in regard to pensions. I understand that men who retired from the Garda prior to 1960 would require a 35 per cent increase in pensions to bring them up to present standards. Further, I understand that members of the Garda who retired in 1964 have had no increase in their pensions since then, notwithstanding the fact that the cost of living has increased enormously and notwithstanding the fact that other sections of the community, including Members of this House, have received what we might call status increases or, at any rate, substantial increases. This is something that calls for attention. While we are inclined to be generous and fair to serving personnel in all grades, whether it is in the Civil Service properly so-called, in semi-State bodies or, indeed, in private enterprise —which is not much thanks to us because the people in active service have the power to compel us to be decent and to do the right thing—it is too bad that we are not as generous or as fair or as just as we should be to those who have served the nation and have gone into retirement. It is ungracious and uncharitable that we more or less ignore them and treat them much less favourably just because they can do nothing about it, because they have not got the power to exercise a substantial influence on the Government or on society.

The widows of Gardaí have a real grievance. I know this because from time to time I have representations made to me by Garda widows who do not receive the old age pension or a widow's pension. It is brought home to me even more clearly when I find that they qualify for some of the widow's pension or some of the old age pension. That made me prick my ears because I said that, if they are entitled to some of the old age pension or some of the widow's pension, then the pension they receive as a Garda widow must be very small indeed. If I had been told they were not entitled to any old age pension or any widow's pension, I might have said, without going into it further, that the Garda widow's pension must be substantial. But it is not substantial. It was increased lately, as the reply to a question revealed today, to £170 a year. That is a very small pension for a Garda widow in this day and age.

We are, I think, entitled to compare that pension with the pension payable to widows of policemen in Europe and in Britain. Very frequently young men who join the Garda become disillusioned subsequently and leave the service; they then join some other police force elsewhere. I understand that the widows of policemen in Europe receive half their husbands' salaries by way of pension. In Britain, the widow of a policeman receives 33? per cent of her husband's salary and she is entitled to social welfare benefit on top of that. Here, a widow receives a quarter, 25 per cent, of her husband's salary and that is assessed against her under the social welfare code so that she is much worse off than is her sister in Europe and less well off than her sister in Britain. This is something that needs attention. Our police force should be put on terms as favourable as those that operate in other police forces, particularly in Europe. It is no answer to say that police forces in other countries are paid much better than is our police force here. I have mentioned percentages. We should at least put the Garda widow on the same level as her sister in Britain, namely, on 33? per cent of her husband's salary and give her social welfare benefit on top of that.

Certain extra work will fall on the Garda as a result of the passing of the Road Traffic Act earlier this year. The Minister for Local Government was responsible for piloting that measure through the House, but it is the Minister for Justice who will enforce its provisions, with the assistance of the Garda. There are some very far-reaching provisions in that Act. They are law now and nothing can be done about them. There is the blood test. There are powers of arrest for comparatively trivial offences. There are traffic wardens. These are just a few of the things arising out of that Act.

I would ask the Minister to ensure that the provisions of the Act are operated in a reasonable way. Nobody justifies, encourages, or even tolerates, drunken driving but, at the same time, the provisions of that Act should not be used solely to annoy or to make life unbearable for the motoring public. The provisions should be introduced gradually and operated in a reasonable way. I will not say in a sympathetic way because there should not be any sympathy for drunken drivers. The people I am concerned about are the ordinary people going about their business or their leisure. Everybody who drives a car should not be regarded as a criminal. Before the Garda are entrusted with the enforcement of certain sections of the Road Traffic Act they should have very considerable experience. Six months training in a depot is not anything like sufficient experience to equip a Garda to deal with the motoring public under this Act. The Gardaí should get an intensive and extensive course of training instruction and advice to equip them to enforce these provisions.

The Minister dealt with law reform and he mentioned wide fields in which he proposes to introduce legislation to reform the existing law. He promised a great many of these reforms within the present session. He will be a very busy man if he gets all these dealt with in this session. Perhaps he had his speech prepared before he knew his colleague was going to introduce the second electoral reform Bill, which is due for its Second Reading on 12th November. At any rate, the Minister, or some successor of his, will deal with the various law reforms mentioned by him.

