At this juncture, I should like to say, for the information of Deputies, that, now that the Government have announced that the matter of the "Seven Days" money-lending programme is to be the subject of a judicial inquiry, further discussion of the matter may not take place until after the inquiry. This decision is in accordance with precedent.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 20: Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, 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including a grant-in-aid; and of the Public Record Office, and of the Keeper of State Papers and for the purchase of Historical Documents, etc.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.)
It is very proper and, so that it may not arise, would the Chair indicate whether the existence or the non-existence of the social problem of money-lenders might be referred to?
The Chair will deal with that question as it arises and in the context in which it arises.
I take it that, on the Resolution, we shall be able to discuss the matter, despite the Chair's statement that we cannot discuss it?
I am referring to the Estimate which is before the House at the moment.
I am resuming my remarks here, after a lapse of one week, since last Tuesday. Perhaps, with the permission of the Chair, for the benefit of many Deputies who are present now and who were not then present, I may be permitted to recapitulate a part of my remarks made at that time? I stressed that, whereas the House should always concern itself with the suitability of the individual public office, there are special reasons why the suitability of the individual who holds the important office of Minister for Justice should most carefully be scrutinised.
On a point of order. I submit that my suitability or otherwise for office is utterly and completely out of order on this Estimate which this Deputy, who is still wet behind the ears in this House, will soon learn. This matter could be discussed when the House debated my appointment or when the Taoiseach appointed me. Possibly my suitability can be discussed on the Taoiseach's Estimate. The other side of this coin is that, if this is allowed, I propose to discuss the suitability of Deputy O'Brien to be a Member of this House. It has just as much relevance to this Estimate as my suitability as Minister.
I was about to intervene when the Minister rose. The position is that the behaviour of the Minister for Justice during the present financial year is relevant to the debate but the question of general suitability does not arise.
What I have to say arises out of the behaviour of the individual who is Minister for Justice and whose salary is paid out of the Estimate we are considering. The Minister, in a rather typical reply, indicated that he would discuss my suitability to be a Member of this House. I cannot see how that arises on this Estimate but I am prepared to debate any matter publicly with the Minister at any time he wishes.
That does not arise on the Estimate.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. It is of importance in judging the Minister's record during the past year as Minister for Justice, which is what he is paid to be, to see does that record show him to be a man who was scrupulous in his respect for the rights and the human dignity of his fellow citizens? Did he, during the year under review, exercise consideration and restraint in his social relations, and propriety in his language? It is important to know the answer to these questions because this Minister had, during the year under review and still has, important powers. He has powers, for example to tap the telephone line of any citizen including, as I understand it, any Deputy in this House. He has possessed this power during the past year. He possesses it at this time and he can exercise this power in accordance with his judgment or what the national security may require.
This requires on our part in relation to the gentleman who has exercised these powers, and now exercises them, a great deal of confidence. We must inquire whether he has during the past year deserved this confidence. Has he appeared, as I have suggested he might, as a sensitive person, scrupulous about human rights and so on, or has he appeared as a rough, intolerant human being, aggressive in his language and demeanour and disposed to override all criticism with great personal rudeness?
We may be sure that an individual who has behaved in that way before the public will behave even worse in respect of any powers he possesses whose operation may be withheld and can be withheld at this moment from public view. It is also important in relation to a person who has possessed and still possesses these secret powers over telephone tapping and the operations of the political branch of the Department to know this. Is he a person whose account of events shows itself and has shown itself to be reliable when checked against the record, the public record, or is he, on the other hand, a person whose recollections are frequently misleading when checked against the public record?
If he is a person of the second type obviously we cannot rely on his statements about operations on which we have no means of checking. That is to say, we cannot safely rely on his unsupported word that the exceptional secret powers which he possesses will be used in the interests of the national security only—national security being there interpreted in a sense in which all the House would understand it, and not just one party. This is a matter of the utmost gravity and it is, therefore, of great importance to scrutinise the public record of the activities and recorded utterances of the Minister during the period in question.
Fortunately, we now have abundant material to go on. Some sections of the Press have suggested that, in interesting themselves in this question, Deputies of this House have been engaged in baiting an individual. I do not think that is true of many Deputies and I hope it is not true of myself. I am not at all interested in the person of the Minister as an individual. I am very interested, as I think every Deputy should be, in the person who happens to be Minister for Justice at the moment and has been for the past year, not on personal but on public grounds. In inquiring into this I shall ignore, as I am sure the Ceann Comhairle would wish me to do, the remarks attributed to the Minister so frequently during the past year in the public Press. I shall make the charitable assumption that the Minister has been and is systematically misreported in his utterances outside this House. I shall confine myself, therefore, to the record of his utterances here.
In general, the Minister's remarks in his opening statement have been consistently of a rather edifying nature, as one might expect from statements which have been, on the whole, compiled in his Department, a Department which is staffed by officials of high professional competence and decorum in statement. On the other hand, if we look at the kind of thing the Minister says in his answering as distinct from his opening statement, we find a very strong tendency to intemperance, to brushing back questions, and to severity. We also find a certain unreliability in his answering. He has used very strong terms about other Deputies and about individuals outside the House.
I find myself, a Cheann Comhairle, in a somewhat embarrassing position in that, when I attempted to raise this question on the Adjournment the other day, you denied this request on the ground that this debate was proceeding, and in my adjourned remarks I therefore assumed—I think I had the right to assume—that I would have the right to refer to this question. May I ask, a Cheann Comhairle, whether you are ruling that a remark which I would have been able to make when I began to speak last Tuesday would now be out of order?
I am not aware of what remark the Deputy refers to.
I was discussing, as you ruled I had the right to do, the Minister's statement in the House. His statement on this matter raised three separate issues of public importance: first, whether there were certain malpractices going on at the moment which were within the purview of his Department; secondly, whether persons who sought to ventilate these malpractices had accurately done so and had preserved the standards of care that they should have preserved in a programme of this kind; and, thirdly, the matter raised by the Minister's handling of this particular issue and the one with which I have been concerned in my earlier remarks, whether the gentleman is fit to hold the post which he does hold. We know what the Minister himself thinks on all the issues concerned. He thinks there is no serious or widespread racket of the type described. How does he reconcile this conclusion, which he has presented to us here with great insistence as a factual one, with what he later said?
This is not in order. The Deputy is aware that an inquiry is being set up——
On a point of order.
There can be no point of order until I finish.
They will not even allow freedom of speech for the Ceann Comhairle.
I have ruled that discussion on the matters referred to by the Deputy is not in order for the reason that the House is to set up the judicial inquiry mentioned by the Taoiseach today.
Did the Taoiseach not make it clear that there would be no public inquiry into illegal money-lending in Dublin? Therefore this matter actually arises on the Minister's Estimate.
Since the Taoiseach's statement was made only 25 minutes ago and, more particularly, since the terms of reference of this judicial inquiry are completely unavailable to Deputies, may I suggest that, pending receipt of these terms of reference, which I assume you have not yet received, and their issuance to Deputies, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, who, after all had commenced his speech last week, should be allowed, in the public interest, to make his comments without impinging on general aspects of the question. The Government are now looking for an "out" and they have got one, and we are inhibited from discussing something for the next few months. The inquiry could go on for six months.
There is nothing the Chair can do about it.
(Cavan): As I understand it, the only reason why this matter which it is sought to discuss can be ruled out of order is that it is sub judice arising from the setting up of a judicial inquiry. It is impossible, for you, Sir, I respectfully submit, to say whether or not a particular matter in relation to this is sub judice until we know the terms of reference. I respectfully suggest that the Taoiseach was very vague——
This is not a point of order; this is a speech, which the Deputy is not entitled to make at this stage. I made it very clear at the outset that the matters referred to by the Deputy could not be discussed on the Estimate.
On what grounds? May I say——
Would the Deputy allow me to speak? The matters cannot be discussed for the reason that these are matters pertinent to the inquiry that the Taoiseach announced would be set up.
The matter is not sub judice unless the Chair is in possession of information——
Would the Chair not agree that there are exceptional circumstances, in that the Deputy had commenced his speech——
I am sorry.
The Deputy has already agreed with your ruling and does not intend to go too deeply into the matter, but wishes to examine the Minister's suitability.
Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien will get ample opportunity to discuss the matters to which he has referred. They are out of order now.
Did you not say——
I cannot allow a debate on this matter now.
You said the Deputy could raise it on the Estimate.
Yes; but not in the new circumstances.
You told him he could raise it on the Estimate.
Not these particular matters in the new circumstances.
I must accept, and do accept, your ruling. The extent of it is not entirely clear to me but I must accept it in its broadest sense. I would only say in general about this question that the Minister showed himself prompt to accept as a fact allegations made to the Garda when these allegations were of a to exonerate himself and his own Department, because it was himself and his own Department who come under accusation if it does appear there is a widespread racket going on in the city and elsewhere in the country about which he has done nothing, and that seems to say something further about his suitability for public office.
I take certain statements of his in the past which also have a bearing on this matter. In February, 1969, the time under review, he referred to "the conflicting claims of those who want to use the streets for protest marches and of those who want to go about their lawful business". That seems to be an insinuation that persons who engage in peaceful protest are not engaged in lawful business. That is a very serious thing, because the right of peaceful protest and peaceful demonstration is a constitutional right of a citizen and not something to be withheld by a gentleman who happens to be Minister at a given moment.
If the Deputy purports to quote me, I submit he must quote what I have said and not pick out one single remark and put his own interpretation on it.
I can give the reference: column 127, volume 238, of the Official Report of 4th February, 1969.
Quote what I said.
The Minister referred to "the conflicting claims of those who want to use the streets for protest marches and of those who want to go about their lawful business." Is the Minister satisfied that I quoted what he said?
Finish the quotation.
I do not have to recite every word.
Finish it to the end of what I said about conflicting evidence.
I will quote from the Minister what it seems to me pertinent to quote and will not accept any dictation from this gentleman.
The Deputy wants to slant it in his own way, not quote it fully.
I have quoted what the Minister said. He will have ample time to reply and he will reply, no doubt, in his own style. Again I quote from column 1491, volume 233, of the Official Report of 2nd April, 1968:
Consequently, while a person may sometimes be within his rights in refusing to identify himself to a garda, the position in general is that a person who refuses does so at his own risk and may find himself under arrest if he persists.
You have a right but you have also the right to be arrested if you use it. Now I quote from column 440, volume 235 of the Official Report of 30th May, 1968:
It is clear therefore, if only from the small numbers taking part——
Notice the logic of this one.
——that the cry of police brutality against demonstrators is just the usual catch-cry used when the police are forced to intervene against certain types of demonstrators.
That is a very important statement. It is the kind of statement which Mr. William Craig made in the North of Ireland and which eventually cost him his office.
It is important because it is the truth.
Let us examine that: "It is clear, if only from the small numbers taking part, that the cry of police brutality against demonstrators is just the usual catch cry ...". How can that possibly be clear from the small numbers taking part?
The small numbers of police I was referring to.
Is it not clear to everyone that if there is just one policeman and one demonstrator, there may be brutality on the part of either party. The small numbers prove absolutely nothing, and the Minister is well aware of it. The Minister will also have the chance of replying and I hope he can control his temper to the limited extent required to refrain from interrupting when he is quoted.
He does not like taking punishment.
I am used to twaddle in this House.
I was quoting the Minister on the 10th December, 1968, in part of a long interchange between the Minister and a Deputy which included language which surprised me at the time when I read the Dáil debates. It has been pointed out that I am a new Deputy here and it has surprised me less now that I have heard the Minister in action, but I was originally surprised when I read things like this: "It was a conspiracy and it was done by you and your pals. You were mixed up with these scruffy people." No one would be terribly frightened if Deputy J. Lenehan used these remarks, it is not inconceivable that he might, but when the gentleman who said, "it was a conspiracy" is the Minister for Justice then Deputies have a right to well justified alarm. The Minister for Justice possesses certain powers, including powers to deal with conspiracy and he might well use them against people of whom he can say "it was a conspiracy". That could be developed, but I do not propose to go back into the more remote past. We do not have to go very far into the past because there have been further revelations while this debate was proceeding of the fundamental unsuitability of the Minister concerned.
I refer to further revelations which are quite independent of the major question which we are forbidden to discuss and that is the handling of the "Seven Days" programme. We have to lay that aside at the moment, although we shall have an opportunity to return to it. There have been other revelations since then of how the Minister handles things. For example, in answering questions put by Deputy Bruton on 27th November, 1969, column 2105 of the Official Report on various matters relating to persons detained in places where they are supposed to be receiving rehabilitary treatment, the following type of exchange took place:
Mr. Bruton: Do they have any professional guidance?
One would have thought that was quite a reasonable question. The responsible Minister replied:
What professional guidance does a man need in trying to get another fellow a job?
One might think that a rather simplified approach to the question of professional guidance. The Minister went on:
Does the Deputy think he should have a degree from Trinity?
Deputy Dr. FitzGerald then pointed out:
The Minister never heard of training for vocational guidance.
The Deputy was asking me about placing ex-prisoners in jobs outside and that is what I was replying to.
May I proceed, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle? The Minister was asked about the rehabilitation of people detained.
Mr. Bruton: Would the Minister confirm or deny that the only educational facilities available at the moment are being provided by a prison officer who has the leaving certificate but no other teaching qualification?
Mr. Moran: I would not. The people who are there are fully qualified to teach what they are teaching.
The Minister does not seem to be aware that special training may be required to teach people who are badly behind or severely backward or mentally deficient. It is not a question of merely being qualified to teach advanced subjects but of being qualified to teach any subject in a special way. The whole question was ignored with a great deal of callousness, which was enough to cause considerable alarm for those who happened to be under the care of this particular gentleman. The Minister's concern for their physical welfare is of the same quality as his concern for their intellectual welfare. Deputy Bruton asked the Minister:
Is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate protein content in this food?
Mr. Moran: Protein?
Mr. Bruton: Yes, protein. I believe it is excessively starchy food.
Mr. Moran: Certainly, if the Deputy is referring to spuds there is any amount of them.
Dr. FitzGerald: That shows the Minister's ignorance.
I did not know the Deputy was a doctor of medicine.
We are talking about protein.
I asked the Minister about protein.
The Deputy asked me about starchy foods?
All right, I shall begin again: According to the Dáil debate Mr. Bruton asked:
Is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate protein content in this food?
Mr. Moran: Protein?
Mr. Bruton: Yes, protein. I believe it is excessively starchy food.
Mr. Moran: Certainly, if the Deputy is referring to spuds there is any amount of them.
Dr. FitzGerald: That shows the Minister's ignorance.
Dr. O'Connell: The Minister is being asked a question and in reply he said spuds contain protein. They do not contain any protein whatever.
Mr. Moran: The Deputy said starch.
Dr. O'Connell: He said the food was starchy food and does not contain protein.
Mr. Moran: I was answering what he said about starch and I understand the good old Murphy has tons of starch.
Mr. Bruton: I said there was too much starch and not enough protein.
Mr. Moran: The Deputy said starch and it was about starch I answered.
I do not know what anyone reading that interchange can conclude about the person answering the question except that he was indifferent to the welfare of the people concerned; he was incompetent in relation to his office; he did not seem to be capable of understanding what was meant by a very simple question and he was unreliable in his version of the facts. He was asked a question about protein and he persisted in saying the question was about starch.
I was asked about starch and starch in spuds.
The Minister was asked about protein and the Deputy who asked the original question is present in the House to clarify that.
On a point of order, may I point out to the Minister——
That is not a point of order.
The Minister referred to my question incorrectly.
The Deputy knows that is not a point of order.
On what point may I raise it?
I am sure the Deputy will make an explanation in his own speech.
Is it in order for the Minister for Justice to describe potatoes as spuds?
(Interruptions.)
I think it should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I should like to make it very clear that I have no objection whatever to the Minister's referring to spuds, Murphys or any other terminology he may wish to employ. It is not a stylistic question. The Minister chose this homely terminology in order to distract attention from his own incompetence in dealing with the question before him. This rough home-spun manner which the Minister indulges in——
The Deputy could afford a ton of protein but we had to live on spuds.
The Minister will not answer the question.
I did answer the question.
Deputy Cruise-O'Brien.
I will turn now to another aspect of the same question affecting the Minister's suitability to remain in office. I refer now to the revelation made in this House on the 25th November by Deputy Sweetman. Deputy Sweetman produced a letter which he said was sent by the Minister on notepaper headed "Office of the Minister for Justice, Dublin. 14th May" and carrying the words "Minister for Justice" after the signature Micheál Ó Moráin. That letter was addressed to a lady who appears to have been a client of the Minister.
That is untrue.
Very well, I withdraw it. It was addressed to a certain lady.
It was addressed to a constituent and it was removed forcibly from that constituent by a member of the Fine Gael Party.
Perhaps, the Minister can tell us if the letter as quoted by Deputy Sweetman is genuine.
The Deputy has already stated one untruth in stating that the lady in question was a client of mine. He can proceed with his untruths. I will expose him as he goes ahead.
What is a Fine Gael minion?
If I was wrong in describing the person as a client of the Minister as a solicitor, I have withdrawn that. If it was an error, I certainly put it aside and express my regret for it. I am quite happy to do that. But I asked the Minister a question, and as he interrupted me he might answer it, as to whether the letter as quoted by Deputy Sweetman is or is not true.
The letter is a letter written by me to my constituent. I do not mind if the Deputy put it in the Ghana Times. I stand over every line and every word of it.
The Minister stands over every line of it. That is important. This is the letter that he stands over every line of:
I discussed the matter with the county engineer and I found that Mrs. X did not avail of the purchase provisions for her house in St. Bridget's Crescent and she is now late to do so. After discussing and considering the matter I consider the only thing for you to do is to move in quietly ...
"To move in quietly". The Minister for Justice stands over every word of that.
I do. To move in quietly with her cousin is what I told her.
It goes on:
If any neighbours ask any question you can say you are in there as Mrs. X's cousin and that you are looking after the place for her. Once you are in we will try and find ways and means of keeping you there and ultimately getting you recognised as the official tenant.
I wonder what did the addressee of that letter on the headed paper of the Minister for Justice understand by "we".
Mr. J. Lenehan
A palm tree in Africa.
The African mirage is floating on the edge of this debate and serves the usual purpose of a red herring. We are discussing the Minister for Justice and his Department and his Estimate and the letter which he stands by in which he says:
We will try to find ways and means of keeping you there.
How would a person understand that on headed paper from the Department of Justice signed by the Minister for Justice?
With the Deputy's own arrogance he would understand the use of the royal "we" on occasion.
Oh, the royal "we". Now we have something.
Like Nkrumah, we speak as "we".
Nkrumah, of course, is a matter which does certainly arise on this Estimate.
Even the Pope says "we".
It seems to me that a person who received that letter signed by a Minister in his capacity as Minister would understand by "we" the Government or the Fianna Fáil Party and it may be that the distinction between these two entitities is not always clearly comprehended by every citizen in this country, and if she did and if there is any likelihood that people would understand it in this way we have a clear conflict of interest case here.
