When we adjourned last evening I was half way through my exposition, as it were, on family law reform. I had pointed out to the Minister the urgency of reforms in a number of areas in that sphere. We, on this side of the House, would ask the Minister to codify the legislation relating to family law but we understand that this cannot be done overnight. Basically, my call to the Minister last evening was to deal with those areas which, obviously, are out of date. In his speech the Minister dealt with areas which are of concern to him. These areas are of concern to us also. The Minister's contribution in introducing his Estimate was entitled Law Reform Programme. He has indicated clearly that there is an informal committee for the purpose of considering law reform and that this committee consists of himself, as Minister, of the Attorney General, Mr. Justice Brian Walsh, of the Supreme Court and an Assistant Secretary of the Department. The purpose of this committee, the Minister told us, is to examine areas in which reform of the law, both criminal and civil, is needed urgently and we are told that it is the intention to establish working groups to examine particular aspects of the law and that these will concentrate at the outset on matters that are of a social as well as of a legal nature.
The Minister is aware of the very many reports that have been prepared by groups who, on a voluntary basis, have interested themselves in the area of family law reform. One wonders at the absolute necessity of the committee to examine areas in which family reform is needed since there have been a considerable number of reports already setting out these areas and indicating the hardships that are being caused by the existing law. In these reports there are conclusions on which the Government of the day are urged to take action. However, I have no wish to criticise the informal committee. No doubt they have other contributions to make.
I have before me a report that was prepared by the CARE group which is entitled "The CARE Memorandum On Deprived Children and Children's Services in Ireland". That is a conclusive report and indicates clearly the areas in which law reform is needed urgently. I expect it will be before the informal committee of which the Minister has told us.
At the AIM seminar held in the Burlington Hotel a few weeks ago, the Minister, in his address to the group, set out the anomalies that exist in the area of family law and he pointed out matters which are of prime concern to him. It is our hope that an informal committee, or any other committee, is not being set up in an effort to put off the day of reform. We would like to see an earnest of the Minister's intention and trust that reforms will be before the House very soon.
We pointed out the areas in relation to family law reform which can be dealt with in the national sense. In relation to wives we pointed out that the matter of maintenance could be dealt with, if not immediately, in the near future. If a court makes an order whereby a wife is entitled to receive, say, £15 and £5 for each child, there may be difficulty in obtaining the money from the husband although he may be in gainful employment. Our suggestion of attaching the salary of the husband has been taken up by the Minister. What we mean by "attaching" the husband's salary is that the court, through the due process of the law, sends to the employer a document indicating that a certain amount of money should be deducted from the employee's salary on foot of the court order. This is a reasonable and proper approach to the enforcement of court orders and we suggest, respectfully, that that would not be too difficult. The Minister has available to him the advantage of a Department in relation to these matters. I respect whatever information he may have and I appreciate the difficulties there are in relation to the areas in which I am now calling for reform. With regard to the attaching of husband's salaries, there may be difficulties of which I have no special knowledge but I am sure that the Minister will tease out any such difficulties that may exist. With regard to matrimonial courts, Fianna Fáil favour the setting up of a family tribunal composed of one judge, aided by two suitably qualified lay assessors who would deal with all family problems, with the exception of juvenile matters which would be dealt with by the new juvenile courts. The court would have a reconciliatory function and the opportunity of referring the parties to a family welfare council. Again, the procedures before the court would be simple; the aim would be to provide speedy and inexpensive relief for the parties resorting to it.
As spokesman on Justice, I referred to the question of free legal aid for needy litigants. This should be available. I pointed out at some length the anomalies in the law with regard to women which should be abolished, among which is the criminal conversation action. I would ask the Minister to clarify these matters. When one's speech is interrupted by the adjournment it is difficult to preserve continuity and if I am repeating myself I apologise to the House and to the Minister. We ask the Minister to clarify the position in relation to divorces obtained in England and we ask him to abolish the wife's domicile of dependence.
We have pointed out also, the urgent priority that exists with regard to law reform for children. We are concerned about the present juvenile court and we suggested it should be abolished and replaced by a new court where a district justice would sit with two lay assessors. The main function of the court would be to advise on the treatment of young offenders. The court would have a continuing interest in and responsibility for those whom they send for treatment or sentence and regular conferences to review cases would take place. We suggested a social report on a child's background and, as in the matrimonial court, we suggested that procedure should be kept as simple as possible without undue emphasis on rules of evidence. I do not have to spell that out in great detail. We do not suggest the rules of evidence should be abandoned or should be made elastic. We have to operate within the rules of evidence and this is quite right, but it is fair to point out that one can deal fairly with individuals without being absolutely emphatic about the application of those rules.