As a general principle, any Bill proposing to change the existing law in a drastic way, or to change established custom, irrespective of whether it affects the family, individual citizens, or citizens as a whole, should receive very mature consideration, indeed, before it is introduced into this House because, once a Bill is introduced here, it becomes a matter of principle and, however ridiculous it is, the Minister may find it very hard at that point to run away from that principle. I want to sound a note of warning. My mind goes back to the Succession Bill. That Bill must have been drafted by technically-minded civil servants. It must never have been seriously considered by the responsible Minister. It could never have been seriously considered by the Cabinet. It certainly did not come before the Fianna Fáil Party. It was a crazy bit of legislation which did violence to conditions here, to the practice of will-making, to the family farm, to the family business: I need not go over the whole field again.

Give credit where credit is due. There was a change of Minister. The Minister who introduced it was promoted and was succeeded by another Minister. He availed of the opportunity to admit that the whole thing was fantastic. It was drastically amended and his own mother would not know it when it left this House. That is a very good reason, I think, for saying that Bills which propose to reform the law should be considered at grass-root level, at the ordinary man-in-the-street level. The Minister should have the fullest advice. I am glad to see, according to his brief, that he is availing of the advice of the Incorporated Law Society on certain matters and will thus draw on the vast field of experience and wisdom which that body acquires in its ordinary day-to-day dealings with the public, apart altogether from its technical knowledge.

I might avail of this opportunity to say that I certainly hope that, under the present Minister, whether he be in that office long or short, whether his Government lasts for a month or a year or longer, there will be a very great improvement in the relationship existing between himself and his Department and the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. If the Minister avails of the experience and the vast amount of wisdom—I use "wisdom" in the narrow sense—acquired by contact with people and by dealing with such a variety of problems as could never be met with in the Department of Justice, or in any Department, then he and his Department will benefit a lot by it and legislation introduced here will be much more practical.

Maybe this would be the point at which I should deal with a matter that was brought to my attention. Deputy Ryan has dealt with probate fees. In the old days, very old farmers used to warn their sons that there would come the time when the rates would be higher than the rent. I think they said the "cess", as they used to call it, would be higher than the rent. Certainly, the time has come when probate fees far exceed estate duty.

When some of us started to practise first, estate duty was payable on estates over £100. Now, estate duty is not payable unless the estate exceeds £5,000 in any case and, indeed, with certain concessions granted to widows and children, it could be far above that. However, probate fees have increased several hundred per cent. It is nothing now to find them, in a case, running to £20, £30 or £40. In cases where estate duty is not payable, probate fees should not be charged. If that is going too far, we should have a small flat rate for probate fees where estate duty is not payable. The Minister, who is a lawyer, cannot say that that is unreasonable. There used to be an old 15s, or 30s flat rate. I think a flat rate should now operate in any case where estate duty is not payable. I leave that to the Minister and his advisers to work out.

That brings me to another point in the field of probate. We have here a principal probate office in the city of Dublin and we have a number of district probate offices throughout the country. I do not know the exact number of district offices: it is between ten and 15—probably 13. Between them, these district offices issue about 10,000 grants of probate and administration each year. It is considered, on the best legal authority, that all of these grants of probate and administration issued by district probate offices each year are null and void and have no effect and, if challenged in any court of this country, will be thrown in the waste paper basket. That may sound extraordinary and the Minister may be surprised to hear it. I invite him to look into the position.

The district probate offices here were established under the Letters of Administration (Ireland) Act, 1857. That Act provided for the appointment of district registrars who were appointed, all down the years, I understand, up to 1945 when the Court Officers Act came into force. Section 9 of the Court Officers Act provided that, where a vacancy existed in an office allocated to a court, the Minister could, instead of filling it direct, authorise a court officer to perform the duties of the vacant office and, of course, the Minister for Justice, on the advice of his experts, ceased to appoint any more district probate officers. Instead, pursuant to section 9 of the Court Officers Act, 1945, he directed and authorised the county registrar to carry out the duties of the vacant office of district probate officer, which he was entitled to do under that section so long as there was a vacancy in the office of district probate registrar.