The Minister is pursuing his legal activities, as we are told, in County Mayo.
That is also untrue but we will deal with that.
He is also issuing miscellaneous advice on headed paper.
Mr. J. Lenehan
He is wrong. It is in Galway.
He is only out 50 miles. He has been out 1,000 all the afternoon.
One might also ask before I leave that question why a Minister who now tells us that he stands over every line of this beautiful letter should have stated:
For obvious reasons you should destroy this letter.
One wonders what were the obvious reasons.
Mr. J. Lenehan
The biggest fool in Europe would know the answer to that.
For obvious reasons.
The echo.
Would Deputies allow Deputy Cruise-O'Brien to proceed without interruption? Then the debate can proceed.
Thank you very much, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Thank God for intellectuals.
Mr. J. Lenehan
God save us from them.
We have a description for you and it is not "intellectuals".
Mr. J. Lenehan
God help you, Brendan. You will not be long on the front bench.
You will have nothing to do with that decision.
Members must be referred to as Deputies or Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, as the case may be.
I was asked just now in the corridors by a supporter of the Government Party how a decent man, as he said, like Jack Lynch, the Taoiseach, could tolerate the continuance in office of the present Minister for Justice. I think the answer surely is that this is the kind of man the Government want as Minister for Justice and anything we may infer about the suitability of the Minister reflects on the Government which appointed him. Whatever impression we may form of the Minister for Justice is also an impression of the Government of which he is part. This appeared when, I think, the Taoiseach stood over his action on a recent matter to which I am not at liberty to refer.
I shall leave the subject of the Minister, but just with this reflection: I think that, if in any country with which we have relations a play or a film were displayed which showed the Minister for Justice of Ireland behaving as this Minister for Justice behaves in this House, there would be an outcry among people in this country as regards the damage done to the image of this country by the portrayal of a Minister for Justice of Ireland in this light. I would suggest that it might be well for us to be a little less sensitive about the image presented of us abroad in certain ways and a little more sensitive about how our institutions actually work and how the persons to whom the conduct of these institutions has been given behave.
The Deputy will not assist in putting up a monument to me on the top of Howth as he did with Nkrumah. I will not have his assistance on that. Or that wonderful image of justice portrayed by him in his country.
Do you think the little Nkrumah stuff will wear out eventually? It is worth trying for wear and tear.
He gave you good training, or you him—I do not know which.
I should like before I sit down to say a word or two about adoption. This Minister has certain responsibility in relation to An Bord Uchtála. The Devlin Report recommends that these responsibilities be withdrawn from his Department—this has nothing to do with the personality of the Minister, obviously—and entrusted to one other Department, that the Department of Health be made fully responsible for this important and delicate matter. I should like to support that. I think it is very important that it should be one Ministry which would exercise full responsibilities on this matter and that that Ministry should be a Ministry like the Department of Health whose functions are, shall we say, positive rather than negative, those of promotion of positive factors rather than restraint.
I should like also to urge that the supervisory protection for children placed for adoption should be restored. That provision existed in the 1957 Act and was withdrawn under the 1964 Act. I do not know who objects to the restoration of this provision and why. Several of us had occasion to ask questions about this matter during the past year referring to the case of the child who was beaten to death in Waterford and concerning whom no public body seemed to have had adequate responsibility. The case only came to public notice because the child died. Had the child been merely severely beaten daily, as it may be that other children are, then this matter would never have come to light. I put down a question on this to the two Ministers responsible. One of them—I think it was the Minister for Health— replied that the case was exceptional. One rather hopes that cases in which children are beaten to death are exceptional. I think that this case should have stirred the public conscience to the point of ensuring that our adoption procedures work better.
The Minister contented himself with routine tributes to the adoption societies. That is hardly an adequate way of dealing with the matter. It is certain the adoption societies have done and are doing excellent work; it is also certain that the State is not exercising to an adequate degree the supervisory responsibilities it has to see that adopted children are not exposed to risks of the kind which have occurred. The joint committee of women's societies have made certain recommendations which I commend to the House. These include the assessment of adopted homes by the proper health authority before a child is placed and supervision during the probationary period by their children's officers. The recommendations include better staffing to serve the board. When the number of adoption cases was about one-quarter of the present figure there were two qualified officers investigating for the final legal stage. How many are there now? I am informed there are no more than five. That is obviously grossly inadequate for the work that has to be done and the joint committee of women's societies recommend a grant to all—not just a few—of the registered adoption societies. These suggestions merit careful consideration. There is room to act now on the Devlin recommendation for a transfer of the powers in question to the Minister for Health.
My party did not intend to oppose this token Estimate or challenge a vote on it but, because of the display we had from the Minister during the progress of the debate, we now intend to oppose it and we will vote against it.
May I congratulate the Minister on his bearing in the recent inquisition carried out by Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien of the Labour Party, ably assisted by Deputy Corish and Deputy Dr. O'Connell? I have had experience of Labour Party Deputies attacking Ministers but, when a Deputy attacked a Minister, he did it on his own. We did not have the ventriloquist act we had this evening, with Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien making accusations against the Minister and Deputy Dr. O'Connell re-echoing these. The display this evening will bring no credit to the House and certainly none to the Labour Party.
Like the actions of the Minister for Justice.
The Deputy played his part this evening as the support, or stooge, of Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien and I will ask him kindly to lapse into silence now while I am speaking. The only Deputies who interrupted, apart from the Minister, who had to reply to some of the accusations, were Deputy Dr. O'Connell and Deputy M. O'Leary.
I did not open my mouth. Where was the Deputy during the debate? Why does he not stick to his text, if he has one, and stop making an ass of himself?
This is typical of the Labour Party; they will let no one talk except themselves.
Deputy Moore has all night to make his speech. I am getting a bit impatient.
In discussing this Estimate and reviewing things that have happened over the last year, and the changes that have taken place in our society generally, we might, perhaps, have a look at the structure of the Department of Justice to see if it is as perfect as we would wish it to be so that it will serve the people in the way in which it should serve them. I have in mind the attitude of certain people who do not agree with the attitude or actions of the State on certain occasions. Sometimes it appears as if that reaction is built up because the Department have not got the best approach to the public and do not show the public why certain actions have to be taken. When there are street demonstrations they are invariably followed by cries of "police brutality". I do not suggest that every garda is a model and that he may not lose his temper or act as any of us would act under pressure in a street row. Changes have taken place.
It is very difficult for the Department to show the correctness of their approach. They are not, of course, always right, but they are more often right than wrong. It is essential that the public should have confidence in the structure of the State and in the actions taken by the State, or nonaction in some circumstances. In order to ensure that confidence it is essential that the Department should have good public relations with the people. Any bona fide movement which conforms to the democratic process should be assured that it can continue to put its point of view forward with the full backing of the State. Possibly a super public relations officer would be required. I do not know if the Department have such an officer. If they had there would be a definite improvement in public relations.
They have at least half a dozen public relations officers. They collect them everywhere.
Would the Deputy kindly keep quiet?
Would the Deputy kindly be factual?
There are no public relations officers employed by me.
He said employed by the State.
Would Deputy Dr. O'Connell keep the other doctor quiet?
The affluent society is a much afflicted society. That is true of all countries.
Is it in order for the Minister for Justice to keep hurling abuse at the Opposition? I think it is disgraceful.
I was paying tribute to Deputy Dr. O'Connell. I was asking him to control Deputy Dr. O'Donovan.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister has one of the most difficult tasks in the Government. Very often the situations with which he has to deal make him a ready target for criticism. At the same time, I believe the public generally appreciate the fact that the Department seek to live up to their name and seek to ensure that every citizen is held equal before the law. That is as it should be in any democratic State. There are a great many factors influencing the behaviour and conduct of young people today. Sometimes the Department, through the Government, can help to educate the people, prevent the abuse of certain things and protect young citizens from influences which would not be conducive to their becoming good citizens.
I have in mind the matter of censorship. We all know how difficult it is to prevent the importation of dubious literature or films or to prevent dubious matter on the radio. We just cannot stop this. I want to pay tribute to the board which deals with the censorship of publications. They have a very difficult job, for which they are unpaid, and they are doing a very good job. However, every one of us is aware that it is not difficult to import any kind of literature which one wants to import and the bookstalls carry a very good quota of pornographic literature. I know that anyone who brings up this question will be called a prude or told that he is not with it. Recently a young girl who was studying for her intermediate certificate was told to read about the first world war. She went to a Dublin library and selected a book on the subject. It was not clear whether it was fiction or non-fiction but when her father read the book he found that it was revolting. One part of the book was devoted to the confessions of a prostitute, which could hardly be considered suitable reading for a young boy or girl. The parents took the book to the library where the authorities immediately withdrew it from circulation. However, that is only one book. How many more such are in circulation?
Are we doing enough to prevent this type of literature from flooding the market? As I said, the censorship board are doing a good job but it is impossible for them to look at even a fraction of the books which come in. I do not know how the Minister or his Department could possibly deal with this flood. We just cannot say that it is a matter for the Department because it is a matter for all of us to see that the youth are not being influenced by such reading matter which is being turned out by people merely for the sake of profit. Even in what would be miscalled the more liberal countries they are beginning to realise the great problem posed by such publications. I want to make it quite clear that in this case the library authorities immediately withdrew the book.
Some years ago the Government established the ban-ghardaí who are doing a very fine job. Their numbers are too small to enable them to play their full part in this city. There is a great need for a great increase in the number of ban-ghardaí. Up to recently they have been doing police duties but they should be employed solely in cases involving women and children. The now defunct Dublin Corporation have to receive the credit for campaigning for a long time for the setting up of this body. The members were aware that there was a great need for them in the city and they were very glad when the force was established.
In recent times the gardaí have had very tough times, just as the police in all countries of the world have had the same experience. It is no harm to pay tribute to their dedication to duty and to their bearing and to say that we appreciate the job they are doing. We could also praise the prison officers who must be a dedicated body to take up such a job. They must feel a real urge to serve humanity at its not very attractive stage. We should record our appreciation of their services and also ensure that both the gardaí and the prison officers have the best salaries we can give them. We should also increase the number of probation officers in the city. This will become more urgent in the future and we should have more officers so that boys and girls who get into trouble for the first time will be helped back into society and not let just go on their way, because we know what that means in most cases. Our job is to keep them out of prison and not put them into it. The probation service could play a tremendous part in dealing with young people and even with the rehabilitation of older people who have broken the law.
Another section of the community to whom I should like to pay tribute are the peace commissioners. I do not think I ever heard any reference to peace commissioners in this House. All over the country they do a very good job when they are called upon to do it, without remuneration, and there is nobody to say thanks to them. I do not know if there is any equivalent to the peace commissioner in any other country.
Inevitably when discussing this Estimate we turn to the drug traffic because, again, it is one of the marks of the affluent society that people will take drugs for kicks to start off with, and it will become a much greater problem all over the world. The main onus will fall on the Department of Justice to check this problem but, again, it is for the public to control it and to stamp it out if possible by cooperating with the authorities and by trying to influence young people who may be tempted to start taking drugs. The last speaker referred to the Adoption Board and paid tribute to it, as we would all wish to do. The Minister has promised to look into the workings of the board.
I should like now to refer to things that may happen in the future. I am referring to the visit of the South African rugby team. I am not in favour of the South African policy of apartheid. I hope to record my dislike of it by not attending the match but as the garda may well be involved is it not right that we should appeal to all who dislike this policy to act as free men would and that we should record our protest against the visit of this team with dignity? Both The Irish Times and the Irish Press carried very fine leading articles on this matter today and if people read these articles it would give them a much better approach to the problem of whether people should or should not protest violently or peacefully. The Irish Times in the final sentence of its editorial said that we have to be careful that we do not become tarnished with the South African outlook. We have to show that we are democrats who believe in the rights of people who differ from us. We detest and abhor the policy of apartheid but we will try to show them that ours is the better way.
The Chair would prefer if the Deputy did not get away from the Estimate.
With respect, Sir, the garda will be dealing with this matter and I am trying to play my part in having a peaceful demonstration and not a violent one.
I am sure the Deputy would not wish to prejudge the issue.
That is quite true. I would ask people to read the two articles. If they did it would do a tremendous lot of good. Finally, I want to pay tribute to the Minister for his handling of many difficult situations during the year. It is easy for us to criticise the Minister. One may conduct an inquisition with all the force, cunning and viciousness of a Torquemada and the Minister has to stand over his actions but if each one of our records was the subject of an inquisition, and I am excluding no member, we might not all come out as well as the Minister has done.
(Cavan): That is a very backhanded compliment.
I wonder would the Deputy come out well.
I feel I am expressing the views of the majority in this House when I say that any reference that has been made to the Minister has not been made in an individual or personal capacity but in the capacity of the Minister as Minister for Justice. It is my opinion that the person who occupies that post is unsuitable. I have always held the view that it is wrong to make a solicitor Minister for Justice, to make a teacher Minister for Education, or to make a doctor Minister for Health. To make a solicitor Minister for Justice is highly dangerous. When you have a Minister for Justice who is intimately connected with the running of the Department, one who has had dealings with justices and who has had dealings with other interests in his capacity as a solicitor, it is quite wrong. It was wrong for the Taoiseach to appoint a solicitor to this Department.
Let us hope that as a result of the expressions of opinion that have been voiced throughout this debate the Taoiseach will realise his mistake. May I ask what is the impression of the ordinary man about the Department of Justice? The Department which is headed by a Minister was set up to supervise the expenditure of moneys which we vote here, to administer the payment of the Garda Síochána and to administer the laws which we pass. It is only right that it should go on record, and I feel it is the common belief, that the word "justice" has been misused. Justice would signify fair play, equal rights and an honest and fair allocation of authority exercised with prudence and very great discretion. It is the duty of the national Parliament to cultivate love and respect for the institution of law and order.
It is not true, in relation to administration by the Department of Justice, that the ordinary man and woman in the street are finding it increasingly difficult to pay the amount of respect they should pay in a free democracy where justice should not alone prevail but be seen to prevail? When the question of justice arises in any group of our citizens it is usually treated scornfully. It is the duty of this House to change that attitude by word, by deed, by example and by practice. The common opinion throughout the country is that there is plenty of law here but very little justice. If loyal citizens are made to feel that there is very little justice, it may have very serious consequences for the institutions set up by Parliament and for our continued existence as a democracy. I dread to think what the future will hold for our country if our people lose respect for law and order.
We are bound by codes of conduct which are instilled at civics lessons at school, one of the most important of these codes being respect for the State, respect for law and order and recognition of the necessity for obedience. It is a very serious situation for any country if its people lose confidence in the institutions of Government. From the point of view of the very existence of the State itself, loss of confidence in such institutions can be the greatest possible national disaster.
Our people must have confidence in the institutions of the State. It is common knowledge that our people are gradually losing respect for authority, for law, for order. A duty devolves on the Minister for Justice to set a good example both in Parliament and outside it if we are to expect our people to show the right and proper respect for the institutions set up here: respect for the law, respect for the Garda, respect for everyone in authority. If our people are under the impression that there are various types of law, it will be extremely difficult to maintain confidence not only in the administration of justice but even in relation to Parliament itself. Our courts come within the ambit of the Department of Justice. But, I respectfully submit, the highest authority in this country is the Parliament of which we have the honour of being members.
It is common knowledge that there is an expression of opinion amongst the rank and file that there are various types of law and justice. While we maintain there is one law for all, the general opinion is that fairness and justice are weighted in favour of those who believe in the Government in power. It is generally felt that there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor. We may have our own opinions as to whether there is. The Minister may say: "No. There is one law for all", but it will be extremely difficult to break down this atmosphere and restore confidence in law and order if, as time goes on, the expressed opinion of the general public is that there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor, that there is a law called Singer law and a law called Taca law. If all these laws are under review by the plain people of the country, how can we expect them to have confidence in the entire set up of justice?
The Minister and the Government are charged with that job. I would be long sorry to see the day when the laws made by this House met with disrespect from any great section of the people. As we assemble here to discuss this Estimate, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there has been revealed, not today, not yesterday, not last year or the year before but for some time now, a growing tendency to show disrespect for justice and law, on the theory that what seems to be good law for some is bad law for others. It is the poorer sections of our people, ill-equipped with influence, who appear to be the victims of what might be described as bad law. This is responsible for a cancerous growth which is eating into public confidence and respect for justice and fair play.
There is an obligation on Parliament to restore confidence and trust and faith in the laws which are passed by this House. They should be administered by the proper people. The ordinary people living in towns and villages and cities in rural Ireland should have loyalty for and confidence in our laws. There should not be one law for the rich and another for the poor, and there should not be a law sponsored or advocated or flavoured by an association with or an associate of Taca and all that stands for.
It is our duty to try to encourage our people to have confidence in our institutions. I want to warn this House that, as time goes on, the gap becomes wider between confidence and lack of confidence, between trust and distrust, between honesty and intrigue, between the fair administration of law and what appears to be the unfair administration of it. There was a time when only a small section lacked confidence in the administration of justice but the number is increasing and increasing. Let no Member of this House say that this is not so to their knowledge. We all know it. Any democracy can face disaster if there is a growing lack of respect for Parliament, if there is a lack of respect for law, and if justice is administered badly. The result can be fatal. That is why I say our job is to restore confidence.
I should like to salute the work of the Garda. We have what is probably the best police force in the world today. It was built up in a difficult time, a time when our country was divided, and immediately after a period of the worst type of war there can be in any country, a civil war. Our police force, in my opinion, have excelled themselves but how often do we find the force handicapped by some of the unseen, secret, bloodless hands which are behind some files in Government Buildings, preventing the Garda from discharging their duties properly in the interests of law and order?
Is it not correct to say that, on numerous occasions when efforts have been made by our police force to administer the law, as is their responsibility, that they were prevented from doing so by people behind closed doors in Merrion Street.
I want to compliment this very excellent force. It should be made known that the gardaí are there for the purpose of saefguarding life and property. A big responsibility devolves on all school teachers primary, secondary and vocational, to put this message across when giving instructions in civics. It has taken years to break down the opposition which, of course, arose from the fact that we had a foreign operated police force which was alien to our ideas. The gardaí are entitled to be described as our friends and there is no need for people to hide or to run away when they see the gardaí. Over many years the idea was fostered that authority should be shunned. Our police force is something new to us. Fifty years, 100 years or 200 years is nothing in the life of a nation. There is a lack of confidence in our police force even still among some of our citizens, a failure to realise that it is paid for by the State, that it is there to assist and protect people and that it operates under a code of rules and laws which are implemented irrespective of class, creed, or political affiliations.
I want to deplore the closing down of some Garda stations and the reduction in the strength of others, particularly in parts of rural Ireland. Because there is not a proper balance of £ s.d. in a ledger in the Department of Justice a smart Alec of a civil servant who wants to see his name in red ink submits a memorandum to the Minister as to how the Estimate to be put before Parliament can be reduced. Nine times out of ten the Minister accepts the advice whereupon orders are frequently made for the amalgamation of Garda districts or for the replacement of the permanent gardaí on duty by one or two of the cycle squad. It is penny wise and pound foolish to close down Garda stations and to cut down the strength of certain country Garda stations.