I have a motion down to the Minister in Private Members' time—whenever that may arise—and I shall deal in detail then with the Children's Act, 1908. We say it is urgently in need of updating and I think the Minister agrees with this, principally to allow the compulsory orders to be made to meet the needs of children under 17 years for security, guidance, care and protection. We can take pride in the Scoil Ard Mhuire which was recently opened and which represents a great advance in the care of deprived children. More such schools and additional assessment centres are urgently needed.
With regard to the age of criminal responsibility, we consider this should be raised from seven years to 12 or even 14 years. We are supported in our proposition by the report of the committee established by the Bar Council on the inadequacy of legal representation in children's courts. The report is contained in The Irish Law Times dated 9th February, 1974 where it is stated:
As stated in the Kennedy Report (paragraph 10.4) the age of criminal responsibility has been increased to 12 years in England—
I do not think it should be increased to 12 years here just because it has been increased in England and I hope I am not being chauvinistic about it——
—and is still higher in other European countries and the Report recommended the adoption of the age of twelve years in this country and that all children under this age who have committed offences should be brought before the court as in need of care, discipline or control.
The committee state they support this recommendation and they point out that under the present law a child between the age of seven to 15 years has the benefit of the presumption of doli incapax and that the prosecution is required in such cases to establish knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act. It is fair to say that in practice very little attention is paid to this requirement. The committee recommend that until the law is amended in the way they suggested the Minister should direct the Garda authorities as to their obligations in the case of children under the age of 15 years. I know the Garda authorities are well aware of their obligations to all citizens regardless of age, but sometimes a gentle reminder is no harm.
In the report of the committee, at paragraph 10 dealing with reform of the legal system there is an interesting observation by Dr. Paul McQuaid in the summer 1971 issue of Studies where he stated:
The law, the law courts, "due process", the whole atmosphere of retribution and atonement and, on the other hand, problems and needs of the individual anti-social or deprived child, are so obviously conflicting and, in their effect on the child, so destructively useless, that it is clear to those who work within or in conjunction with the juridical system—even if not to all of them —that a major change in the law, as it obtains in respect of children, is urgently required. The majority of juvenile crimes are admitted to and there is rarely any problem in assigning guilt, though proof may not be available. Preoccupation with assignment of guilt tends to obscure the fact that a delinquent act, i.e., one that brings the child to court, is often the last in a long series of anti-social deviations, or is a signal to society of a disturbed child, from a family already known to social work agencies, that help is urgently required.
Models for real change and improvement in the "system" concerned with the detection and control of anti-socially disorganised children and their families, and with the application of remedies, are available from abroad and, particularly, in the recent Social Work Act of Scotland (1968). This legislates for children's panels containing judges and professionally qualified people who consider the problem child and his family in the light of carefully and professionally prepared reports.
That seems to be a reasonable exposition of the problems which now confront the Minister in relation to family law reform relating to children.
I am sure the Minister will receive an invitation from the CARE group to a weekend seminar in March, I think, to consider the way the Scots deal with children in the context of family law reform. Subject to correction I think the Social Work Act of Scotland, 1968, will be considered. This is a private-type seminar and the Minister may receive an invitation to it. I will be going along and I look forward to the Minister's presence there on the basis that what we will be discussing is possibly outside the realms of party politics and should be seen as such. The whole House is and should be concerned with family law reform in general.
Under the heading "The Kennedy Report," paragraph 11 of the report states:
We are aware that the recommendations of the Kennedy Report are at present being considered by the Minister. We wish to record our appreciation of the work of the Kennedy Committee and support the recommendations contained in its report. In particular, we refer to the "Summary of Major Recommendations" in Chapter 22 and would urge the early implementation of the recommendation therein set out.
I think it is fair to say that quite a number of the recommendations in the Kennedy Report were carried out by the former Minister and will be carried on, I am sure, by the present Minister.
On 12th December, 1973, I asked the Minister for Education the recommendations of the Kennedy Report that have been implemented and the recommendations that remain to be implemented. I also asked the Minister if it is his intention to implement the recommendations of the Kennedy Report relating to (a) the introduction of a new children's charter, (b) the abolition of the institutional system, (c) the keeping of families together and (d) the proper training of staff; and if he will make a statement on the matter. The Minister's Parliamentary Secretary replied at length and set out very clearly and concisely the number of initiatives that had been taken arising from the Kennedy Report. It was very heartening to read the 11 points made by the Parliamentary Secretary in answer to my questions. It is not my intention to read them out; they can be found at Questions Nos. 53 and 54 of the Official Report of 12th December, 1973. It is not my intention either to make a point about who did what. That can work to the detriment of the particular object one seeks to achieve.