However, along came the Succession Act of 1965, and it abolished in toto the Probate (Ireland) Act, 1857 and, with it, bang went the office of district probate registrar. The Succession Act of 1965 repealed in toto the Probate (Ireland) Act, 1857, and automatically repealed the position of district probate registrar. Go through the Succession Act of 1965 as you will, line by line, and you will not find there any provision for the appointment of a district probate registrar. The Act refers glibly here and there to district probate registrars but there is nothing in the Act to provide for the appointment of a registrar.

Therefore, if there is no such office as that of district probate registrar, that office could not be vacant; and if there is no vacancy, if there is not the vacant office of district probate registrar, section 9 of the Court Officers Act, 1945, could not be brought into operation to fill a vacancy in a non-existent office. There is an all-powerful saving provision in the Succession Act about existing practice and procedure but it is doubtful, in my opinion, whether it helps at all. It certainly cannot help in any way the new district registries, eight in number I think, established by the Minister for Justice under the provisions of the Succession Act, 1965.

I have a feeling that in some quarters it is realised that the probate registrar has not the authority he purports to exercise because until recently all grants of probate and letters of administration issued by district registries were signed by the county registrar. It was a nice title, an added title, for the county registrar, one which, I am sure, he liked to use——

He got paid for it, too.

(Cavan): Of course he got paid for it. However, a short time ago the county registrar dropped the title of district probate registrar, and the grant is now issued and signed by the county registrar over the description “Person authorised by law to perform the duties of district probate registrar”. What I want to know is who, or by virtue of which law, is the county registrar authorised to perform the duties of district probate registrar. The first point I want to make in that respect is that there is no such gentleman, no such official, as the district probate registrar, because he went bang with the Succession Act of 1965.

I say therefore that it is difficult to see under which law the various county registrars are authorised to perform the duties of district probate registrar. It is really an alarming state of affairs that we are issuing grants of probate and letters of administration by the thousand which may not be worth the paper they are written on. So, the best legal opinion I could get advised me. I am not saying this off the cuff. I am speaking about something which has been the result of deep research and long consideration. Even if the advice I have got is not right—I accept it—it is still an alarming state of affairs that there should be any room for doubt, for argument, as to the validity of grants of probate or letters of administration through which people are dealing with thousands, perhaps millions, of pounds worth of property.

I ask the Minister therefore to avail of the earliest opportunity he has to have this matter looked into. I have given him my reasoning, I have given him the facts on which I base my argument. As I have said, the Succession Act glibly refers to the position of district probate registrar and refers to a lot of the things he has to do. Of course, by far the most important duty is the issuing of grants of probate and letters of administration, particularly letters of administration.

I think I have said enough about that to ensure that the Minister will have it looked into at the highest level. I am not sure the attention of the Minister or his Department has not already been directed to it. From his reaction, I gather that the Minister had not heard about it previously and I accept that. Might I say that the Minister, if he comes to the conclusion that what I have said is correct, should then direct that the probate registrar will be the county registrar and nobody else. In that way he will ensure that the probate registrar has proper legal qualifications and, indeed, experience to deal with the functions entrusted to him. It is more important now than ever before because we find there is more work being given to the various county registrars.

I was glad to hear the Minister speak about his proposal to increase the jurisdiction of the district and circuit courts. It has been talked about for quite some time and it is long overdue. One hears criticism from time to time about the cost of litigation. Much of that cost is due to the fact that expert witnesses, lay witnesses and others have to travel to Dublin to the High Court to have their cases decided in a very formal atmosphere, in a very formal way. There is a lot to be said, therefore, for a substantial increase in the jurisdiction of the district court. I do not know when it was increased to £50 but it was after considerable consideration and, of course, the figure was out of date before it was brought in.

I am a bit alarmed about the Minister's reference in his speech to bail. I see there an indication that the Minister believes that, unless there are very good reasons to the contrary, a person charged with an offence in any way serious at all should be detained in prison pending his trial.