The Deputy appreciates that the Minister is responsible to the House and that any blame to be apportioned is to be apportioned to the Minister.
I am certainly blaming the Minister, and I trust that when this memorandum comes before him again that he will have sufficient courage to put it in the waste-paper basket, having read it as a matter of courtesy.
I want to pay a special tribute to the television programme Garda Patrol. It is an excellent production, well presented, and well designed, and now reaches every home in which there is a television set. As a result of that programme numerous articles of stolen property have found their way back to their rightful owners. That programme has been a deterrent to crime and is one worthy of a favourable comment from the Minister.
The Minister to praise Telefís Éireann? That is asking too much.
Let us hope the Minister will have sufficient courage before he concludes this Estimate to pay even one small tribute to Telefís Éireann because of Garda Patrol.
The Chair does not want to anticipate what the Deputy will say, but I would refer to the previous ruling that RTE should not be referred to because of the motion before the House.
On a point of order, I understood the ruling was in respect of a particular programme only.
The Chair does not wish the discussion to go back to the other question.
I can assure you, Sir, that there is no Deputy in this House who has greater respect for your wise counsel. I am prepared to accept it and to assure you that I have no intention of making any observations on that matter. I shall keep that until the inquiry. I feel there is no Deputy more qualified to speak on these judicial inquiries than I.
I trust I am not trespassing too much on the patience of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle by repeating the mild suggestion that the Minister for Justice might pay tribute to those responsible for the production of Garda Patrol. The programme is serving the country well and those responsible for producing it deserve congratulations and thanks.
I want to express a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the long hours which gardaí are expected to work.
There is a vast amount of room for general improvement in the conditions of employment of members of the Garda Síochána. There is room for substantial improvement in pay because of the great responsibility they have. Every week new duties are assigned to the Garda by various Government Departments. The Garda was not established to be a collector of agricultural statistics and I doubt if it was ever set up as a body to watch school attendance. In the old days we used to have school attendance officers to do the job. I think the Garda should be relieved of much of the red tape surrounding its work.
I want to make special reference to the provisions for Garda widows. I have made an appeal on their behalf on many occasions in this House but it has always fallen on the deaf ear. The gardaí and their families must live up to a certain standard in order to gain the confidence and respect of the people in the locality. When a garda dies his widow will not have to go down one step in life but ten steps because of the difference in the earnings of her late husband and the amount paid to her by way of pension on becoming a widow. I think there should be a special pension scheme for members of the Garda. I have an intimate knowledge of the strife and struggle of many gardaí widows. The case of a widow of a member of the force, who lost his life in the discharge of his duties, comes to mind, when small and shoddy respect was meted out to the widow afterwards.
The community should be made aware of their public duty when they see gardaí involved in an attack or a brawl. On many occasions the gardaí are outnumbered and the least the general public could do would be to telephone for more assistance. It is both shameful and disgraceful to see gardaí beaten up and citizens standing by laughing and doing nothing to help There is a lack of understanding on the part of the general public. Probably they are curious to see the end of the row and do not realise that they could do something to assist the gardaí. We in this country are noted for our kindness, our co-operation, our sympathy and our understanding and the least we could expect is that some of that understanding, sympathy and co-operation could be given to men who have dedicated their lives to the administration of law and order. I hope there will be a change of heart on the part of the public who have in the past stood silent while members of the force were in distress.
I want to make special reference to the aliens branch of the Department of Justice. This branch deals with newcomers into this country. It screens these newcomers who are either going to live here permanently or who are on a temporary visit. The aliens section of the Department should carry out screening of persons coming in here to take up their abode. This is an extremely difficult matter. When the Garda authorities or the Department make representations to their country of origin they may find that there are two police forces in that country, one known as the federal force and the other known as the home security force and while one of these forces may give an excellent report of the person the other may give a contrary report.
Many of the aliens who come here are honest and wealthy industrialists who provide employment. The Department of Justice should advise these people on conditions in Ireland. Many of them operate the same system as they would operate in their own countries, a system inimical to the conditions which prevail here. The Department should screen persons coming in here with a view to excluding chancers who might come here to make quick money and to rook people. Ireland seems to be a happy hunting ground for all kinds of international chancers. The Department should have a suitable booklet or leaflet for issue to those who come to this country to buy land which would give the history of land in this country. Many of those who come in here are not welcome and should not have been given permission to enter the country. I hope there will be a new look on the whole question of entry to this country. In some cases aliens try to impose conditions that can only be described as slave labour and low pay, conditions which cannot be tolerated in this country.
These matters would arise with another Minister, not the Minister for Justice.
I shall not disagree with the Chair. Whatever the Chair says goes with me but there is an aliens section in the Department and I suggest that that section should screen aliens and provide them with information as to our way of life and that they should not be allowed to change that way of life. I refer to such matters as the use of the seashore, the use of beaches, the freedom to look over a fence or a gate. It would be extraordinary if permission to look over a fence were to be a matter for any foreigner who had been facilitated by the Department of Justice to enter the country. I shall leave the matter because I think the Chair is rather uneasy about my references to these people. Perhaps I will have another opportunity of elaborating further on it. I deplore the coming of these people and the exploitation of our people and of our land and their attempt to introduce a system of slave labour.
I once met an alien who came here to manage a business in my constituency. He said, in course of conversation, that this was a very fine country but that he was puzzled as to why it should take an Irishman an hour to eat his dinner when he could eat it in 15 minutes and collect bonus points by working for the other 45 minutes and why he stopped work at six when he could work until ten and collect more bonus points.
The Minister for Justice would have no responsibility for that.
The Minister for Justice may not be responsible for that but he should provide information for these people as to our way of life.
Did the Deputy sell these people any land?
No. I never had one of them as a client. This man came over here to start an industry and when he wanted the workers to increase their bonus points I advised him to go. I told him that all his ideas were foreign to this country, that they would not work here, that our people would not be bulldozed. There is in this country a safeguard against exploitation by aliens and that is a strong trade union movement. May it reign until the end of time.
Did I hear a Deputy comment favourably on the censorship board? I think I did. How do the censorship board allow in books the covers of which display naked women as a sales attraction? The reading matter may be quite harmless. I understand that in some cases the covers are put on when the books come in. This is a matter that the Department of Justice should deal with. Occasionally one is asked how it was possible that a book that had on its cover a despicable image could have passed the censor. We find that a group of smart alecks thought that quick sales would be secured by putting a new cover on the book. It is a most attractive design, but the figure is completely nude, and the cover is designed obviously to get quick sale for the books.
Never judge the book by the cover.
The man who buys it will be disappointed.
Of course, he will be.
I do not believe any Irish printers lend themselves to this.
They may be printed abroad. I do not think Irish printers would have blocks suitable for providing these covers. These covers are in technicolour. The censorship board should be more active in investigating matters of this kind.
There is, we are told, a special branch of the police force. The Minister denies the House all information concerning the activities of this special branch. It is divided into the different sections dealing with different matters. There is a political section of the special branch. I believe Parliament is the place in which to query the activities of this political section of the special branch. Have those who man it authority to walk into a man's place of employment and make inquiries there about Mr. X. They want to know if he is a good timekeeper, if he arrives punctually in the morning, if he has ever spoken about being out at night, what his political affiliations are, is he Fianna Fáil, would he be Sinn Féin, has he Republican ideas?
That has been done.
That is what I am telling the Ceann Comhairle; it has been done and it is being done. This may surprise some. It may cause grave doubts in the minds of others. What has a man's political affiliations got to do with his employment? If he is a concientious worker, doing his job efficiently and well, why should members of the special branch undermine his employer's confidence in him? These inquiries may mean the man losing his job or losing his promotion. The special branch casts doubts on his integrity. They have asked if it would be possible to search his coat pockets. This is unbelievable, but it is quite true. It has been done. It is being done. We have over 40 years of freedom. We have our own police force. We have a republic in the 26 Counties. What is the purpose in chasing workers to their places of employment in an effort to solicit information from employers as to their workers' political affiliations? This is a disgraceful procedure. It should not be tolerated. What is the purpose in having a special branch? Perhaps there are good grounds for it. We do not know what the purpose is. We do not know how the money voted by this House is spent. What is the purpose? To compile a register in the Department of Justice: so-and-so is a land agitator; so-and-so has extreme views; so-and-so is a member of Sinn Féin; so-and-so is a republican; so-and-so stood at the table for Fine Gael and participated in the national collection.
No Taca on the register.
So-and-so is violently opposed to the Government and speaks his mind; so-and-so is an active trade unionist trying to strengthen the movement within the works. All this kind of thing has been done by the political section of the special branch. All this has been jotted down. No wonder the Minister is silent about the work of the political section of the special branch. There is no need for a political section. We have political freedom in the 26 Counties. Whether people use it wisely or unwisely, that is their funeral. I cannot understand the need for the political section of the special branch. I see no justification for it. Some of us know who is in charge of it and many of us know the places of employment to which the members of the political section were sent to check up on the private affairs of the employees. I deplore the existence of the political section of the special branch.
I want to refer now to something which was described as a fracas, not without justification. In the Sunday Independent of 23rd November the following appeared:
Men on Dublin jail roof protest: Three prisoners who had spent 19 hours on the roof of Mountjoy Prison in Dublin came down voluntarily to give themselves up last evening. The three men made their way to the roof on Friday night. As a crowd gathered outside the prison walls yesterday they shouted they were protesting against conditions and food in the prison. They threw sticks, slates and bricks and warned the warders not to rush them. The three men, all from Dublin, had sheltered on a landing for some of the time. One of them was armed with an iron bar. A Government Information Bureau spokesman said last night that it was unlikely that the men would be charged arising from these instances. A special day and night guard had been put on Mountjoy Prison after rumours that a man awaiting sentence was to be "sprung". Three gardaí with walkietalkies walked around the prison during the day and during the night the guard was considerably strengthened.
May we ask what this was all about? The Minister has an obligation to tell the House if the food and conditions in Mountjoy are unsatisfactory. I know very little about Mountjoy but I know something about conditions in Portlaoise Prison. On occasion I have visited the kitchen in Portlaoise Prison and I have seen the quality of the food. When the farmers were put there by the Minister for Justice, aided and abetted by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, I called to see what menu was being provided for them. I was satisfied that they were getting an abundance of good wholesome food because I ate one of the dinners myself.
I hope the Deputy paid for it.
No, I was the guest of the governor, a very decent man——
Were you canvassing there?
——who always facilitates a public representative who has an inquiry to make and goes through the Department. He will be met with the greatest of courtesy by the governor, or the acting governor, the chief warder and, indeed, every member of the prison service all of whom excel in courtesy and efficiency.
Butlins.
Well, I do not know in what way to take that interjection. If the Deputy wants to compare an excellent tourist resort, with excellent holiday facilities, with Portlaoise Prison it is a serious reflection on an excellent organisation, one of the finest tourist organisations in the world.
I thought the Deputy was speaking about Portlaoise Prison.
The Deputy compared prison conditions with Butlins——
No.
There are excellent conditions in Butlins which is one of the finest tourist organisations in the world. Anyone who visits their holiday camp here, or in Blackpool, or anywhere else, will see that Sir William Butlin has made an outstanding contribution to tourism.
The Minister has no responsibility in the matter.
By his interruption the Deputy may think that he has knocked me off the track in connection with the protest made at Mountjoy. When a group of prisoners become so agitated over conditions and complain that the food is bad, the matter is worthy of an investigation. Three men are not going to spend 19 hours on a roof without cause. The first thing we must ask is how did they get up there and what was the protest for?
They were driven up the wall.
The Minister has a duty to tell the House what the diet is in Mountjoy Prison, what amount of meat is provided, what amount of butter, what amount of bread and so on, and are the prisoners getting sufficient to eat? Would it not be a crime if a prisoner was being treated badly because he was not getting sufficient to eat or getting food which he could not eat? My reading is that there is discontent in regard to food and I am asking the Minister to tell us about it.
The time has come when prisoners who are working in the prisons should be paid, particularly the long-term prisoner. Many prisoners are contributing generously with their skill and industry from sunrise to nightfall. Whether a man is making sacks in the sackhouse, cutting wood in the woodhouse or working on the farm he is worthy of his hire and the State has no right to take advantage of him by expecting weeks, months and years of work from him for which they do not pay. The individual prisoner is paying for his crime by the loss of his freedom and by the fact that he cannot behave as a member of a free society. That is sufficient punishment for any man, to be locked away from his friends and from his family which, no matter how hard a criminal he may be, he still loves. On top of this, to make him work and not pay him a proper wage, is to my mind a breach of the seventh commandment on the part of the State. The fact that the man is a prisoner does not give the State a licence to make a slave of him. The day of the slave has gone everywhere, we hope. If a prisoner works he should receive the full standard pay for his labour after a reduction of the amount due for his maintenance and on leaving prison he should be given this money to help him become rehabilitated.
He should also have a fully stamped-up insurance card which has not the name of the prison on it. Is there no method by which these stamps can be marked off without putting a man in the position, when leaving prison, that he must carry to the employment exchange a certificate that he has been an outcast of society? It would be a charitable and a worthwhile action by the Minister for Justice to see that prisoners are paid and, on leaving prison, have a fully-stamped card which does not bear the identity of the prison in which they have served.
The Minister said today he would permit Deputies to visit Mountjoy Prison. An all-party committee should be set up by this House and three or four Deputies from each party should go along to visit that prison. They should have the right to speak to the prisoners. They can then make an impartial report to the Minister and make whatever recommendations they feel should be made. Let us not shirk our responsibilities. Let us have some sympathy and consideration for those who are not free. Not one of us should forget the well-known saying "There but for the grace of God, go I."
When will the Minister take steps to examine the low rates of pay of young gardaí in training? These men are not receiving a sufficient amount of money. I trust something will be done in this matter without delay.
On the subject of free legal aid, there has been much comment by the public. Who is entitled to it? Who gets it? Whom do we consult? Do we get the barrister or lawyer of our choice? Have the eminent lawyers or barristers been seen to work under this register—which I am sure has been set up—of free legal aid?
We have often, down through the years, heard members of Fianna Fáil allege that Fine Gael is a party of lawyers and barristers. There now seem to be as many lawyers and barristers in the ranks of Fianna Fáil as ever there were in Fine Gael in this House at one time. The illustrious Minister for Justice is a lawyer as also are the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Lands, the Minister for Transport and Power, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and even the Taoiseach is a lawyer.
As a humble backbencher who has shouldered off front bench responsibilities, I am now free to ask the Minister to tell us something about free legal aid. I have known many people who could not afford to pay a solicitor. I have known people who, when they consulted a solicitor, were told that counsel's opinion must be sought—and counsel's opinion would cost ten guineas. We are told that the courts are there for anyone who wishes to use them. However, the snag is that we must be professionally represented or run the risk, perhaps, of getting short shift. On numerous occasions I have heard the justice ask: "Who represents the defendant?" If he is not professionally represented he will get a very quick rap of justice whereas, if he has someone to make excuses and to apologise for him, and if he has learned counsel, the sentence will be much lighter.
Must a man be made to say: "Your honour, I have no money and I could not pay a solicitor or a lawyer"? Free legal aid should be available to all poor people who require it. A panel of solicitors should be paid a certain fee for this free service for poor people who must participate in law. I have known many people who have said: "We cannot assert our rights because we have not the money to go to court". It is intolerable that an inquiry must be held into the means of a person who seeks free legal aid. As with medical card applicants, all family circumstances are considered. Also considered is the question why the applicant is seeking free legal assistance and why he is participating at all in a court case. Surely that should be irrelevant?
The courts are there for the humblest citizen as well as for the rich man. We are supposed to have the same law and justice for all. The poor man should be able to avail to the fullest degree of the legal advice of the best learned counsel that can be made available to him. My experience has been that if he cannot pay he does not get them. If he can pay he gets his own. He gets the best and, with the best, he wins and gets justice. The person who cannot pay is out. It is a great pity that poor people cannot have free legal aid placed at their disposal so that they can get the full benefit of the law to which they are entitled as well as the rich.
I want to refer to the atmosphere of courthouses, for which the Minister has some responsibility. When will we see the day when the wigs and gowns are done away with? Wigs and gowns are worn to cow and frighten the humble country plaintiff or defendant, and to add importance to the profession. A man appears in a long gown and a curled wig. Much of the attire resembles that seen at a Hallowe'en fancy dress dance. I have seen some counsel in court wearing gowns which must also have been worn early in the last century. They have turned green with age. I have seen wigs on the heads of legal men and why any justice or judge allowed them to appear in court in such a garb is beyond me.
They probably rented them for the occasion.
The Parliamentary Secretary can make fun of this but, mark you, these gentlemen appearing in wigs and gowns make country people afraid of them and afraid to talk up. What is the necessity for counsel roaring and shouting and bawling their heads off at the plaintiff or defendant in the witness box? Cannot they address their queries gently?
Within the past few weeks in this city in a crowded courtroom a man sneezed and the district justice was heard to say: "The next man who sneezes, I will give him 14 days." That took place in a court sitting in the Dublin area within the past three weeks. It was a crowded courtroom. The justice looked up and said: "The next man who sneezes in court, I will give him 14 days." I am not foolish enough to name the justice. I have been a Member of this House for too long to be caught with that one. This is wrong. These are remarks from the bench which should not be made.
When these court cases are being reported the plaintiffs and defendants are reported as having been described in court by their surnames. That is entirely wrong. I have seen a defendant in court with gardaí standing on each side of the witness box while he was giving evidence. That man was innocent until the judge or justice had pronounced sentence. A person is innocent when he comes into court to present his case. Yet this man was accompanied right up to the witness box by the gardaí and they stood beside the witness box while he was giving his evidence. At this stage a man is free. Sentence has not been passed and, until sentence has been passed, he should not be surrounded in court as if he were a criminal who was going to run away from a multi-murder charge.
The Minister would be well advised to rid the courts of the wigs and gowns, and particularly, the wigs and gowns which were used in courts in the early days of the last century. Steps should be taken to see that there is a greater degree of respect for the citizen in court. He should be addressed properly and not by his surname. There should be some politeness and he should be called Mr. So-and-So. To hear an unfortunate countryman—an honest man coming to court to put up an honest case, with a very limited amount of money in his pocket, and coming from a very respectable family —being roared at by counsel and judges, and called by his surname, is very humiliating and casts a reflection on our courts. This takes from the high standard of dignity of the courts. I trust that something will be done about matters of that kind.
I want to refer now to the Land Registry. I want to pay tribute to the Land Registry for the speed and efficiency which I have always found there. The Land Registry seem to be under-staffed and, if that is so, the Minister should take the necessary steps to see that they are properly staffed, because there is a very high volume of work going through the Land Registry at the moment with the taking out of new folios in connection with the building of houses, the transfer of land and the transfer of property and so on.