I did not go into the question of legal aid to any great extent last evening. The entire structure of the present criminal legal aid requires examination. We on this side of the House believe that too many people are not aware of their entitlement to criminal legal aid. I am sure the Minister is aware from his previous practice as a solicitor and in his capacity as Minister for Justice that quite a considerable portion of the money set aside for criminal legal aid is not taken up. The Minister paid tribute to the FLAC group, the Free Legal Aid Advice Centre group. Since the setting up of that group people have become aware of their entitlements under the free legal aid programme, and properly so.
The Minister issued a direction to Garda stations, and so on, that a notice stating that people were entitled to legal aid should be publicly displayed. The Minister has said that he is now examining the matter of free legal aid in civil cases relating to family law in particular and I hope he will issue large notices about this matter. I do not want all the Garda station walls to be full of notices but there should be a specific notice in large print on its own quite clearly spelling out to individuals their entitlements to legal aid in criminal cases and, in the not too distant future, in civil cases also, with specific safeguards. This is a matter which the Minister might consider.
The next matter I wish to deal with might sound like special pleading but I am sure the Minister and the House will forgive me if I just mention it. It is a matter of fact and it is worth bringing out. The question of the adequacy of legal aid remuneration might also be examined. In my own short experience since my return to the Bar I was nominated by a solicitor to take a legal aid case in which two individuals are alleged to have committed a particular crime. I do not think I am entitled to mention the crime here, alleged as I say. It is a very serious crime, probably the most serious crime there is. I was asked to take the particular case and, of course, I took it because I believe in the free legal aid programme. In cases of murder there are special fees for counsel but in less heinous crimes the disparity between the fees the prosecution receive and defence counsel receive is absolutely astonishing and should be examined. Need I say that the disparity is very much in favour of the prosecuting counsel who are employed by the State. It seems very unfair that that should be the position. The Minister might examine the matter because the present legal aid fees for lawyers are little more than one-third of the prosecution fees for the same work. At one stage this resulted in the Bar withdrawing their services from the scheme in protest. This problem should be remedied as a matter of some considerable urgency.
I think I have set out fairly clearly the general areas of family law reform which concern this party and the matters I have mentioned are, indeed, of concern to all parties and all Members of the House. The Minister spoke about the Garda Síochána as the main law enforcement agency of the country and paid tribute to them. We are living in difficult times and the gardaí, with the Army, are bearing the brunt of this to a great extent. We, on this side of the House, concur in the Minister's expression of gratitude to the gardaí for discharging their duties in their usual thorough and courageous manner. They have never been found wanting since the foundation of this State and anything we may say on this side of the House in regard to them should be seen as an effort to assist them in their role as the main law enforcement agency.
The Minister mentioned a number of matters in relation to Garda stations and their condition. If I may be a little parochial, I am very pleased that among the Garda stations he mentioned was Cabinteely. I think this station is representative of some of the worst features of some stations from which gardaí operate. It is situated on a very dangerous thoroughfare, at a crossroads, and one wonders how the gardaí survive getting in and out of the station. When one actually enters the station one can only have sympathy for the gardaí because of the leaking roof, unavailability of proper drinking water and lack of a proper place for the 25 or 30 gardaí to sit down and have a decent meal. This is representative of the problem existing in some of the Garda stations throughout the country and the Minister pinpointed it, as is quite proper.
The Minister also said that he is preparing to build or is about to build a Garda station in Limerick in the very near future. This is absolutely necessary. I have seen the condition of that station and it is very difficult to expect people to work properly under the conditions there. To get the best from people one must give them the best in terms of working and living accommodation. I welcome the Minister's concern in this regard and I urge him to take the necessary steps to bring about a situation in which we as citizens can be proud of our Garda stations.
The Minister spoke also of the advancement of radio communications and said that work was well in hand on the installation of the most modern equipment in the new radio control centre at Dublin Castle and that he expects the scheme to be fully operational within three months. We look forward to this. The Minister might also examine the situation in regard to Garda cars and the question of the mileage a Garda car must record before it is actually sold or scrapped. We understand the mileage is quite considerable in many instances and we think the Minister should set a mileage limit at which cars would be taken out of service and replaced by new cars. We suggest 50,000 miles. Perhaps this would be considered too low but it is very important from every point of view that the gardaí should have safe, road-worthy cars capable of fairly high speed. We suggest that the Minister consider having this upper mileage limit so that when it is reached the cars will be replaced by new cars. The Minister understands what I mean. I could envisage a situation in which a serious crime is committed and the gardaí come along in one of these over-used cars. I understand a number of the cars are on 24 hours a day service —no criticism of the Minister, the gardaí or anybody else. They must do their duty. But one can imagine when they arrive on the scene of a crime in a rather old car they may see the thief or thieves leave in a rather new, modern car and the gardaí are in the position in which their own old crock cannot operate effectively. Consequently, the thieves get away. I am sure that is of concern to the Minister and he might consider my suggestion of having an upper mileage limit for Garda cars after which they would be abandoned and replaced.