In my opinion that is a dangerous trend. I think that the contrary should be the case. If there is going to be any change in the law the onus should still be on, and very much on, the prosecution to establish reasonable grounds for depriving a man of his liberty pending trial, because the presumption of innocence until a man is found guilty still stands sacred and I hope will continue to do so indefinitely.

I just cannot get the point in the Minister's speech and I certainly would ask the Minister to travel very, very slowly here. We had occasion, when the Road Traffic Bill was passing through the House, to complain bitterly about the powers of arrest without warrant given by that Bill and I feel this is all part of the same trend. Under that Bill the Garda had power to arrest without a warrant a person found guilty of dangerous parking. I do not object to the Garda having the right to tow away the offending vehicle, but why should they have the power to arrest without warrant? So far as I know, it remained in the Bill. We objected to it here and I do not know whether it was amended. The trend is creeping into legislation, giving the State more and more power, putting the private citizen on the wrong foot as much as they can. I know it is all being done in the name of society and under the pretence that it is necessary to adopt very strong measures in order to protect law-abiding citizens.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but this was the practice to my own knowledge for many years. In applications for bail the police officer went into the box and gave his view. If the man had a bad record that was taken into consideration. It was only in recent times, through a decision of the High or Supreme Courts, that was all changed.

(Cavan): It was always operated in a reasonable way. Except in cases involving injury to Gardaí or in cases where the accused person was likely to interfere with witnesses or impede the course of justice or to abscond, he should be given bail. If a police officer went into the witness-box and said that a man was a habitual criminal, that he had recently come out of jail and that he had several terms of imprisonment for physical violence, then I would say that it would be reasonable to keep him in prison. I would urge the Minister as a man of long experience as a lawyer in a practical way, to give this matter considerable consideration. I do not want to appear to be pontificating, but I am worried about the trend. In my short time in this House I see it creeping into legislation, giving the authorities more power, perhaps unnecessary power, and using a sledge hammer to kill a fly.

We do not want this island of ours to become a police State. It will not become one in five to ten years or overnight; but it can do so by degrees, by getting people to settle for less and less and by getting them to have less regard for their liberty and their individual rights. I have taken the Road Traffic Bill as an example because it was fresh in my mind. So long as I have voice and influence here I will continue to stand up for the rights of the individual citizens as against society in general while, at the same time, giving reasonable protection to society in general. If an individual, as such, loses his rights it means society in general has lost them. It is absurd to say you can submerge the individual right in the interests of the common right because all individuals together form society.

There was a point I intended to make when dealing with pensioners in connection with a couple of retired circuit court judges who had something less than the necessary ten years service to qualify them for a worthwhile pension. This has been brought up in the House on a number of occasions. I am asking the Minister to look into these two individual cases again. There is a precedent for meeting them in a special way. That precedent is to be found in an Act in Northern Ireland. I do not say we should follow the example of Northern Ireland in every sphere but, where we can find something of a charitable and Christian nature in their code, we should follow it. Indeed, sometimes judges are quite advanced in years when they are appointed and have not the opportunity of serving a sufficient length of time to qualify them for pensions. For that reason I urge that these two men should get special treatment.

The argument has been put up here by the present Minister's predecessor when he introduced a special Bill to deal with one judge. I do not object to that Bill at all. It was a Bill introduced to deal with one judge on his appointment and to ensure his pension. On his appointment he would have had less than the statutory period to qualify for a full pension. It was urged then that much could be said for doing this when a man had served for a long time at the Bar because he brought to the Bench a vast accumulation of experience and legal knowledge. He was much more valuable than a young inexperienced man. You have the case in Northern Ireland and you have the case of this special Bill which we had introduced here within the last couple of years to deal with a special case. That, if I might say so without disrespect, was a case of meeting somebody who was quite right in not accepting the position unless he was properly provided for. In my opinion it is not going too far to say that a couple of men who came in and gave equally good service and who did not have their interests protected before accepting office should have these interests protected now. Naturally, as they are retired men now, it is something which cannot wait indefinitely. It should be attended to in the reasonably foreseeable future before it is too late. The same thing applies to some district justices who are now in poor enough circumstances. These cases are becoming fewer and fewer as the years go by. There are only a few of them left and they were paid, I think, at the rate of something like £1,000 a year for many years and, indeed, they retired on small salaries. As a result they had very small pensions and I would ask the Minister to deal with them.