The Land Registry are doing an excellent job but they appear to be handicapped by reason of being understaffed. I want to pay the greatest tribute to the efficiency of the Land Registry and for the courtesy which I have always seen displayed there. They have been accused of long delays but those delays could be considerably reduced by providing additional staff and having a wider allocation of the work amongst the members of the staff.
I want to refer now to the right of our people to have free assembly and to make protests. We are living in a free country and our people have a right to protest whenever they want to. That is their right as a free people. I want to warn the Minister and the Government that the day he clamps down on the right of free assembly is the day on which the Department and the Government will court disaster. Our people have a right to peaceful demonstration. There is nothing to stop 100 or 100,000 of our people from demonstrating peacefully if they so desire. They should be able to make their protest, provided they keep the law, without any interference from the Government or from the gardaí.
Our young people, particularly our university students, have been described by our elder statesmen as being irresponsible. I think our Irish boys and girls are the best in the world today. It is often said that they are not as good as they were in past generations. I think they are better because they must contend with the modern attractions and distractions which past generations, thank God, escaped. Our young people of today have been ridiculed because of fancy hairdos. We must remember this is the age when man is walking on the moon.
These people have a right to speak and be heard and not be intimidated into breaking the law, and we have seen more than one instance of that. I warn the Minister that whatever past generations took, the younger generation will not take these knocks lying down. I think these young people are marvellous. They are the men and women of tomorrow. When our silver hairs are becoming fewer and fewer we look forward to these students coming in here as the elected representatives and being entrusted with the the rules of conduct under which our society lives. Let us pass on the tradition of which the Members of this House are proud: respect for authority, obedience to the law and the acknowledgment that Dáil Éireann, this Parliament, is the supreme authority of this State. Let us show them by our example that they have something well worth looking forward to. The men of 1916 and the veterans of the civil war all won for us the right to be here, the right to speak in a national Parliament. Let us pass on these traditions to our young people whom we now call irresponsible. I do not think they are, and I would ask the Minister for Justice to ensure that there will be a greater recognition from State authorities of the standing of these young people, who are so intelligent and well educated, who will take our place in every sphere of national life and who will be making the laws here when we are gone.
The last speaker made reference, by way of an expression of thanks, to peace commissioners. I agree with Deputy Moore; it was the first time I ever heard peace commissioners referred to in this House. I wonder would the Minister for Justice like to make amends for all his failings and indiscretions of the past by appointing all peace commissioners on the basis of local demand, their standing as citizens, and disregarding their political affiliations.
The Deputy has a hope.
I think it could be done. The most decent Minister for Justice, in fact the most decent man ever to come into this House, was the late Deputy Oscar Traynor. He was an excellent Minister; he was impartial and his word was his bond. I pay tribute to him as one in Opposition. I knew him intimately. I only wish we had more Ministers like him. He was the only Minister who appointed a Fine Gael man as a peace commissioner. Why is it that Ministers for Justice appoint only members of Fianna Fáil as peace commissioners? Are there not any good business men, any men in the various chambers of commerce or any men in voluntary organisations suitable for appointment as peace commissioners? By all means, let the Minister appoint an active member of the Fianna Fáil party, but I do not think it is fair that all appointments should go to members of that party. The Minister should have a ratio of two to one at least. It is not justice and it is not playing the game to honour members of a party for political services rendered by appointing them peace commissioners.
The late Deputy Traynor was the only man to my knowledge who appointed peace commissioners on a non-political basis. I can remember when he called me to tell me he was going to appoint me a peace commissioner. He asked me not to say anything about it. It is a terrible thing for a Minister for Justice to be afraid. He was afraid that, because I was a Fine Gael TD, his colleagues would kick up a row; nevertheless, he did appoint me.
On the question of payment of ground rents to absentee landlords, I think the whole position should be examined. There are rent schemes in this country today for Lord this and Earl that, many of whom have been dead for over half a century. I know we cannot discuss the question of legislation on an Estimate, but I should like to point out that absentee landlords are getting nice tidy sums out of this country. The Minister for Justice has an obligation to see that the tenants of absentee landlords are not being continuously fleeced by these people. Many of them are no longer alive, but they have agents appointed to keep on collecting rents for their estate. Many thousands of pounds are taken out of the country each year and put into the pockets of absentee landlords. The Minister should take steps in this regard.
When dealing with the Garda Síochána I omitted to refer to promotions in the force. The system of promotion leaves a lot to be desired. It is not as bad as the Army, but I do think an impartial board should deal with promotion in the Garda. Dissatisfaction has been expressed about the manner in which certain people have been promoted. There have been many cases where people entitled to promotion were passed over and the reasons for doing so were never disclosed.
Those are the few observations I have to make on the Estimate for the Department of Justice. I hope they have not fallen on deaf ears. I saw the Minister eavesdropping at the door during my speech. I hope the points I have raised will receive his attention and that of his Department. On his shoulders rests the responsibility—why I do not know—of providing for our people confidence in Parliament, in the gardaí and in the courts. More can be shown by example than by word and the Minister's example has not been too encouraging. Nevertheless, all of us are alive to the fact that if we are to survive as a free people we must encourage an atmosphere of confidence and faith in all who administer the law, who make the law and who implement the law. The Minister for Justice has a big job and a big responsibility on his shoulders.
Mr. J. Lenehan
According to the latest information I have available from the midlands, it is not likely to be long before the Deputy who has just sat down joins the Fianna Fáil Party, and we will not blame him for that. I was for 20 years a member of the party over there and there is not a great deal about them I do not know. However, I am not a muck-spreader, although I was accused here this evening by a Deputy who is not here now.
I got up mainly to defend my comrade in Mayo, the Minister for Justice. The Deputy who made the allegations against me this evening and who would not make them while I was here, has returned. I do not know if he has turned white or red. The allegations made here against the Minister for Justice over the last fortnight are absolute nonsense, particularly the allegation that the Minister for Justice uses his ministerial office as a means of increasing his legal business in Castlebar. It is nonsense. He is one of the best solicitors in the west of Ireland. If he stayed in Castlebar he would be a much richer man than he is now. There is no question about that. Every week I meet people that I would like to send to him but I have to tell about 95 per cent of them that it is no use going to him because he cannot defend them in the courts and can have nothing to do with their cases because of the fact that he is the Minister. These people are not people who are going in with one hand as long as the other. I think it was Deputy O'Higgins who said that anybody involved with a solicitor or counsel need not be in any trouble because of the fact that they had no money. That is utter nonsense. The biggest fool in Europe would not believe that kind of thing. We know that if you have not the money and if you go to one of the big-shots practising in the Four Courts, they will not see you and if you see them it will be through a window.
I have been in the Minister's office on many occasions. I was there quite recently and saw about 20 people coming into the office. I want to assure the House that whatever else they gave him—it was nothing but cheap talk— they gave him no money. He would not fare even as well as a Mayo county councillor who might have a promise of a turkey or goose at Christmas.
This attack on the Minister is absolutely unwarranted. One of the biggest reasons for that attack is purely and simply the fact that if he happened to be in practice—he does not worry too much about practice—he would certainly mop up Mayo from the legal point of view. He was blamed here last week and the week before for what was alleged to be a six-day week in Castlebar. The Minister has not dealt at all with legal cases on Saturdays. Nobody knows that better than I do. He holds what is known as his legal clinic. He also holds one in Westport and in other places. That has nothing to do with the question of his legal practice. If the Minister wanted to use his influence, for instance, if he had a son who was a solicitor and who was there, he could probably cash in on it but he has not a son yet of the age, as some people on the far side have and had, even when they were Taoiseach, to carry out the type of business which they could influence. This is quite true and you will have to accept it. It does not matter what he did in Galway. I will be reading a letter from Galway in a minute. I was often at loggerheads with the Minister. I went into Mayo County Council about 20 years ago when he was a member and no two people fought more violently with each other than we did but we always walked out and had a drink together and forgot about it and that was that. Like a good many people, like Deputy O'Donovan now on the Labour benches, I had the common sense to get out of where I was and thanks be to God I did. A man with any sense would.
You were not picked.
Mr. J. Lenehan
The Deputy is like the Rolls Royce post-prandial speaker —well oiled, inaudible and he keeps going for ever.
That is Con Murphy's joke.
Mr. J. Lenehan
That is not Con Murphy's joke. He got it from me 15 years ago. Con Murphy spent a great many years beside me and was one of my best friends. It is no wonder that today he is no fool either. Deputies have tried out everything they could on the Minister. If I were to give the Minister what I know about the Fine Gael Party, where they were crucified, baptised, mixed up and everything else, if I handed out some of the literature in my possession in Mayo and gave it to the Minister, he would waken you up a great deal more than you will be wakened up before he sits down. When he sits down a great many of your problems will never come up before this House again in the long days in which some of us on this side will be in power.
The Minister was blamed here over the "Maggot" Durcan in Castlebar. Over the last 20 years I gave the very identical advice to dozens of people. As Deputies know, of course, I am not able to write and consequently I gave it to them verbally and that is the only reason why such a letter could not be read out against me. It is accepted practice in Mayo, always has been and never caused trouble. When you bring that in here you are only codding yourselves. But, when that letter is brought up, let me bring this letter up which I am handing over to the Attorney General.
Now we know how you run the west.
Mr. J. Lenehan
I have been handed this letter which is headed "The New Bermuda Showband":
Dear Mr. Y,
In reply to your ad, Bermuda available January 1st at £45; Houston Wells and the Rebels available January 1st at £40 and January 4th at £100. Thanking you sincerely.
Pat Donnellan.
Look at the envelope in which it appears. I did not know that Pat Donnellan was a Member of this House or of the Seanad and if he was not a Member he was not entitled to use that postage.
What is the relevance to this Estimate?
Mr. J. Lenehan
I am giving this to the Attorney General. This letter was paid for by the taxpayer. This man is the manager of a number of showbands and he can apparently get free postage through this House. I defy anyone to challenge that. How did he get this free postage?
He is not a member of this House.
The lady in Castlebar was not a member of the House and her letter was read out here.
Mr. J. Lenehan
I will give the letter to anyone who wishes to examine it. While Deputy Sweetman could find no further maggots today I have this letter and I will put it as far as it will go. If muck-spreaders are to be used then let us use them until they are abolished. That is the only fair way.
There were personal references made to me by a Deputy who has not been as long in this House as I have and I will be in this House long after he leaves it. I did not come down off the African trees.
Is that reference in order?
I think the Deputy should be asked to withdraw that stupid remark.
I do not think so. I think he embarrasses his own party more than anyone else.
The Chair cannot rule on political charges.
It is inimical to the philosophy of Fianna Fáil.
Mr. J. Lenehan
I cannot understand what the Deputy is saying with his Rolls Royce accent. Some people believe, because of what was said here, that the Minister for Justice has some kind of organisation in Castlebar out of which he is making a great deal of money. I want to assure the House—I defy anyone to contradict me and if Deputy Kenny, Deputy Lyons and Deputy O'Hara were here they would agree with me—that the Minister is making no money; he is losing money. The attack on the Minister was absolutely unwarranted.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the condition of garda barracks. In many cases they are primitive. That is not the Minister's fault. He has been in charge of that Department for only a short time. A great deal could be done by a crash programme. Improvements in many cases would not cost very much. Indeed, in the majority of places, barracks are not necessary at all and we could quite well copy the pattern in England where they have a village constable, a most satisfactory system. We have that to some extent here.
There is only one garda in Mulranny, only one in Ballycroy and only one in Blacksod. There is never any trouble in these areas. A great many of the gardaí, going around western towns having a look into pubs, could be released for duty elsewhere. It is ridiculous to have a superintendent in charge of 12 or 14 men. A sergeant in charge could cope quite easily and the superintendent could be used more beneficially elsewhere. You have three gardaí in one station because someone may poach non-existent fish and three somewhere else because there is a rumour that poteen is being made. It is a farcical situation. There is tremendous need for extra gardaí here in Dublin. I remember when there was a barracks in Geesala, the home of the Deputy who succeeded me here, and there was never any peace while they were there. As soon as they were removed peace came and there has never been any trouble since. There has been no trouble in Blacksod, Ballycroy and Mulranny.
Economies could be effected by implementing my suggestion. If trouble arises there are squad cars and motor cycle patrols which could easily be diverted to the areas in which they may be required. There was a man guarding a power station and he apparently forgot there were two roads to the station; he guarded one road and anyone who wanted to blow up the station could have done so quite easily from the other road. There should be more reorganisation. Down in the west we are no longer the fighting Flahertys, the fighting Morans, the fighting Lenehans, or the fighting anyone else. We are today the most peaceable people in the country. Instead of building barracks the Minister should build houses for married gardaí. That would solve the problem more effectively than anything else. With these facilities there is no reason why they could not deal with the minor requirements of that area. I know there are others who want to attack the Minister so I will sit down and give them the time to do so.
It was interesting to hear the last speaker trying to have the countryside denuded of gardaí while in other areas people are crying out for them. It struck me that he must be a publican.
Mr. J. Lenehan
No, I have nothing to do with publicans.
Certain things were said about county councillors in that area, about getting turf, and reference was made to free turkeys, and there were suggestions of graft——
Mr. J. Lenehan
There is no graft in my area.
That is what it amounts to in other areas. Like other speakers, I should like to pay tribute to the gardai. It is grand to hear tributes coming from the opposite side. At one time they made it practically impossible for the gardaí to man barracks. Thank God, they have reached the age of reason and are prepared to accept them. Many laws have been enacted and re-enacted in this House but I do hope that the Criminal Justice Bill will not be proceeded with. At the moment the gardaí have their hands full enough trying to enforce the laws and, in fact, they are not able fully to enforce them. We should not have unnecessary laws introduced and the Minister should have second thoughts about this Bill.
I wonder is there anything more galling for a garda than to appear in court and find that he is almost in the position of being the criminal because of the way he is treated by some members of the legal profession. At times some justices talk about protecting the gardaí in the execution of their duty and they say that they will have the full force of the courts behind them. I agree wholeheartedly with that but, as I say, at times one would imagine that the garda was the criminal. It is very wrong that that should be the case. The position is such that the gardaí are throwing up their hands, asking what is the use; if the defendant is convicted he may get only seven days. Of course, I will not refer to "Seven Days". The gardaí are entitled to protection when they go into court and the Minister should do something to ensure this.
The Minister stated that the force is under strength and that is definitely the case around the countryside where we see young gardaí doing duty for hours on end under conditions which nobody else would accept. The Minister should increase the number of gardaí. The stage is approaching when young men will not join the force because of the conditions and the pay. They compare these with what they can get in outside employment. The Minister should do something to meet the needs of these men. He should also do something about improving conditions in some of our barracks. If one visits some of these barracks one can see the conditions under which they are living. If a housing officer inspected them he would condemn half of them. On the other side, we have the fact that if a man is convicted he is put in a cell in which he has a nice radiator and he may have television; if he were confined in some of these barracks there would be an outcry against his conditions. It is about time something was done to improve conditions of the gardaí knowing the conditions a convicted person has.
I should like the Minister to tell us when the Conroy Commission Report will be published. All over the country members of the Garda are asking about this. It is about time the report was issued and that the Garda received recognition for their great work. It is all right to pay tribute here but something more than lip service is required. I agree with Deputy Flanagan that aliens coming into the country should be screened. At times we have some of the "Danny the Red" type coming in and they are not coming in to enjoy the scenery but to cause trouble. The aliens section should screen them at the port of their arrival. Some of these gentlemen should be sent off to China or to Russia and some of our own boys, too, and that might result in a great saving for us.
A matter which is causing grave concern is the number of bank robberies. I wonder would the Minister consider allowing, say, security guards in the banks to be armed. If that were done these gentlemen would have second thoughts about trying to rob the banks, knowing the reception that would await them. Other matters which have been puzzling people for some time are what should a deed cost, with a given valuation, and what should a marriage settlement cost. People do not know these things in advance and frequently they end up with a lot of expense. I have already referred to the question of the barracks and the need for central heating, and compared them with prison cells, and I have pointed out that it is unfair to expect men to do duty under these conditions. I have also referred to the enacting of unnecessary laws and to the fact that the Garda with their present strength are not able to enforce existing laws, making special reference to the Criminal Justice Bill. I hope the Minister will have the common sense to lick his wounds after the last occasion and not reopen them by proceeding with it. In that way, he will have the goodwill of the garda because they do not want it. The public do not want it. Why the Minister wants it is beyond me.
I hope the Minister will encourage active participation in sport among members of the Garda. Over the years quite a number of obstacles have been put in the way of members of the force who were anxious to participate in sport. I have already mentioned on a previous Estimate the case of a boxer who won the European Police Championship. This man boxed for Ireland against Wales in an international and, having finished in the stadium at 10 p.m., went on duty at 10.30 p.m.—Garda Casey. This happened some years ago. This type of thing is unfair. No doubt one of the factors which contributed to his leaving the force was discontent. I trust the Minister will give people interested in competitions the facilities to train and to participate in them.
As a result of intensive training in their own time, mostly, the Garda boat club have established themselves as our leading boat club. They have represented the country with honour on a number of occasions. Many young men now entering the force are anxious to develop certain skills and talents in the sporting field. Impediments are being put in their way. I would ask the Minister to rectify this situation, where it exists, so that we can restore that degree of sport that was evident in the force some years ago. I am referring particularly to boxing, field events and football competitions. Certain members of the Garda—only certain members— are probably getting facilities but many of the young men are being deprived of them. I should like to pay a special compliment to Garda Jim Brannigan who has done more for the city of Dublin——
The Deputy is aware that it is not the practice to mention the names of people in this House.
This man deserves——
One might equally decry an individual.
Does that apply to the "Maggot" Durcan?
This garda will not be decried in this city by any proper individual. I want to record my appreciation of the man whom I have just mentioned. This garda has given great service to this city—and without due recognition from the force. The Minister should examine his case and ensure that justice is done to this great man who has done so much to relieve the city of serious crime.
I would ask the Deputy not to pursue that line now.
Very good. I think I have made the point, anyhow. I come now to the problem of indecent literature that has been flowing freely into this country by various methods. I have some examples of it here which I shall pass over to the Minister and which he can examine for himself.
The House cannot judge it unless Deputies can see it.
I shall pass them over to the Minister.
Is it Playboy?
The Deputy must be familiar with it.
Deputy Dowling must be hard up for publicity.
Deputy Desmond is not doing too badly himself.
Let Deputy Dowling stick to the Irish Press.
I shall deal with a few of the samples I have here. This is described as completely uncensored news from around the world for adults only.
What is the title?
I do not think it is desirable to give the titles. Here is an American publication. It is coming freely into this country.
Deputy Dowling must tell us.
He has given us the description.
The Deputy must be familiar with Playboy.
Give us the name of the magazines. What are they called?
Do you want to buy them? Here are a few names: The National Mirror; Hot Line; The Chronicle; The Insider; The Keyhole— there are quite a number of them here.
