(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——