The only other matter with which I should like to deal is the Land Registry. There are delays in the Land Registry, particularly in the mapping section, which I am satisfied are due to shortage of staff and equipment. It might be said that you could not regard the Land Registry as a monopoly. It can be said that, indeed, it is; people must deal with it. A man wants to build a house. He must get a site and a Land Registry map before he can get finance to build. The building section of the county council will not talk to him until he has a site. He must get a new folio opened and he cannot get a folio until he gets a map, and there is up to six months delay in getting a Land Registry map. This hurts a lot of people. The man who builds a house is in trouble with the building contractor who is shouting for money which is not available until title is in order and title cannot be put in order until Land Registry formalities are dealt with. There is a whole chain of people involved. The man who gets the blame for the whole thing is the unfortunate country solicitor upon whom descends the client, the building contractor, the builder's suppliers and probably one or other non-legal Deputy telling the constituents who come to him that the solicitor is to blame for the whole thing. He is not. These delays occur in the Land Registry.

The solicitors are to blame for some of the delay.

(Cavan): I do not know what happens in Donegal. The Minister could not fail to realise the importance of this. It cannot wait. It should be possible to give a few more people to the mapping section of the Land Registry, even on a temporary basis until this is tidied up.

I have dealt with the points which occurred to me and beyond that I do not wish to say anything except to again urge on the Minister the necessity to improve and consolidate during his term of office, be it long or short, a reasonable relationship between him, his Department and the Incorporated Law Society.

I do not intend to go into the technicalities and the mechanisms of the legal profession. We have proper and plenty of representation on their behalf in this House. I come here to speak for a few moments as an ordinary member of the public. The Department of Justice have much to do. First of all, we must take into consideration the guardians of the peace—the Garda. The Minister says that our crime detection compares very favourably with that of any other country in Europe. That is something about which we are all very happy. However, very little compensation and recognition has been afforded to the devoted and dedicated men who are there on call 24 hours of every day. They should be treated in a much more human way. Their pay is not commensurate with the work they are called on to do. I have expressed certain fears on many occasions. I want to impress on the Minister that he should use whatever pressure lies in his power to see that, in so far as Limerick is concerned at any rate, the Office of Public works will provide suitable accommodation. The accommodation provided is an absolute shambles and I can assure the Minister that if we in the local authority had the power to condemn the premises as an unfit and dangerous dwelling we would be in there in 24 hours and have an order made for its demolition. I would ask the Minister to press as a matter of prior urgency for the provision of a suitable Garda barracks in the expanding city of Limerick which has grown beyond all our dreams in the last 10 to 20 years.

Twenty years?

That comes from the local authority efforts.

A lovely answer.

Despite the difficulties that were put in our way by the Department of Local Government and the yo-yo Act of the then Minister and despite whatever other obstacles he placed in our way we went on with our building. We went ahead and developed Limerick but Limerick has developed because and only because of the initiative and the courage of one man, Brendan O'Regan of Shannon Airport and not Fianna Fáil. Let that be clearly understood.

I should like to refer also to the unhappy plight of Garda widows. These men have served us well and their widows are given little or no consideration. The Minister, being the humane man I know he is, should take up their case and give these unfortunate widows something on which to live in frugal comfort, which they have not got at the present time. Their husbands served the State well, maybe in much more troublesome and dangerous times, and the least that should be done for them is to give them enough to provide them with a living in frugal comfort. That is not done and I would ask the Minister in the name of humanity and charity to give his sympathetic consideration to this appeal.

Now, I should like to come to a question concerning a constituent of mine who has earned world-wide fame over the last two, three or four weeks. I refer to the position with regard to Seán Bourke. While I do not agree with his action I would ask——

The matter is sub judice. I would object to it immediately.

That matter should not be discussed.

The Minister has my views. Now I come to the question of the district justices and the manner in which they administer the law particularly in the case of first offenders. A first offender could be anybody. They are generally youthful lads, not exactly of a criminal bent but through exuberance or one thing or another they get into some slight trouble.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share