Where did the Deputy get them?
This is the type of indecent literature to which I object: I do not know about other members of other Parties——
We do not get it.
I am not so sure about that. The Deputy is familiar with Playboy. What about headings such as these: “Mother Rapes Homo Son: Claims He Is Cured.” I do not think this is anything to laugh at. If you people had children and they were reading this type of trash I am quite sure you would be concerned. It is obvious from the sneers and jeers of Deputies opposite that they are not concerned. I am concerned about this. Here is another heading from one of the completely uncensored ones: “Resentful Father Forces His Daughters To Sell Their Young Bodies To Pay His Way Through Teachers College.” That will give some indication of the type of literature that is coming in here. It is disgraceful. Every effort should be made at source to stop it from entering this country.
Some of this material is coming in as packaging in crates but it is obvious, from its condition, that it is intended for resale because quite a number of new copies have been in circulation here for some time. In some cases, groups of individuals have a number of these papers and one must pay an admission fee into a flat to read them. This type of stuff should be stamped out as quickly as possible. Young children have got their hands on some of the copies that have become torn or that were read so often in the flats that they became torn and were put into dustbins, and so on. Here is another heading: "Inside Information. Girls Supplied to Men as Birthday Gifts. Name the Prostitute of the Year". One should be disgusted even to look at this type of filth, let alone to read it. I could go on for a long time and give details of what appears under the covers of journals such as the one I have in my hand. I shall hand them over to the Minister for examination.
I think the Deputy is embarrassing the Minister.
I do not think so.
I do. I can see the Minister. The Deputy cannot see him just now.
I do not think the Minister is a man to become embarrassed by this type of stuff. The Minister is a sound man who would be only too anxious to stamp out this type of so-called literature. It is obvious that the Labour Party enjoy this type of consumption. That may be in keeping with their——
Give us a break.
——liberal attitude, as they say from time to time.
We did not go around collecting dirty literature anyway.
It is certainly liberal enough to want to have this type of material in. Once again I should like to pass this stuff on to the Minister and ask him to ensure that the sources from which is originates are sealed up
I would also ask the Minister to ensure that, in certain areas of this city where there are certain types of crimes such as breaking into and destroying churches, additional attention is paid by the Garda to these crimes. In the Crumlin-Walkinstown area the Methodist Church was damaged on many occasions. It was set on fire. The Catholic Churches were broken into also and many of their contents destroyed. I would suggest to the Minister that in the Crumlin-Walkinstown area there should be foot patrols to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to the churches there They seem to have become a target in the past few months in this area. This is causing great concern to the people who frequent the churches of various denominations. I was asked to make special mention of this point in view of the fact that there appears to be some kind of organisation or gang who were not concerned about the denomination of the churches they break into and to which they cause substantial damage.
I want to say to the Minister again that I am concerned about the literature that is available in this city. An effort should be made to seal it off at the source.
During Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's speech there was a certain difference of opinion between the Minister and the speaker as to the question I had allegedly put to the Minister, with the Minister asserting one version and Deputy Cruise-O'Brien asserting another. I would draw the Minister's attention in this regard to column 2105 of the Official Report of 27th November, 1969. In my first supplementary to Question No. 23 I said, and I quote:
Is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate protein content in this food?
This is there for the Minister to read and I trust that, having read it, he will not in future have such bad hearing that he misquotes Deputies on their questions to him.
I have not misquoted the Deputy. Column 2105 sets out:
Mr. Moran: Protein?
Mr. Bruton: Yes, protein. I believe it is excessively starchy food.
This is the quotation.
(Cavan): On a point of order, surely the Minister will have an opportunity to deal with this in his reply.
The Deputy is purporting to quote this column. Let him quote what is in it. Let him quote the question about starch which I answered.
I would ask the Minister to read my words just before where he started quoting.
The Deputy asked me about starch——
It is precisely the reverse of what he is trying to suggest. He should not indulge in the type of selective quotations which he is accusing other people of in this House.
The Deputy's own written word is here.
Exactly, and the Minister should look at it.
The Deputy said: "I believe it is excessively starchy food", and I dealt with that starch.
And that there was not enough protein in it. I was asking why there was not enough protein. I said it was excessively starchy. I did not say there was not enough starch in it.
I propose to deal this evening with three major items, first, law reform, secondly, the conditions of the Garda and thirdly, the treatment of criminals. I will say a few words finally about adoption. In a speech in Galway to the Association of Young Solicitors, if I am not mistaken the Minister suggested that it was desirable that solicitors should have liberty to plead in all the courts in the land. I am not qualified to comment on the desirability of this suggestion but it has been put to me that very few solicitors would have any desire to avail of this privilege and that in particular country solicitors would not be anxious at all to come up here to plead in the courts in Dublin.
He also spoke in Galway about proposals to localise the High Court. There is a certain need for a clarification as to precisely what he had in mind in that regard. Did he envisage that the High Court would go on circuit or did he envisage a number of regional courts permanently sitting in particular places? There is a certain need to have this clarified in the fullness of time.
There are certain other matters where my views are more cogently reflected in an editorial in the Irish Press which states that, while the Minister's proposals for the reformation of the courts and the legal profession are useful, there is a need for reform, too, in matters under the immediate control of his Department. It says there are defects in the administration of criminal law and points out that recently the Minister drew attention to the defects in the legal aid scheme. It says that, while the parliamentary examination of indictable offences has been speeded up, no comparable move has been made to make sure that accused persons get speedy trials; that in Dublin, in particular, there is a vast backlog of criminal jury cases. What the Department and courts alike seem not to appreciate, it continues, is that the judges' time is the least expensive, but not that of an array of witnesses. The case for fixed day hearings in criminal and civil cases is unanswerable, the editorial goes on, and that means that a case is put in for a definite date and not merely that it is entered in a queue of cases to be tried on or after a named day. If, to ensure that, extra judges have to be appointed, the cost of the additional salaries would not be greater than the amount that would be saved by way of witnesses' expenses.
I would commend that editorial to the Minister and ask him to implement certain of the proposals contained therein.
There were on all sides of the House a number of scathing references to the legal profession which I am not at all qualified to answer. It was more or less insinuated that many of them were extremely selfish and were trying to grind the last penny out of poor litigants. I do not know if this is true, but I do know that under the legal aid scheme in normal criminal cases, the most a barrister will get is 15 guineas. If he is a country barrister, this may involve his having to travel to Dublin. It may involve a week's hearing in the courts and he can have considerable expenses in research and so on. I do not think a sum of 15 guineas is by any means indicative of the barristers who are operating under the legal aid scheme at the moment grinding the last penny out of anyone.
No one suggested that.
I am not saying that. I am just drawing this to the attention of the House to counterbalance some of the other suggestions made earlier in the debate.
The Minister referred to the work of the landlord and tenant commission and the need for a codification of the law in this regard. He said that this will call for the repeal of all Landlord and Tenant Acts from 1931 on and for the re-enactment of the surviving portions of those Acts together with the new provisions based on the commission's recommendation. I would urge the Minister not just to repeal all the Acts from 1931 on but, as soon as possible, to go back to the very basis of our landlord and tenant law which is the Act of 1860 and to incorporate this in a completely new codification. Trying to codify only those statutes from a certain date on and not going back to the very basis of the law is a rather bitty sort of codification and is not really what is desired.
In future when we are repealing and re-enacting statutes and so on, we should, instead of amending phrases in sections, which tends I believe to lead to considerable confusion in interpretation, we should repeal the whole section and re-enact it. I understand that this policy of repealing individual phrases and even words in sections, as in the 1967 Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, have had considerable detrimental effects and it has become very difficult to interpret parts of this Act. I would hope that in future the Minister would avoid having little bits of amendments and amend a whole section so that there will be no doubt as to what is the law and what is not the law.
There are also certain ambiguities in this 1967 Act. There is a misunderstanding as to the question of buying out fee farm grants. I hope these ambiguities will be cleared up when the Minister brings the new Landlord and Tenant Bill before the House, which I believe it is proposed to do in the New Year.
I also welcome the Minister's assurance to the House in response to a parliamentary question recently that he will pay particular attention to the problem of certain tenants of Lord Headford in Kells. The fact that these people cannot buy out their ground rents under the terms of the 1967 Act because these are a mixture of residential and business premises has had very bad effects. I understand the exclusion of residential business premises from the 1967 Act was not made with cases like those in Kells in mind at all. It was made in regard to people who are buying the ground rents as investments. These ground rents in Kells have been in the possession of Lord Headford since the year of dot practically. The Headford estate has made no improvements on the property over which they hold the ground rents and they have done nothing really to earn the privilege which they have at the moment and which they are exercising in demanding anything up to 200 years rent as the price for buying out the ground rent. I hope the Minister will bear this exception in mind and exceptions in other provincial towns, many of whose tenants are in a similar situation, and have some sort of a sliding scale for ground rents, with a maximum of, say, 50 years rent as a buying out price, on a sliding scale having regard to the age of the building and its consequent value.
There is also considerable need in the field of law reform—and I do not think the Minister adverted to this— to keep our company law up to date. Admittedly we had the Companies Act in 1963, but even then that legislation was well behind the trends in Europe in company law, and it has subsequently fallen behind company law in Britain where they have passed an Act since then. Our company law is certainly well behind the recommendations as to company law which were made by the EEC Commission and which would be, if not a prerequisite, certainly a desideratum for entry of the country into EEC, that we should have certain conformity in company law. If we are to enter the EEC I believe we shall need to up-date our company law to a considerable extent.
We need, for instance, to make provision for worker participation in the running of firms. This is a very sensible area in which to bring in worker participation provisions because company law is not a field where passions will be aroused as they have been aroused by certain methods of putting forward claims for worker participation. In this we would only be keeping up to date with the trend of company law on the Continent where they have such provisions. I believe that in France one of the last great campaigns of General de Gaulle was provision for worker participation in profit sharing and decision making. We could well follow his example which would avoid a lot of the industrial trouble to which we have unfortunately been subject.
There should be greater openness and greater publicity in regard to the activities of companies. We have got to recognise that public corporations have a very significant effect on the public as a whole, not just on their own shareholders and their own workers. Their activities, and particularly their contributions to political parties. should be open to public scrutiny. I am not suggesting there is anything sinister going on——
May I point out that what the Deputy is speaking about is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
This is company law. Does it not come within the Minister's ambit?
No.
I am sorry. In regard to bankruptcy law, a considerable amount of up-dating is required. Our present bankruptcy procedure is based on an English statute enacted in the last century. There is excessive delay in bankruptcy proceedings and a reform in this field is long overdue.
Many Deputies have made reference to the sentencing policy of justices. It has been suggested that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. I am inclined to think there is a great deal of truth in this, but I hope the Minister will take steps to mitigate this. Probably the greatest discrepancies occur as between the decisions of one district justice and those of another district justice. Some are extremely severe and others are very lenient; some are extremely severe perhaps with a certain type of offender and less severe with other types. At column 1806 of the Official Report of 29th November, 1966, on the Estimate for Justice, the then Minister said:
.... meetings may be held by the Justices of the District Court with a view to achieving a reasonable degree of uniformity;
He was referring to sentencing policy. I should be very interested to hear the Minister's comment on how these meetings have progressed and if they have achieved any degree of uniformity in sentencing policy. The Minister would do well in this regard to pay heed to what was done by the Lord Chancellor in England in 1965-66 where he called a conference of 70 judges for a week to discuss the question of reform in sentencing policy, admittedly to deal with a specific type of case, drugs, fraud and so on. I would hope the Minister would investigate the policy of having similar conferences here on a regular basis. If he did this it might serve to reduce some of the doubt about the capriciousness in the administration of justice. There is possibly a need—I do not know; I am no expert in this field— for training justices, particularly district justices, in areas of criminology and sociology to ensure that their sentencing policy is in accord not just with the emotional feelings of revenge which some of us might have towards criminals, but that it is in accord with the actual need to rehabilitate these people and to ensure they do not repeat the offence of which they have been convicted when they are released. If justices were given a certain training in this it might lead to a more enlightened sentencing policy in general.
Most of our judges come from a reasonably comfortable background, what one might call a middle-class background. There has been a tendency for them, when dealing with young offenders, to apply the standards, which they felt would have been applied to them if they had been naughty in their youth, to working-class children who have been brought up in a completely different atmosphere and who are not nearly as culpable as the justices would have been coming from a middle-class background. I would not like to be dogmatic in my criticism of justices but I think this is something that should be watched because there is a danger that they might get out of touch with the people with whom they are dealing.
Another matter which has arisen in Britain and Northern Ireland is the question of community legislation. In Britain they have the Race Relations Act and in Northern Ireland they are going some way to meeting people of different ethnic or religious groups. It is unfortunate in both these cases that this type of legislation was brought in only when a crisis had arisen. The Race Relations Act was introduced in such a way that people thought it was not an essential matter for ensuring justice and fair play but an instrument of oppression of one section by another. A lot of native British people felt the Race Relations Act was being used as an instrument of oppression on behalf of the coloured immigrant against the native British. In Northern Ireland there is a danger that the Protestants will feel that any legislation introduced there will be used as an instrument of oppression on behalf of the Catholics against them. When legislation is prejudiced by these feelings it tends to be less effective than it could be. It is not the intention of such legislation to get more prosecutions; the intention is to lay down standards. There might be considerable argument for our introducing such community relations legislation in advance of there being any actual trouble. This would ensure that such legislation was not prejudiced.
A constant theme in the Estimate speeches of the various Ministers for Justice from 1966 to 1968 was the need to reform malicious damages legislation. I quote from the Estimate speech of the Minister for Justice, Deputy B. Lenihan, on 24th November, 1966, at column 1555, where he said:
In April, 1965, a summary of the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Malicious Injuries to the Person and Property was published. For years now there has been an agitation for a change in the law affecting the payment from the rates of compensation for malicious injuries to property. The whole subject is now under active review with the object of putting definite proposals to the Government for amending the law on malicious injuries.
Again, in 1967, the Minister for Justice on 5th July, 1967, at column 1264 said:
I hope to bring before the Oireachtas later this year proposals to amend the law governing the payment of compensation in respect of malicious injuries....
I believe it was repeated in the 1968 Estimate although I have not got the quotation here. It is surprising to find that not alone has nothing been done to fulfil these promises, which were made as far back as 1966, but that the Minister for Justice in his Estimate speech in 1969 has totally omitted any reference to the promises made by himself in 1968 and by Deputy B. Lenihan in 1966 and 1967. It is all the more significant that the Minister has chosen 1969 to forget about these promises when one realises it has now acquired the greatest degree of urgency. The ratepayers in County Meath, whom I represent, are going to be faced with the burden of something in the region of 7/- in the £ on their rates because of their liability for malicious damages.
As far as I know the system of paying compensation for malicious damages out of rates is exclusive to Ireland. In England there is some provision for payment of actual riot damage out of rates but the liability for compensation payment for malicious damage out of rates, as far as I know, does not exist anywhere else. It seems to me to be a highly unjust system. If a criminal indulging in the commission of malicious damages concentrated his activity in a particular county he could impose an enormous burden on that county and if he was not a native of that county he would not have to pay anything. It seems very unfair that the ratepayers of a particular county, on which this type of criminal chooses to concentrate his activities, should find themselves having to pay this enormous burden out of their rates.
It should be borne in mind that the prevention of such commissions of malicious damage is a national responsibility and, if that is so, one may ask why it is not a national responsibility to undertake payment of compensation. The interdepartmental report in 1965 argued against the transfer of payment for malicious damages from rates——
Before the Deputy proceeds the Chair would like to remind him that he may not advocate legislation on an Estimate.
(Cavan): On a point of Order I accept that, generally speaking, what the Chair has said is quite correct, but when a large portion of the Minister's opening speech deals with law reform I respectfully submit that it would be curtailing the debate too much not to allow Deputies to deal with matters to which the Minister devoted a considerable amount of his opening speech. Law reform in this particular field, as the Deputy has already said, was promised last year, the year before and the year before that. I would respectfully submit that the Deputy is in order in that context.
Advocacy of legislation is not in order on Estimates. When the Deputy is adducing arguments for fresh legislation, that is not in order on an Estimate.
I should like to point out also that the Criminal Injuries Bill referred to in my opening statement is, in fact, a Bill dealing with malicious damage, a point which the Deputy does not seem to appreciate.
(Cavan): That is all the more reason why he should be allowed to deal with it.
I am very grateful for that fact. I now propose to deal with the argument put forward by an interdepartmental committee commissioned by the Minister for Justice, in their report to the Minister for Justice, against the principle of liability for compensation for malicious damages being paid from the rates. There were two main arguments summarised in sections. The first was that in most cases the charge on the rates is insignificant and the Minister himself said in answer to me that the average is 1d. in the £. I fully accept that that is so.
We are now proceeding to discuss details of a Bill which is to come before the House.
With respect, I am discussing the arguments put forward against a certain proposal by an interdepartmental committee commissioned by the Minister's predecessor.
The Minister states that the Bill which is to come before the House deals with this problem and the Deputy accepts that that is the case. He may not anticipate legislation.
I do not really know in what way it will deal with this problem or if it will deal with the particular problem I have in mind, which is the question of the ratepayers. I do not know if the Minister will deal with this. As there is no evidence that he will, I think I would be in order in discussing the arguments put forward by a committee commissioned by the Minister, which is responsible to him and which draws its expenses from the Minister and which would have come under his Estimate.
Advocacy of legislation on Estimates would not be in order.
I am not at the moment advocating legislation. I am dealing with arguments against legislation.
The Deputy is drawing a very fine distinction.
I think it is a valid one, with respect. I shall not delay very long on it, in any case. First of all, it was suggested that malicious damages were an insignificant charge on the rates in most counties. I fully accept this. But it becomes an extremely onerous charge on a particular county in a particular year. This is very unfair to the ratepayers of that county at that particular time. In County Meath, this year, the ratepayers will be asked to pay something in the region of 7/- in the £. This is a great deal more than the average. The average may be insignificant but there may be some cases where the charge is extremely onerous. If it were made a national charge this unfair treatment of particular ratepayers at certain times would not occur.
Mr. J. Lenehan
If you live in a county where there is crime, what can you do? Do you expect the Mayo ratepayers to pay for the burning of hay?
I do not accept that the crimes I have in mind were committed by natives of the county in which they were committed.
They were committed by a national organisation whose tentacles might even reach Mayo.
I believe and the Deputy, I am sure, believes, that most of the people involved were not natives of the county. They would have been imported from outside to avoid detection and recognition.
It was also suggested that administration of this compensation nationally would involve increased staff in the Office of the Minister for Justice and that this was undesirable on economic grounds. This did not seem to be a very convincing argument. If it were administered at local level, not only would they require the same amount of manpower in every local authority but there would be considerable duplication inasmuch as every local authority would have to perform the same functions in regard to claims. If administration were centralised, duplication would be avoided. There would also be a considerable amount of specialisation and the officials involved at national level would be more adept at contesting claims than would isolated officials in the large number of local authorities, who would not perhaps be as well versed in malicious damages law as would a centralised Civil Service dealing with this problem. I certainly think that the system in operation is most unfair to ratepayers in individual counties and should be scrapped.
I should now like to proceed to the second topic of my speech, which is, the question of the Garda Síochána. The Conroy Commission is at present considering the lot of the policeman. This body should consider the unanswerable case for a very substantial increase in the remuneration of the Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána are entitled to an increase of the magnitude which Deputies in this House awarded to themselves not so long ago. The Garda Síochána have been allowed to slip behind to the same extent and an increase of the same magnitude is now long overdue. There should be no question of giving percentage increases in line with national productivity or some such formula. The fact is that the Garda Síochána, because they have not kicked up, have been allowed to drop behind in their value to the community. A really substantial increase is long overdue. I do not believe that this would be setting a headline for the rest of the community. It should be made quite clear that the Garda Síochána remuneration has been allowed to lag behind and that their duties have become more onerous.
I intend to rely to a significant extent in my treatment of the Garda Síochána on an excellent series of articles in the Irish Times of August 19th, 20th and 21st by a Mr. Conor Brady, on the position of the Garda Síochána. I would commend this series of articles to every Member of the House, and in particular, to the Minister. These articles would bring home with enormous force to anybody who reads them the very strong case for not only an improvement but a large improvement in the pay of the Garda Síochána and also in their conditions and method of organisation.
The first quote I should like to take from these articles is from a police officer, who said:
Until such time as you can offer a policeman a decent salary and reasonable conditions of work, not to mention adequate time off, no amount of technical expertise or professional approach to the task in hand, etc., can bring about on its own a satisfactory and lasting improvement in the all-round performance and efficiency of the force.
That is undoubtedly very true. I should like to mention a few of the factors which should be borne in mind by the Minister in looking at the claims which the Garda, I hope, will make in the very near future for very substantial increases in their remuneration. First of all, the amount of work which they have been bearing and which they have been asked to bear and, secondly, their productivity, if you could measure it, have increased enormously in recent years.
In the period since the force has fallen below 6,650 the number of indictable crimes known to the police has risen by 80 per cent. In other words, the Garda are being asked to deal with a greatly increased number of crimes with a substantially decreased force. The number of 999 calls has trebled since 1960, while the strength of the force has remained virtually static or decreased. From 1948 to 1951 the number of Acts passed by this House, requiring implementation by the Garda, averaged four per annum; in the last ten years we have been asking the Garda to implement Acts of Parliament averaging ten per annum. We are asking them to carry out a substantially increased range of duties and to implement a substantially increased amount of legislation while they remain the same numerically as they were 20 years ago. In other words, the productivity, measured in any reasonable terms, has increased by some enormous amount. Consequently, their claim, not only for increases commensurate with the increase in the economy generally but a substantial increase over and above that, is unanswerable.
Entry to the Garda Síochána requires very high qualifications of both character and physical fitness. Members of the Garda must have great adaptibility in relation to the duties they are asked to perform. They must cope with a wide variety of duties. They have to draw maps; they have to examine vehicles for mechanical defects; they have to examine accounts; they must recognise symptoms of contagious disease and they must be familiar, of course, with all the relevant legislation which goes through this House. I do not believe there is any profession which asks its members to perform such a wide range of duties and pays them such a measly pittance as the ordinary garda on the beat is paid at the moment. The garda has to exercise a greater degree of personal responsibility for his own actions than is required of the members of many of the other professions. I should like to quote from the Willing Commission which investigated the position of the police force in Britain. Speaking of the policeman on the beat, the report said:
He is an individual who acts alone, on his own initiative, and is alone answerable in law for any error of judgment he makes. We feel that we can maintain without fear of contradiction that no other subordinate in any other occupation or profession bears such a unique degree of personal responsibility for his actions or is exposed to such a degree of vulnerability to prosecution before the courts.
In other words, the garda is asked to bear a great degree of personal responsibility and, in return, he should be paid for having to bear it. A man called Panton wrote a book on the police force and he said that policemen should be ranked in status and in remuneration with the professions. We must, too, from the point of view of their remuneration, recognise the tremendous opportunities for corruption they face, opportunities which, almost without exception, they reject— invitations to accept bribes to stop a prosecution or not to pass on information to their superiors. These inducements are open to them. If we want them to resist such inducements we must reward them adequately so that they will be sufficiently independent in means as not to need any money offered to them.
There is in other countries increasing evidence that policemen are open to and accepting bribes. That is particularly true of New York, which is accepted by some as the sort of society into which we are moving; if we want to avoid the same corruption invading our police force here we must ensure that they are properly remunerated. Policemen do not have a cosy life. They have to deal with unpleasant people, with people of undesirable character, with people who are insulting. They have to deal with these every day. They have to deal with awkward people. They have to deal with people of unsound mind. It is always the policeman who is asked to bring news of a bereavement to a family. The police have to deal with people suffering from contagious diseases. They are required to do all these things. Others may do things out of charity, but the Garda Síochána must do it as a duty. They should be properly remunerated for the extremely difficult duties they have to undertake.
They are restricted from the point of view of not being permitted to take on other employment. Any Member of this House is in no way inhibited from taking on other employment to supplement his income. The Garda should be remunerated adequately to compensate them for the fact that they cannot supplement their incomes by undertaking other employment. They would not, of course, under the present dispensation have the time because their hours are extremely long. But that is another matter. They labour under considerable restrictions with regard to residence. They are never posted within a stated distance of their own or their wives' relatives. They are asked to forgo the company of those for whom they have a considerable affection and whose company they find congenial. They are required not to have personal contacts in the areas in which they are stationed. They should be compensated for all this. This particular regulation poses great difficulty from the point of view of housing. Other people who get married can find temporary accommodation with relatives until such time as they have houses of their own. Gardaí can never do this because they are never posted sufficiently near to relatives to avail of this relatively cheap temporary accommodation. Gardaí must find their own homes from the outset.
Gardaí are required to bear a considerable risk of physical violence to their persons. This type of violence is increasing. In the year 1957/58 the number of assaults on gardaí totalled 33; in 1966/67 the total was 110, more than treble the earlier figure. The risk is considerable. I suppose this is something we have inevitably to ask them to bear but, in return, we should compensate them for asking them to bear it. With regard to compensation for injuries, there is a limitation to some extent on gardaí because, before a garda can get compensation for injury to his person, he has to prove that the injury was maliciously inflicted. If he cannot prove the injury was maliciously inflicted be will get no compensation, regardless of the suffering or, possibly, the deformation which has been caused to him.
What are we paying the Garda Síochána in return for asking them to carry out the duties which are outlined? We are paying them £22 2s. 3d. a week, as far as I know. That is the maximum which a garda on the beat can get. If we applied the formula which was drawn up in England for the remuneration of police officers, the Willing formula, drawn up by the Willing Commission, we would be paying our gardaí £29 to £30 a week and that would be excluding overtime. The policeman in England is paid overtime for work done beyond a given number of hours. Our gardaí get no overtime for any extra hours of work they undertake. I imagine that applying the Willing formula, and there is no reason to believe that it is an adequate formula, we would have to pay them about £35 a week on average, or else pay them overtime. It is usual for a garda to work a 6½ day week. Admittedly, they have holidays but for a substantial amount of time they work a 6½ day week and, in addition, they are required to do four hours work on a Sunday, on a day everybody else regards as a day of rest on which he can follow his own particular form of amusement. However, the garda is asked to do four hours duty and then as a big concession he is given the rest of the day off. If you take four hours out of anybody's Sunday it is enough to prevent him doing anything worthwhile that day; by the time he gets ready to go wherever he wants to go it is time to come back.
Many Deputies have been making valid pleas for keeping small country stations open. In the country station there is not sufficient staff and there is no shift system in order to enforce law and order and in these areas the gardaí have to work for very long hours. They may have to work for up to 60 hours a week and, of course, they are on call for almost 24 hours a day. They can be knocked up in the middle of the night, in addition to having to work these long hours. Even if you allow the gardaí the month's annual leave which they sometimes get, although not always because sometimes it is cancelled, they will work on average almost 45 days more in the year than will a five-day week civilian with a fortnight's holidays. Nowadays it is becoming customary for the five-day week civilian to get three weeks holidays, so that the discrepancy is likely to grow.
As I have said, they are asked to work at very awkward times and I should like to quote again from the article to which I have referred. This is a reference made to the NFA protest marches in Dublin and the officer said:
When the farmers marched to Dublin I found myself some days working 15 to 16 hours with maybe a few minutes for a meal break.
The situation was the same at the time of the housing action agitation, and you had gardaí being warned to be on stand-by after doing their eight hours and being obliged to sit up in the station until 12.30.
If we are asking gardaí in situations of great tension, as such agitations can involve, to work under these conditions and for these hours, surely we should not be surprised if occasional accusations are made about brutality? I do not know if the accusations are true or false but if people are put in a situation in which they are likely to be brutal, if they are under provocation, as in most of these demonstrations they are, then some brutality from them is almost inevitable.
I should like to put on record, too, that it is quite possible that the RUC in the north were working under similar conditions. While I am far from supporting their activities in any way up there, they were possibly working under similar conditions. If any one of us was working under similar conditions we might not be self-controlled in everything we did. Therefore, if we want to have a good police system we will have to pay for it and this will involve almost doubling the salary we are paying them at present. We will also have to increase substantially the number of gardaí on the pay roll because the hours which they are asked to work at the moment are such that in no other occupation would they be tolerated.
I should also like to refer to the housing conditions of the Garda Síochána. We have 740 Garda stations and in 200 of these there are no flush toilets; 170 have no washing facilities and 160 have no water at all. A single garda is required to live in the station under such rudimentary conditions. He has no option but to live there and in return for the privilege of living in that sort of accommodation he has to pay £1 from his salary as a rent allowance, or whatever it is called. In regard to the housing of married gardaí, it was envisaged when the National Building Agency was set up in 1960 that 1,000 houses would be built by the agency for the gardaí. As far as I know only 440 have been built to date. I do not believe this problem is being tackled with the speed and vigour envisaged in 1960. There is a definite need to ensure that in future gardaí will not be asked to pay the rent allowance of £1 in respect of accommodation which they have reasonable grounds to assert is unsuitable.
I should like also to say something about the type of discipline under which gardaí work. The regulations are antiquated and have not been revised for a long time. In many respects they are vague and do not preserve for the gardaí rights which many of us would consider fundamental and basic. Regulation No. 7 states that an offence against discipline will be aggravated by a denial of the charge.
It is certainly something which does not apply in a court of law in this country. It seems fundamentally unjust that a garda should run the risk of a higher penalty merely by denying that he was implicated and ensuring that he gets a fair trial by making such a denial. There is an obvious need for some appeal board outside the force in relation to disciplinary actions against gardaí to which gardaí can submit any grievances they may have in that regard.
There is also a regulation which can treat as insubordination the fact that a garda, in dealing with a superior, may have a certain look on his face; he need not say anything. However, if he has a surly look on his face then it would seem that, under present regulations, he is liable to be charged with insubordination. Perhaps a man's demeanour is a relevant factor: I do not think it is: some people might argue this. Such a provision about demeanour is wide open to abuse. If a superior has a grudge against a member of the force he could quite easily get him in on this regulation. A superior has just to say: "This fellow had a surly expression on his face when I was dealing with him" and the garda is caught under the regulation. I am not saying it is abused: I do not know. I have no information on this. It should not form part of regulations governing people who are supposed to be infused with a sense of justice. If they are not being given justice themselves, how can we ask them to implement justice for us?
There is also a rather silly regulation which requires more or less that men on the beat must not talk to people they are dealing with on the beat or else they are accused of loafing. On the other hand, they are required to know the people on their beat. They are liable to reprimand if they have not an adequate knowledge of these people. How on earth can we require them to have an adequate knowledge of these people if we do not allow them to talk to them? This seems rather an anomalous regulation.
Furthermore, a man can be brought up for tippling, that is, frequent indulgence, whether on or off duty, in intoxicating liquor other than by way of reasonable refreshment. As far as I know, it has not to be proved that he was actually drunk. All that has to be proved is that he took drink fairly often. This seems to be a regulation to which very few other occupations are submitted.
Gardaí are also asked to pass a test in oral Irish. For the vast majority of gardaí, I do not think this is a reasonable requirement. We have a great custom in this country of asking people to pass an examination in Irish which they do not need to pass at all so far as their efficiency for the job is concerned.
Has the Deputy some objection to it?
I have.
For what reason?
It is not sensible in relation to the vast majority of the duties which a garda has to carry out in the greater part of the State.
I am surprised at the Deputy. Shame on him. He should have more respect for the language of his own country.
I do not believe that the vast majority of gardaí have any occasion to use the Irish language in the execution of their duties. If it were the case, I should certainly submit that they should have such a test.
The Deputy admits that we have Gaeltacht areas?
There are a certain number of gardaí who are qualified to work in such areas and let them go there. I do not think it should be a blanket qualification that is required from every member of the force.
Does the Deputy deny me my constitutional rights to talk to a garda in the Irish language?
I deny the Deputy the right to expect the garda to have to listen to him.
Hear, hear.
That is typical. The Deputy should be ashamed of himself.
Deputy Bruton should be ashamed of his remarks on the language of his country.
I thank the Members of the House for their attempt to edify me in this matter.
There is no need to thank them for their hypocrisy.
It is not hypocrisy.
The Deputies on the Government benches have ample opportunity to take part in this debate but they have not done so. If they do not want to take part in the debate they should permit Deputy Bruton to speak.
It is not unknown of the Deputy himself to ask a question.
Deputy Bruton should be allowed to make his speech.
There are other duties which a garda has to fulfil and which are very detrimental to his morale. There are special posts which they have to fulfil. They are asked to stand outside embassies and public buildings and to walk up and down, up and down, guarding these buildings. This is extremely demoralising. Here are a few remarks by a country garda in this connection:
You leave Templemore and arrive in Dublin to be a policeman and you decide that this is it: here I go. Then you march up and down outside the British Embassy and you can count and recall every paving-stone from the building to the corner. You know then there will be a fellow along to inspect you and you know, too, depending on which of them it is, that he is going to find something wrong with you. Maybe you will have picked up dust on your shoes or perhaps he will see you going two yards beyond the regulation distance from the front door. You develop quite a persecution complex about it after a while, being watched like a schoolboy for every trivial thing. Most of us get used to it but there are fellows who had nervous breakdowns on training over this kind of hounding—and I could name names if I had to.
I concede that some of this sort of activity may be necessary. The reference in the Irish Times of Wednesday 27th August, 1969. The extract is taken from an article headed “The Policeman's Lot” by Mr. Conor Brady. It is a quotation from an unnamed garda. It begins:
The country garda previously stationed in Harcourt Terrace explained: You leave Templemore ...
It is about halfway down the article. I understand that, at certain times, up to 80 per cent of the patrol force in a busy city area can be occupied in this sort of activity. I do not know how we can get around this. I am sure it is necessary to guard buildings but we certainly should look into the question of ensuring that if many gardaí have to engage in this sort of activity, there are enough others to carry out the other essential activities and that such jobs are rotated to ensure that no garda is asked to do an excessive amount of this type of demoralising activity.
On many occasions, also, gardaí are asked to do the Government dirty work in relation to protest marches. The Garda are made the reluctant front line of the Government in their dealings with protest groups. The reason for the protest may well have arisen, not from the activities of the Garda but from the failure of the Government to act on a particular question. The Garda are the people who take the blame. Usually the people who concentrate on police brutality very often forget about the fact that these marches would very often not be necessary if it were not for deficiencies in Government policy.
I should like to quote another garda in relation to this sort of activity. Under the heading: "A Policeman's Lot: No. 3." in the Irish Times of Thursday, August 21st, it is stated that a country-based officer, recalling the NFA protests of 1966, said it was one instance where the force was used as a sort of yo-yo weapon against the farmers. “I do not see why the force should be used by the Government in its squabbles with anybody; if things had been right, we would have handled the situation as we saw fit, just as the British police do in cases like this. Instead, we found ourselves being ‘instructed by the Department’ to ignore this law and enforce that law just as it suited the conditions.”
I do not think that asking the Garda to act in this sort of conditions is conducive to good morale in the force. I also believe that the Minister, in certain statements he has made in this House, has shown a considerable lack of sympathy with the problems of the Garda. As reported at column 189 of the Official Report of 5th November, 1969, Deputy O'Hara asked the Minister:
... if he is aware of the very serious hardships and inconveniences caused to many members of the gardaí who were called on to do emergency duty in Dublin on or about 18th August last and who are still away from their stations and wives and families; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
In a supplementary question, Deputy O'Hara asked:
Is the Minister so out of touch with the position that he is not aware of the serious unrest among members of the Garda Síochána by reason of being drafted from the three corners of the country into Dublin at great expense and inconvenience to themselves?
The Minister replied:
Mr. Moran: I am not so aware. It is part of the work of the Garda to be transferred temporarily from place to place. This allegation is silly.
The allegation was silly, that the Garda had been put to unnecessary inconvenience—perhaps unconscionable inconvenience; it might have been necessary.
Deputy O'Hara put a further supplementary to the Minister and the Minister replied with evident sarcasm:
I suppose the Deputy would ask me to come down and ask a garda to please come and investigate an accident.
This, I think, indicates the sort of sarcastic attitude which, in this instance anyway, the Minister reveals towards the Garda. I am not saying that he reveals this attitude on all occasions. There are many occasions, I am sure, when he shows greater concern for the Garda than do other Members of the House, but on this particular occasion, he did not seem to maintain the standard of respect and consideration for the Garda which one would expect. I have no wish to make any sort of a blanket attack on the Minister but in this particular instance, he did show a certain lack of concern.
There is another question which is very bad for the morale of the Garda, that is, promotion opportunities. There are at present in the force over 650 gardaí who are qualified for promotion to the rank of sergeant who have not yet got that promotion. In other words, they are fully qualified to be promoted but they are unable to get promotion. If this is not frustration, I do not know what is. Half of these gardaí have been qualified for promotion to the rank of sergeant for three years or more. In most occupations, if you qualify for promotion, you are promoted, but this does not apply to the Garda apparently.
Deputy Flanagan also referred to the fact that gardaí are asked to do a large number of jobs which are not really the proper function of a police force, they are asked, for instance, to take the census and to do school attendance work. I do not think this is what an officer of the law is trained to do. I do not think it is the kind of job which a man, in his responsible position and with his training, should be asked to do.
The Minister made a promise to us about another matter and I should like to find out how far he has progressed with it. During the debate on his Estimate in 1968, as reported at column 1468 of the Official Report of 29th October, 1968, the Minister said:
I am also making arrangements to have typing and minor clerical work at the larger stations carried out by suitably qualified female personnel, thus making it possible to release gardaí for outdoor police duties for which they are urgently needed.
I do not believe that it should ever have been the case that a garda should have had to do a substantial amount of this type of typing and minor clerical work in the larger stations. I am very glad the Minister realised the anomaly of this in 1968 and promised to make provisions to amend it. I would be glad if he would inform us how far he has gone with its implementation.
I should like now to take a look at the training which gardaí have to undergo in Templemore before becoming fully qualified. I certainly would not attempt to criticise this in general. It is probably very useful and beneficial training. There are probably certain changes which might usefully be made. Perhaps in modern conditions there is less need for excessive emphasis on drill and physical fitness and that sort of thing, and more need for developing qualities of adaptability, resourcefulness and so on. This is more in line with the type of subtle and complicated situation which the Garda are now asked to deal with more than they were in the past. I am not saying it is not necessary now but in the past it was probably more necessary and more problems could be solved by physical fitness than can be solved now, so there is need for greater training in adaptability.
(Cavan): Strong-arm methods.
That is precisely what I do not mean. I would not be dogmatic about this but I think the Minister should investigate the question of improving the pay and perhaps changing the emphasis towards the developing of such qualities as resourcefulness and adaptability.
Gardaí have a certain on-the-job training. They are put out on duty before they are fully qualified to do actual practical work and the duties which are normally undertaken by fully-fledged officers. In Britain, this on-the-job training is a carefully planned routine, covering all types of police work. They go through all the departments. They go to the CID for a while; they work in traffic control and on cars, in communications and so on. During this period of on-the-job training, they do a wide variety of police work and while performing these duties, they are carefully supervised and any mistakes they make are pointed out to them.
Here, what happens is that very often they are not supervised and for the whole period of their on-the-job training, they are carrying out a single type of activity, very often the type of minding the British Embassy activity which I mentioned earlier. I do not think this is making the best possible use of this very sensible and useful concept of on-the-job training. I hope the Minister will consider amending the training requirement in this regard.
I should like now to take a look at the effectiveness of our force in regard to crime detection. The Minister has been justifiably proud of the record of the force in this regard and I should not like to begrudge him any credit that is due to him personally for this. However, the figures tend to be a little deceptive. We compare our crime rate and detections here with those in Britain. The fact we forget is that Britain is an urban society where crime is much less easy to detect and much more prevalent. In a rural community where everyone knows everyone else's business crime is much more easy to detect. If we want to make a realistic comparison with our crime rate and detection rates here, we should not compare the whole of Ireland with the whole of Britain which is comparing a largely-rural society with a largely-urban society. What we should do is compare the Dublin metropolitan area with the whole of Britain.
This probably gives a more realistic assessment of the operative crime and detection rates. I would not say it would mean we would be as bad as Britain, but possibly it would give us a greater cause for concern about the detection rate. In fact, our detection rate has fallen very substantially: in 1965 the detection rate was 70 per cent; in 1968, as far as I know, it was 61 per cent. Even taking the statistics as they are given to us, an overall review of the whole country should give us some cause for concern about whether the police are, as I have suggested earlier, substantially understaffed, possibly not using the best methods and possibly not as well equipped as they should be.
The force has not been allowed to adapt itself fully to increased motorisation of the whole community. Organised crime as a whole is now almost entirely motorised. Any criminal usually has a getaway car or a series of getaway cars; he can dump one and get into the next. In motorising our police force we have not adequately responded to the situation of the increased motorisation of crime. I understand the number of vehicles at the disposal of the Garda has not increased at as quick a rate as it should, that many of these vehicles are old and have a grave tendency, as the shadow Minister for Justice mentioned in his speech, to break down.
I have been saying quite an amount about inadequate staffing in the Garda. This leads to a certain amount of public dissatisfaction about the service the Garda are giving. I should like to take another quotation from this article which bears out better than any words of mine could what I have in mind. This is the Irish Times, Tuesday, 19th October, 1969. This is towards the end of the article on The Policeman's Lot, Part 1, in which a sergeant at one of Dublin's busy city stations is quoted as saying:
I find now that time and time again people tell me: "Our shop was raided. Our car was broken into. I rang the guards. They said somebody would be over in the morning but nobody ever came." This is common now. I would safely say that more than half the people who have occasion to call on the police for some service are dissatisfied with the service they get.
I do not believe the gardaí are to be blamed for this at all. The real problem is that there are not enough gardaí to meet all these types of situation. The Minister has said on many occasions that we have more gardaí than the requisite number as laid down by certain criteria. I do not know what criteria are used in laying down the number. I suggest that instead of falling back on this old argument that we have as many as we should have according to some old criteria, he should revise the criteria on which we decide how many gardaí we need to meet the situation. The figures I have quoted about the increase in the crime rate and in the number of statutes which the Garda are being asked to implement, and the many other factors I mentioned earlier in my speech, would definitely suggest there is a very strong case for an increase in the number of gardaí.
On this question of closure of rural stations, I believe there is a very great value in keeping rural stations open. I know of a particular case in my own constituency which has come to my notice. Castletown station has been closed down for a while now and it is being policed from Nobber. I have written to the Minister on this already, and I have not yet received a definitive reply from him. I understand that the gardaí who are operating from Nobber do not know the roads in Castletown well enough and they are not properly acquainted with the people in the area, as they should be if they are to do a good job of law enforcement. It is difficult for the people in Castletown to get in touch with the gardaí. When the station was in Castletown it was easy; they knew where to find the gardaí. Now that they have to go to Nobber it is more difficult for people to tell the gardaí of any suspicious situation which might be arising. This is borne out by the fact that since the Castletown Garda station was closed, the crime rate there has risen very substantially. I have no access to official figures in this matter but I have been told by a number of people that something like nine houses have been robbed in the past month in the area. This is much more than would ever have been expected when the Castletown Garda station was open. There is a strong case for keeping as many as possible of these rural stations open, but they must be properly staffed so that no garda would have to serve inordinately long hours to keep the station going.
In 1966 the Minister mentioned the question of setting up a mobile detection unit in the Garda Síochána. I should be interested if the Minister could tell us now, with three years' experience of this unit, how it has developed and if it has proved sufficiently successful as an experiment to warrant its being extended.
Moving on to the third major part of my speech, I should like to refer to the question of treatment of criminals. I had a number of questions down to the Minister in the past two weeks about our general prison service, including the problem of juveniles as well as senior offenders. I should not like it to be thought that because I was asking this question and being critical of the existing services, I am unappreciative of what has been done and is being done and of the will to reform which his Department have shown in this field. However, I was hoping, by drawing public attention to these inadequacies, to help people in the Department of Justice and the Minister himself to get public opinion behind them in expending a greater amount of money in developing the prison service so as to ensure that they are not only not an instrument for revenge but a positive instrument for rehabilitating criminals.
There are certain deficiencies in our prison services. There is a problem in most of our prisons of overcrowding and this leads to a bad situation in our attempts to rehabilitate criminals. It also leads to premature release of criminals. In 1965 our prison population was 561; it is now 661. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what action he and his Department have taken to meet the increased prison population.
It is most disturbing to find that in his Estimate every year the Minister has underestimated the actual number of prisoners who would be in prison in that year. In his Estimate for 1967-68 the Minister said his Department was catering for a daily average of 570 prisoners. In the year 1967 the daily average in the prisons was 610. In other words, figures were available at the time the Minister was making an estimate for 570 to the effect that the daily average was 40 more than that. They must have been counting on a miraculous decrease in the crime rate for the year. In actual fact, the outturn was 615. In 1968-69 the Estimate catered for 580 prisoners and the actual out-turn was 615. In 1969, and this is most distressing of all, the average up to the 30th June, which is the period more or less covered by the Estimate, was 661 in a year when they had estimated that the figure would be 580. In other words, there were 80 more prisoners in our prisons than the Minister had estimated or made provision for. If we are going to be repeatedly underestimating the number of prisoners, how can we hope to have a proper prisons service? I hope the Minister will not make this type of mistake in future years.
I recently asked the Minister a question about visiting committees to our prisons. Nothing would be further from my mind than to decry the work these people are doing or to decry the spirit in which they are doing it. I think we should consider supplementing them because these visiting committees are not as fully equipped as they should be to carry out functions of providing reports on the prison service and ensuring they keep up to date on all questions of penology and criminology.
Membership of the present visiting committee consists of 48 people, nine of whom are retired. They are people in their declining years who have taken on this activity as an occupational extra, but I do not think they could be fully alive to modern developments in penology. I do not think it is likely that they would take an unpopular stand against the Minister if it were necessary. I think we should consider bringing in younger and more vigorous people to supplement this committee. Only one of these 48 members is a social worker and considering penology is a social science and that the rehabilitation and treatment of criminals is a matter which requires expertise, I do not think one social worker on the committee is enough. I am not asking the Minister to take anybody off this visiting committee; I should just like him to extend membership to bring in people with greater expertise in criminology and penology.
There is a definite need for an aggressive attitude towards providing education in our prisons, particularly in prisons which cater for young offenders. According to a survey done by the Department of Social Science in UCD, 50 per cent of these people were shown to be semi-literate. They are criminals not because they are evil or anything like that but because they have no place in modern society. They cannot find a niche for themselves. I am sure most of them feel a considerable sense of inadequacy and it is because of these inadequacies they turn to crime. If we want to prevent them from going back to crime the answer is to provide them with a basic literacy while they are in prison or in an institution.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has recommended the appointment of an educational psychologist to look into this question. I do not think he has been appointed yet but I would commend the Minister on making the appointment. I wonder if one educational psychologist is enough to tackle the enormous problem of literacy which prevails amongst our prison population. In his speech last year the Minister promised and I quote:
the appointment of an educational psychologist and the employment of additional instructional staff aided by a corps of voluntary workers with teaching experience.
Now that the Minister is about to appoint the educational psychologist, I hope he will also appoint the additional staff aided by a corps of voluntary workers. An offer was made by the students of St. Patrick's Training College to assist in the matter of teaching. There was a call for the appointment of not only an educational psychologist but of a well-trained instructional staff with teaching qualifications and experience to tackle this enormous problem of illiteracy and semi-illiteracy in the prisons. If we can tackle this problem and ensure that these people are equipped when they leave prison to get reasonably remunerative jobs a great deal of our crime problems will be solved.
There is also a need, according to this survey that I have mentioned, as regards 35 per cent of the people in St. Patrick's Institution who are mentally defective. In addition to educational psychology, psychology to deal with people who are also mentally defective—another specialist form of psychology—is required. People qualified in this field are needed to deal with those who are not only semi-illiterate but mentally defective. I do not think it is any answer to send people, particularly young people, in this category to Dundrum. I do not think the regime in Dundrum is of a nature which would meet their problems. I think it is for hardened people.
I should like to welcome the Minister's initiative in bringing into existence Shanganagh Castle. This certainly shows the right spirit although his answer to me on the 27th of this month stating that there were no plans to expand the accommodation, which is about 50, is rather depressing. If it is as good an experiment as the Minister evidently believes, there is a strong case for expansion.
There is no point in merely liberalising the discipline in a prison establishment if it is not part of a planned curriculum for ensuring that people are rehabilitated. Liberation must be linked with expert care and training to ensure that people are reformed as much as possible.
Another question which is of very great importance is placement of persons on leaving prison. This is particularly vital in view of the fact that many of these people have no homes to go to. They may be young offenders who came from broken homes and do not know where their parents are. If they cannot be placed in jobs they will have no tie with society, no home and no reason to integrate into society. There might even be a case for extending their stay in the institution until such time as a job is found for them. This might be a rather controversial matter but it should be considered.
I should like to commend the work which is being done by the Minister and his Department in regard to placement of people in jobs, particularly the work which is being done by voluntary bodies with the assistance of the Department. However, the Minister revealed a rather disturbing attitude in regard to this matter in an answer to a question that I put to him. He did not seem fully to realise the need for professional guidance in placing people in jobs. It is not enough to have goodwill and a desire to help people to find a job. A certain amount of professional expertise is required to discover by interview the type of job for which the person is best suited and to ensure that the job in which he is placed will be one into which he will be able to fit. This is a matter which requires something more than goodwill and enthusiasm. The Minister did not seem to realise the need for professional guidance in vocational placement. I trust that this was a temporary aberration.
As regards training in order to ensure that they get adequate jobs, the services the Minister has outlined in regard to Shanganagh Castle look very good and highly praiseworthy and fairly adequate but the training in St. Patrick's Institution is, perhaps, not as good as it should be. I understand that training is given in tailoring, shoemaking, woodwork, carpet making, car driving and car maintenance. This is useful but I should like to know the number of inmates of St. Patrick's Institution who get this training. I understand that only a very small proportion of the total number ever get to avail of the training in car driving, for instance. It is important that this training should cover all the prisoners in so far as possible and that there should be no prisoner who is not provided with as much training as possible during his stay in prison. While the training facilities may look fine on paper, I am not sure that they take in all the prisoners, not a small selected few.
Another matter which I raised at Question Time with the Minister was the necessity to provide pre-service training for prison officers before they go on duty. I do not think it is enough to provide them with training after they have gone on duty and have undertaken the responsibilities. There should be a certain minimum training for prison officer staff before they contact the prisoners. It is true to say that in some cases, particularly with men who have any sort of emotional disturbance, a single unpleasant encounter with one of the warders could break down the trust which is essential if any real attempt at rehabilitation is to be made. In order to ensure that such detrimental encounters do not take place, a certain basic minimum training should be given before any prison officer goes on duty. The excuse that the Minister gave for not having such training was that the intake into the prison service was small and irregular and that it would be difficult to have a training course for people who were coming in in dribs and drabs.
This could be solved simply by appointing a certain time in the year for all entrants to the prison service to come into that service instead of having them coming in all the year round. It should be laid down that anyone who wants to enter the service should enter in the month of April in a particular year and, if he does not enter in that month, then he should be told he will have to wait until the following April. If that were done there would be no problem about having enough prison officers available to attend a course. This system is employed in most other occupations and I see no reason why it should not apply in the prison service.
The Minister, in answer to another Parliamentary question, conceded that there was a two-week course for gardaí entering the juvenile liaison scheme. I should imagine that the intake there would be smaller and more irregular than the intake into the prison service and, if these gardaí can be given a two-week pre-service training course, why cannot prison officers be given a pre-service training course?
The Minister has indicated on several occasions that he is having a detailed review undertaken by the probation service. This is to be welcomed. There is an absolutely unanswerable case for extending the probation service outside Dublin. As far as I know, the service operates only in the city of Dublin at the moment and there are only six probation officers. Why Cork is not sufficiently big to warrant at least one probation officer I do not know. Perhaps they do not have any crime there. But I certainly think many of the larger towns—Limerick, Galway, Sligo—are big enough to have a probation officer and they probably have a problem which would warrant their having a probation officer. I hope the number of probation officers will be increased.
There is no pre-service training for probation officers. I concede that many of them are highly qualified. The Minister mentioned people with degrees like B.Com. and B.Soc. Science. These degrees are not enough. Probation is a highly specialised business and, before anyone enters it, he or she should have specialised training in probation. A B.Com. degree does not qualify one in probation. It qualifies one in a whole range of rather vague subjects. It certainly does not qualify one in probation. There is definite need for a pre-service training course for probation officers. There is such a course in England. I understand it is a nine-months' course. If that can be done in England why can we not do it here? Surely our problem is not that much smaller that we have no need of a pre-service training course for probation officers?
The average case load for probation officers here is 60. This was revealed in an answer given to me by the Minister. While the average may be 60, I have been informed—I do not know how reliable the information is—that there is one probation officer who had at one stage a case load of 120. A body which looked into the question of the probation service in England recommended 50 as the maximum number a probation officer should be asked to undertake at a given time. Our average is above their maximum and our maximum is more than twice theirs. There is the possibility that in such a situation some cases will be almost totally ignored by probation officers. A probation officer will concentrate on the son of relatively prosperous parents because he knows there is a fair chance that the case will be a success from his point of view and he may well ignore the less promising cases. Not only should we increase the number of probation officers but we should introduce some regulation to ensure that no case is neglected, just because it is a difficult one, and because of the probation officer's natural tendency to want to have a good statistic to show.
I should like to say a few words now about adoption. There is not enough—I say this somewhat tentatively—control by An Bord Uchtála or the Minister over adoption societies. Some of them maintain a very high standard of investigation but there are some—this was suggested in a television programme recently—which do not maintain such a high standard and, as a result, children come into the hands of parents who should not be given the custody of children. There is definitely need for the Department and An Bord Uchtála to take a closer look at all adoption societies to ensure that a high standard is maintained and that there is a sufficiently large number of psychiatric social workers to investigate in detail the background of all prospective adoptive parents.
There was a case recently—the State, Nicola v. An Bord Uchtála. The judge ruled that the father of an illegitimate child has absolutely no right to custody. If a mother wants to keep a child, she can; in accordance with this ruling the father can in no circumstances get custody. I concede that in most cases it would be undesirable to give the father of an illegitimate child custody of the child as an alternative to having it adopted, but I do not think the court should lay down an absolutely rigid rule, as it has done in this case.
It is a statutory rule. It is laid down by statute.
If it is a statutory rule we should change it.
I do not think we should.
Another split in Fine Gael!
Only a splinter.
I should like to commend to the Minister and to the Government the Devlin Report suggestion that An Bord Uchtála should be transferred to the Department of Health. It is more appropriate that adoption should be carried out under the aegis of the Department of Health rather than the Department of Justice, which has duties of a very different kind. This suggestion should be implemented by the Minister.
I am very disappointed at the Ceann Comhairle's decision not to allow discussion on the "Seven Days" programme. I should like to voice my protest because we asked for an investigation into illegal money-lending.
The Deputy will have to accept that he cannot question the Chair's ruling.
I quite agree, but we wanted an investigation into illegal money-lending in this city.
(Interruptions.)
Any discussion across the House is completely out of order. The Chair does not want any discussion across the House on this matter which has already been ruled on.
The fact that it is not sub judice at the moment makes it unfair that we are denied the right to discuss it.
We cannot discuss a ruling which has been given. That is settled practice in the House.
I wonder what precedent there was for it.
It is a long standing precedent in the House.
Would the Chair not agree that the terms of reference of this judicial inquiry were not even announced?
The Chair is not going to enter into any discussion because the matter is beyond debate.
It was vague and ambiguous. We thought there was to be an inquiry into illegal money-lending in Dublin and that is what I want to see.
Again, the Deputy or any Deputy must not engage in discussion on a ruling of the Chair.
I could understand the Deputy's anxiety if the writ had been moved.
There would be no anxiety whatever.
I would ask the Deputy to come to the Estimate.
I will ignore the interruptions and certainly I will bow to your decision, Sir. I want to highlight the extent of vandalism in Dublin at present. It is a frightening situation and the people are alarmed and have protested to the Garda about it but they find that the force is inadequate to cope with the vandalism which is rife. In my constituency, in Drimnagh and Ballyfermot, vandalism is one of the biggest problems we have. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance will agree with me that it is a very big problem in our area. The Garda just have not the numbers to cope with the situation which is brought to my attention daily. I wonder what steps the Minister proposes to take to bring the force up to its proper strength. He has refused to answer questions on this matter and it is very important that we should know what he is going to do. The Garda are working under deplorable conditions; their conditions of employment are really antiquated. Recently I saw them in action and they had my sympathy. At 11 o'clock at night they were trying to cope with many problems and there were so few of them; they were trying to cope with chaotic traffic conditions which resulted from an accident and, in addition, 11 people were involved in a brawl. They said that they just could not cope and they were almost walking out. You have this unrest among young gardaí who will not tolerate present working conditions. Too much is expected from them and only dedicated men such as these can continue.
I should like to see some positive measures being taken. Is it that their remuneration is inadequate, or is it that they are expected to work completely unreasonable hours? It seems to me that it is a combination of both. We should set up an inquiry, as a matter of urgency, to see what is wrong. There is no doubt that the situation will get out of hand unless we ensure that the force is brought up to its proper strength. In Ballyfermot the tenants' association, who are ever vigilant, were very hesitant about disclosing the fact that so few gardaí were patrolling the Ballyfermot area because it might encourage further vandalism. They were between two minds, whether to highlight the matter or keep it quiet in the interests of the public.
One aspect of law reform to which I should like to refer is the question of bail. It is a matter about which I am rather disturbed. At present every accused person must be granted bail unless there is substantial evidence that he would be likely to abscond or evade justice. I can appreciate the Minister's concern and that there are cases when it is not in the interests of the public to grant bail, but it must be remembered that every person is innocent until he has been proved guilty and it could happen, and it will happen if we alter things, that a person could remain in custody for a considerable time and then on being tried be proved innocent, but there is no question of compensation for such people. It is a very important point because people will be deprived of their liberty. The Minister said that constitutional difficulties were involved but that he was confident these could be overcome. There were constitutional difficulties involved when the Minister for Local Government was concerned about acquiring land but he did not think they could be overcome. Here we have the Minister for Justice suggesting that there will be no problem and that these constitutional difficulties can be overcome. This House should be very concerned about this matter. I should like to know that any person who is charged will be considered to be innocent until he has been proved guilty and he must have his liberty unless in very exceptional cases.
I should like now to discuss this question of industrial schools. We have not given sufficient consideration to them. I have received details from a social worker in regard to them.
Is this not a matter for the Department of Education, Sir?
Before the Chair arrives at a decision, I should like him to consider that these people are committed to industrial schools by the courts. It is important to remember that fact. This worker said that he had looked into the industrial school situation, and yes, the boys were beaten, yes, they work on the bog, yes, they are made run around the yard until they drop, and that there was standard punishment for smoking. He also said that they ate hamburgers and chips and that it was difficult to get city children to eat protein in any other form. He said that the teaching and domestic staff were underpaid and that the boys were subsidised at the rate of £2 per child per week.
Is the Deputy referring to industrial schools?
I am concerning myself with the fact that these cases are committed to industrial schools by the courts.
The running of industrial schools is a matter for the Department of Education.
There must be closer liaison between the Department of Education and the Department of Justice because conditions are terrible.
The Deputy will appreciate that justices send the people to these schools. The Department of Justice does not have any influence on the decisions of a justice.
The Department should satisfy themselves about conditions in these places.
As they are under the control of the Department of Education the Vote for that Department would be the proper Vote on which to take the matter up.
The Parliamentary Secretary is to be complimented on his diligence in seeing that the debate does not stray into the realms of the scandal of industrial schools.
I should like to discuss the question of drug addicts in custody. I hope it will be permitted on this Estimate. I think it is necessary to have a special unit for the treatment of drug addicts in custody. We have not such a unit at present. It should be attached to the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, Dublin. The position of this mental hospital is indefinite. We do not know whether it is controlled by the Department of Justice or whether it is being transferred to the Department of Health: I understand it is in process. Drug addicts in custody are not receiving any treatment. I should like to see special treatment for aggressive psychopaths who are committed to the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum.
The Minister has not seen fit to give figures of the turnover of the prisons. I had some figures available to me for Mountjoy and St. Patrick's which, I understand, have a turnover of about 5,000 per annum. Five to six years ago, there were only about 70 or 80 prisoners there at any one time: now it is up to 300. I wonder about the provisions in these prisons for the rehabilitation of prisoners. I wonder also about the diet of prisoners. I understand that today the Minister said that Deputies could visit our prisons. I should like to avail of this and to see for myself the conditions prevailing in our prisons today. I feel that my colleague, Deputy Michael O'Leary would also like to do so——
——on a visit.
Mountjoy has its quota of drug addicts. There are no facilities whatsoever for the treatment of drug addicts while they are in Mountjoy. This is very wrong. If they are committed to hospital, they can leave hospital any time during treatment. There is need, therefore, for these drug addicts who are serving a sentence in Mountjoy to receive treatment for their drug addiction.
I understand that psychiatric reports on prisoners are made only at the request of the court or if some apparent aberration is found in a prisoner's behaviour. For every prisoner admitted to Mountjoy there should be a psychiatric report. Surely it should not be beyond the capacity of the Department to provide a few psychiatrists for this purpose? The Minister for Justice has no time for any of these new-fangled ideas.
He has not had time for the debate, either.
I brought a case to his attention on 30th October about the detention of a juvenile.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary any idea about the whereabouts of the Minister for Justice?
Yes. I know exactly where he is—outside in the corridor.
He has remained there for most of the past two hours. It is a discourtesy to the House.
When a certain Minister stayed in this House without going out, he was criticised for that, too.
The Minister for Justice must be punishing some civil servant.
I have a feeling that the Minister is listening very attentively to what I am saying: I hope he is. I should like to refer to the fact that the Minister has no time whatsoever for what he calls "these new-fangled ideas", these psychiatric assessments of prisoners. I would refer to his reply to me when I brought up this question. He said:
I do not accept that every criminal will be cured by psychiatric treatment or that such is necessary. Neither do I believe in the theories advanced about young people such as that because their mother saw something like a puck goat during her pregnancy it has had a shocking effect on the progeny for all time. I think there is no substance in these theories...
I understand that the Minister has no intention of introducing new measures for prisoners or new ideas into the prison service: that is what I gather from that reply.
I should like to comment on the Minister's replies to Parliamentary questions. I have found him far from co-operative. I asked him a question about the number of probation officers: he has not mentioned the matter in this Supplementary Estimate. Actually, he refuses to answer it. I asked him if he is satisfied that the number of probation officers in Dublin is adequate for the number of children under their care and, if not, when he proposes to increase this number. He said he had appointed an officer in his Department to examine the probation and after-care service with a view to identifying requirements and making recommendations.
Deputies
Here he is. The Minister is coming back into the House.
The Minister admitted he had a comprehensive report but he would not say whether the number of probation officers in Dublin was adequate to meet the needs. I asked him, further, if it was his intention to increase the number of probation officers. He said he did not want to go into the matter—the usual evasive answer from the Minister for Justice.
I should like to refer now to my question about a juvenile of 14½ years. The Minister did not give me a satisfactory reply. A boy of 14½ years was detained in the Bridewell. From what I can ascertain, juveniles must not be detained in the Bridewell.
Of course, they are, if they are incorrigible—and are.
Fourteen years? I shall read out the question and the Minister's reply. I asked the Minister for Justice if a juvenile when released from Marlborough House, Dublin, on 19th August, 1969—I am speaking now about the Minister's not giving satisfactory replies—was released to the custody of his parents. I know that this juvenile of 14½ years was not released to the custody of his parents. The reference is the Official Report of Dáil Éireann of 30th October, 1969, column 2274. I had information to the effect that this child was not released to the custody of his parents. He was detained for two days in the Bridewell, Dublin. I asked the Minister if this was so and, if it was, the reason for it. I got no proper answer from the Minister. It so happened that this boy had a twin brother who was already serving a sentence in Letterfrack. The father maintained and still maintains that the record of the boy in Letterfrack was taken into consideration by the justice in sentencing this twin boy, about whom I refer, to Daingean Reformatory.
The Minister's reply was:
Allegations on the lines of this question, and others as well, that have been made by this boy's father have been sent to me in writing by the Deputy.
I will read out all the Minister's reply.
Read what he said about the mother of this child.
The Minister said:
I am satisfied from the Garda reports I have seen that the allegations that have been made are, in all material respects, unfounded and irresponsible.
I know that this boy was not released to the care of his parents. The Minister said the allegations were "unfounded and irresponsible". He went on:
In particular, the allegation that there was a confusion of identity between this boy and his twin brother, with the result that the court was misled as to his criminal record, is untrue. The fact is that both boys have extensive criminal records.
This boy's father endeavoured—before I submitted this case to the Dáil—by writing to the Minister and by calling to the Garda about it, to get some information about his boy who was released from Marlborough House but not into the custody of his parents, and who was missing from home. The fact that he was missing after his release was reported to the Garda who then suggested that they should announce the fact that he was missing. During that time this boy was being held in the Bridewell. Of course, the boy gave a wrong address, but we must understand that he was a 14-yearold boy. The Garda did not make any attempt to confirm that this was his proper address. They did not call to the address at which he said he lived. As a matter of fact, the report from Daingean about this boy was being sent to this address, the wrong address. When the father got this information from me he was able to call to the house and get letters from the head of Daingean Reformatory about his own child. I am very concerned because of the fact that the Minister did not give me a satisfactory reply. I then asked——
The Deputy must be quoting a case from the cruellest country the Minister knows of—this could not happen in Dublin.
It did happen in Dublin.
Do not tell me.
I said:
While what the Minister has said is more than likely true, is it not a fact that this boy was released from Marlborough House and not to the custody of his parents? Secondly, is it a fact that he was reported missing and was being searched for by the gardaí and that during that time he was in custody in the Bridewell? Will the Minister state if it is right for a juvenile of 14½ years to be detained in the Bridewell without notifying his parents? Would the Minister say why investigations were not made as to the correct address of this boy? At present letters are coming from Daingean Reformatory to an address completely different from that of his parents? Is the Minister aware of that? I have seen those letters myself.
The Minister said:
I do not know what the Deputy has seen, but in my experience I have never seen such a record as that of this gentleman and his family. The fact is that this boy is a pathological liar, that he misled the Gardaí——
Remember he is only 14 years of age——
——gave them a false address and told them his parents were down the country. I can well understand that if he came into one garda barracks they were given one address not knowing where he really was.
What I want to ask the Minister is: did he have a proper inquiry into this and, if he did, why did he not supply me with proper answers? Did the Garda confirm the address of this boy of 14 years? The Minister did not say. This is typical of him. In an outburst the Minister said:
His parents have not turned up to courts ...
The father is mainly concerned with selling the story to the yellow press in England at the moment and no doubt, in this bargaining, the Deputy's question here will be of considerable assistance to him.
I said:
I do not doubt what the Minister has said but in view of what he said about the boy being a pathological liar, this is terribly important. Will the Minister now ask that this boy be examined by a psychiatrist with a view to his having the necessary psychiatric treatment?
The Minister said:
In fact we have already had a psychiatric report on this boy. I do not accept that every criminal will be cured by psychiatric treatment or that such is necessary. Neither do I believe——
And I am repeating this because of the fact that the Minister did not hear too well outside——
——in the theories advanced about young people such as that because their mother saw something like a puck goat during her pregnancy it has had a shocking effect on the progeny for all time. I think there is no substance in these theories but for what it is worth there was a psychiatric report made on this boy.
A fitting illustration of the Minister's social conscience.
It is an illustration that I have read both Freud and Dr. Jung and, while they disagree on this issue, I do not accept either of them——
Will the Minister agree that the earth is round and not flat?
I will agree that the Deputy's Party still believe it is flat.
The Deputy has respect for parenthood which is more than the Minister has.
I should like to know why the Minister replied in such a fashion concerning a young boy of 14½ years. Why did he not give the result of the psychiatric report? Obviously, he was not concerned about this family, or about this twin boy, and he did not confirm the fact that the record of the twin brother was inadvertently taken into account.
That is not true and I stated so in this House.
I will accept what the Minister has said.
What about what the Minister had to say about the child's mother?
I did not say it about the child's mother and the Communist tactics will not work with me—the great smear. I said nothing about this boy's mother. I said that this idea of psychiatric treatment curing criminals is not accepted by me. There may be a case in some instances for psychiatric treatment.
Is the Minister aware of the fact that in Mountjoy at the moment the RMO is working on theories regarding chromosome abnormalities being responsible for criminal offences? Is the Minister aware of this fact?
I quite accept that there are people in Mountjoy whose libidos are out of kilter as well as some of the people sitting behind the Deputy. That does not necessarily excuse them——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Desmond should see a psychiatrist or see the good doctor who is speaking after the House adjourns.
The Minister has not raised the tone of the debate.
I do not think it right that the Minister should explode and try to evade questions asked in the House. He should say: "Look, where there is a doubt, and where the parents are concerned about a 14 year old boy, we will have a look into it. We will have it investigated further and we will have an inquiry into it." There is nothing wrong in that. We would not condemn the Minister for that, any more than we would have condemned him if he had come into this House about the illegal money-lending and said——
That matter may not be discussed.
I am speaking about arrogance. The Minister should be cooperative and he would get the co-operation of the Opposition parties.
As other Ministers do.
This is terribly important. No one has the right to come in here and say: "Look, this is all wrong. I will not listen to this." There was no inquiry into this matter and, when the liberty and freedom of a young boy is at stake, there should be an inquiry into it. The Garda had a report that this boy was missing and they were looking for him. There is something radicallly wrong in a situation like that. The Minister says the father is trying to sell the story to the yellow press. I will tell the Minister what he tried to do. He tried to get publicity in an effort to have his boy released. That is all he wanted. I do not think that is abnormal.
One way of doing it was selling the story which he informed my Department he would do. He told my Department this and threatened them with it.
May I ask the Minister who made that statement?
I will deal with it. Now that the Deputy has made his allegations I will deal with them fully in my reply. I have already answered the Deputy's questions. The boy gave a wrong address. The Garda called there. Obviously, the boy gave a wrong address to the superior in Daingean, too, according to the Deputy, because he was writing to it.
Did the Garda check the address given by the boy?
Of course, they did.
When?
What did they find out?
They found that the boy was not there and people and relations of his who were there did not see him.
I am challenging the Minister on this question, because the boy has no relations whatsoever living at that address.
Somebody there claimed they were related.
Did the gardaí call to that address?
I have told the Deputy already that they did.
When?
I will give him the date when I am replying. I cannot remember every date that they chased this boy who was telling lies to everybody all over this city.
Did the Minister not say the gardaí called to relatives of his?
I said they called at the address this boy gave them and that a party there who was supposed to be a relative of his said he was not there.
That is not what the Minister said.
He also lied, on the Deputy's own story, to the superior of Daingean because he gave them a phoney address to which they were writing.
If this boy had such a previous record as the Minister states, would his proper address not be known to the gardaí?
I have told the Deputy in reply to the question that this boy had a long criminal record, the same as his twin brother and his father as well.
How is it the gardaí did not know his address?
The gardaí, no more than anybody else, are not clairvoyant. When a boy gives them his home address or his alleged home address they naturally go there expecting it to be where he is living.
Did the boy not give his correct name?
I suppose the gardaí could pray for divine inspiration as to whether he lived there when he told them the address and they went there and found he was not there; or when he told them his parents went down the country from this address and they found he was not there either.
I should like to ask the Minister why a boy should be locked up when the gardaí have confirmed the fact that he did not live at a particular address, when they did not know who his parents were, as the Minister has openly admitted now, and why this boy was put back?
What was he charged with?
At 14 years of age he must have been notorious.
Could we get away from the cross-barrage?
Between the three psychologists.
This is a very important matter concerning a boy of 14 years. I did not get an opportunity at Question Time to discuss this matter. I got an unsatisfactory answer from the Minister, and so I bring it up on this Estimate.
The Chair is not preventing the Deputy from speaking at all. All the Chair is trying to do is to confine the contribution to the Deputy who is in possession.
It seems to be a matter for another inquiry.
There should be an inquiry into this matter. We must ensure not only that justice is done but that it is seen to be done, and I would very respectfully ask that this be done as soon as possible, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will give the fullest information on this case.
I should like to discuss very briefly the proposals of the Minister about maintenance orders which concern so many deserted wives. It is a shame that there is no power to execute maintenance orders in Britain, because many deserted wives with children find their husbands receiving social welfare benefit on their behalf and they cannot obtain any maintenance from the husbands. I would hope to see the Minister's proposal coming into effect as soon as possible. It should be one of the priority items.
There is another case which I did not raise in the House. I wrote to the Minister about it and have to confess that five months later I am still awaiting a satisfactory reply from the Minister. I should have raised it in the House but I will now. A girl of 18 who has been declared a psychopath was detained in Mountjoy for weeks. She asked to be admitted to St. Loman's Hospital. Her father brought her out and they said she was all right; she broke the windscreen of a car and was detained in Mountjoy for four weeks. This happened last June and she had no previous criminal record. She was committed to the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum.
Her father has been in constant contact with me about this case. I have had no satisfactory replies or explanations from the Minister or his Department about it. The last I heard was that she had had a convulsion lasting a few days. I would ask the Minister to look into this question, and I should like to know why she was detained in Mountjoy, why she was not on bail in the custody of her father who asked for this. He was very concerned about it, and I think this is another case of injustice. I gave the Minister all the details in writing.
(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but I wish to raise a point of order. On the principal Estimate I put down a motion to refer back this Justice Estimate. By agreement and for the convenience of the Government and the House, the remaining principal Estimates were passed en bloc on the understanding that supplementary estimates would be introduced to allow a full discussion on the estimates. I assumed that my reference back of the principal Estimate stood as a reference back of this Estimate that we are now discussing, and I understood that I had moved the reference back when I began my speech. I would ask the Chair, with respect, not that it matters very much at this stage, to look into the matter and to treat my reference back of the principal Estimate as a reference back of this Estimate which is, in effect, the principal Estimate we are debating.
The Chair could not give an answer at short notice but will look into the matter.
(Cavan): I appreciate that.
I should like to refer to the question of free legal aid in civil cases. At the present time there are poor people who have legitimate claims but cannot pursue them because they have not got the money. This is a terrible state of affairs and I am dealing with one case at the moment where the solicitor has told a person she must pay at least £50 initially before they can proceed with this case where her child was knocked down by a bus. There must be provision for helping cases like this.
Deputy O'Higgins said in this House the other night that they do them for nothing. Why do you not ask him?
(Cavan): The Minister knows the person the Deputy is speaking about must not have a statable case.
Deputy O'Higgins assured us all that in the law library they will do any case for nothing, that they will not see you down. Go to Deputy O'Higgins. He is down there every day.
I am delighted with this and it is very good of the Minister to bring it to my attention. May I ask him if he, as a practising solicitor, will now take up this case?
If I had the time it would be a pleasure, but here is Deputy O'Higgins tripping over himself to do free work. Why not consult him?
Good. I am glad we have solved one problem by bringing this case up in the Dáil.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.